[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 124 (Tuesday, July 1, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28606-28609]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-12130]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 192
[Docket No. PHMSA-2025-0112]
RIN 2137-AF82
Pipeline Safety: Exception for In-Plant Piping Systems
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This NPRM proposes to codify an exception for in-plant piping
systems into the gas pipeline safety regulations. The proposed
exception is consistent with prior guidance and a similar provision in
the hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 2, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Docket Number
PHMSA-2025-0112 using any of the following methods:
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: U.S. DOT Docket Management System: West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
For commenting instructions and additional information about
commenting, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sayler Palabrica, Transportation
Specialist, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202-744-
0825, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Discussion
PHMSA's regulations at 49 CFR part 195 for hazardous liquid and
carbon dioxide pipelines provide an explicit exception for ``in-plant
piping systems'' at certain facilities. 49 CFR 195.1(b)(8);
[[Page 28607]]
49 U.S.C. 60101(a)(22)(B)(ii)-(iii). PHMSA's regulations at 49 CFR part
192 for gas pipelines do not explicitly recognize a similar exception,
although PHMSA has often applied the same principles in evaluating the
regulatory status of in-plant piping systems at gas processing,
manufacturing, and industrial facilities (PI-09-0020 (Aug. 11, 2010);
PI-15-0002 (Apr. 2, 2015); PI-18-0012 (Apr. 29, 2019); PI-22-0007 (Jul.
7, 2022)).
PHMSA has also acknowledged that in-plant piping systems are
subject to regulation under other Federal or State programs, such as
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Process Safety
Management regulations in 29 CFR 1910.119, and that these regulatory
programs can provide a comparable or equivalent level of safety to the
requirements in parts 192 and 195. PHMSA has further recognized that
applying overlapping regulatory programs to in-plant piping systems
often results in uncertainty and duplicative or contradictory
compliance obligations (85 FR 70124 (Nov. 4, 2020); Docket No. PHMSA-
2019-0199).
In addition, stakeholders have recently submitted comments
emphasizing that the absence of explicit exception for in-plant piping
systems in part 192 imposes undue burdens on owners and operators of
gas pipeline facilities (90 FR 14593 (Apr. 3, 2025); Docket No. DOT-
OST-2025-0026). They have asked PHMSA to address that issue by
codifying such an exception consistent with its prior interpretations
and the comparable provisions in part 195 (DOT-OST-2025-0026-0830 (May
5, 2025).
PHMSA agrees with the commenters and is proposing to add an
exception to Sec. 192.1(b) for in-plant piping systems. PHMSA's
proposal includes a definition for in-plant piping system that aligns
with the provisions in part 195, but which establishes a clear point of
demarcation between in-plant piping systems and transportation-related
pipelines based on prior interpretations. Specifically, PHMSA is
proposing to clarify that the point of demarcation for in-plant piping
is the inlet of the pressure control device if the pipeline is moving
product away from plant grounds, the outlet of the pressure control
device if the pipeline is supplying the plant, or, if there is no such
device on plant grounds, the plant boundary.\1\ By including this
clarification, PHMSA intends to minimize the need to reclassify
existing facilities among operators that were applying that historical
understanding on the boundary between in-plant piping and regulated
pipeline facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ PHMSA Letter of Interpretation to Ms. Kim Garold, Flint
Hills Resources, No. PI-19-0017 (June 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHMSA intends to apply its prior interpretations, whether issued in
the context of gas or hazardous liquid pipelines, to the proposed
definition of ``in-plant piping systems'' in Sec. 192.3, including in
determining the status of in-plant pipeline systems that cross a single
public throughfare (e.g., a public road or rail line) (59 FR 33388,
33389 (Jun. 28, 1994); PI-19-0017 (Jun. 8, 2021)). However, PHMSA seeks
comments on whether those interpretations should be codified in the
text of part 192.
Commenting
Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2025-0112 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 Sayler
Palabrica, Office of Pipeline Safety 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 [email protected]. 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.
II. Regulatory Analysis and Notices
A. Legal Authority
This proposed 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.
B. Executive Order 12866; Regulatory Planning and Review
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
[[Page 28608]]
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
proposed 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 preliminarily determined that this
proposed rule will result in cost savings by reducing regulatory
burdens and regulatory uncertainty for gas pipeline facility operators
by clarifying jurisdictional boundaries within certain types of
facilities, avoiding duplicative or contradictory Federal requirements.
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.
C. Executive Orders 14192 and 14219
This NPRM is expected to 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 NPRM 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).
D. Energy-Related Executive Orders 13211, 14154, and 14156
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 preliminarily finds this proposed rule is
consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The proposed rule
will give affected pipeline operators relief from complying with the
pipeline safety requirements for in-plant piping. PHMSA therefore
expects the regulatory amendments in this proposed 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 proposed 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
proposed rule 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 proposed rule as a significant energy action.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
PHMSA analyzed this proposed 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 proposed rule may (when finalized) 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
proposed 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.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA) for a proposed rule 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''; 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 proposed rule was
developed in accordance with E.O. 13272 and DOT implementing guidance
to ensure compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The proposed
rule is expected to reduce regulatory burdens. Therefore, PHMSA
certifies the proposed rule (if finalized) will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
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 proposed rule does not impose unfunded mandates under UMRA.
PHMSA does not expect the proposed rule will result in costs of $100
million or more (in 1996 dollars) per year for
[[Page 28609]]
either State, local, or Tribal governments, or to the private sector.
H. National Environmental Policy Act
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 proposed rule in accordance with NEPA and
issues this draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), because it
has preliminarily determined that the rulemaking will not adversely
affect safety and therefore will not significantly affect the quality
of the human and natural environment. The public is invited to comment
on the impact of the proposed action.
I. Executive Order 13175
PHMSA analyzed this proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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.
J. Paperwork Reduction Act
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.
K. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis
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 proposed rule and has determined that its regulatory
amendments will not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade.
L. Cybersecurity and Executive Order 14028
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 proposed rule and has determined that its regulatory
amendments would not materially affect the cybersecurity risk profile
for pipeline facilities.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 191
Pipeline Safety.
For the reasons set forth above, PHMSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 192 as follows:
PART 192--TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY PIPELINE:
MINIMUM FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for 49 CFR part 192 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 185(w)(3), 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60101 et. seq.,
and 49 CFR 1.97.
0
2. In Sec. 192.1, add paragraph (b)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 192.1 What is the scope of this part?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) Any in-plant piping system.
0
3. In Sec. 192.3, add a definition for ``in-plant piping system'' in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 192.3 Definitions
* * * * *
In-plant piping system means piping that is located on the grounds
of a plant and used to move gas between plant facilities or between
plant facilities and a pipeline or other mode of transportation, not
including any device and associated piping that are necessary to
control pressure in a pipeline. The point of demarcation between a
pipeline and an in-plant piping system is the inlet of the pressure
control device if the pipeline is moving gas out of the plant or the
outlet of the pressure control device if the pipeline is moving gas
into the plant. If there is no such pressure control device located on
the grounds of the plant, an in-plant piping system extends to the
plant boundary.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 26, 2025, under the authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Benjamin D. Kochman,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2025-12130 Filed 6-27-25; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P