[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 79 (Friday, April 24, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22101-22104]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-08067]
[[Page 22101]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 192
[Docket No. PHMSA-2026-1549]
RIN 2137-AG53
Pipeline Safety: Removing Unnecessary Provision for Material
Properties Verification During MAOP Reconfirmation
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: PHMSA is proposing to remove an unnecessary provision from the
maximum allowable operating pressure requirements for testing pipe
materials cut out from test manifold sites on gas transmission lines.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 23, 2026.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Docket Number
PHMSA-2026-1549 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: Robert Jagger, Senior Transportation
Specialist, by telephone at 202-557-6765 or by email at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Discussion
PHMSA is proposing to clarify the requirements in 49 CFR 192.624
for reconfirming the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of gas
transmission lines. The clarification would acknowledge that an
operator does not need to test the pipe materials cut out from the test
manifold sites. Section 192.624(c)(1)(iii) currently states, in
relevant part, that ``if any of the records required by . . . this
section are not documented in [traceable, verifiable, and complete
(TVC)] records, the operator must obtain the missing records in
accordance with Sec. 192.607. An operator must test the pipe materials
cut out from the test manifold sites at the time the pressure test is
conducted. If there is a failure during the pressure test, the operator
must test any removed pipe from the pressure test failure in accordance
with Sec. 192.607.''
According to comments submitted by the Interstate Natural Gas
Association of America (INGAA) \1\ in response to the DOT request for
information,\2\ some operators and regulators believe that Sec.
192.624(c)(1)(iii) requires operators to perform materials verification
testing every time a pressure test is performed as a part of MAOP
reconfirmation. This was not PHMSA's intent. PHMSA only intended
operators to perform material verification testing in those
circumstances if the required records were not available. PHMSA never
intended to require such testing if those records were already
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ INGAA, ``Re: Comments on Ensuring Lawful Regulation;
Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' at 25-26 (May
5, 2025), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2025-0026-0872.
\2\ Office of the Secretary, DOT, Request for Information:
Ensuring Lawful Regulation; Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs, 90 FR 14593 (Apr. 3, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this reason, PHMSA is proposing to revise Sec.
192.624(c)(1)(iii) by removing the unnecessary requirement for
operators to perform material verification tests of pipe cut out during
the course of a pressure test when performing MAOP reconfirmation in
accordance with Sec. 192.624, and the related testing requirement for
pipe that fails its pressure test. Section 192.624 already requires
operators to obtain any necessary missing material records using the
process in Sec. 192.607, making redundant any requirements for
operators to test specified pipe. Further, operators are required under
Sec. 192.617 to investigate and analyze any pipe failures to determine
the cause and contributing factors of the failure and minimizing the
possibility of a recurrence, which makes the language at Sec.
192.624(c)(1)(iii) redundant in connection with pipe removed for
testing following a pressure test failure.
Commenting Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-
2026-1549 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. Sec. 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. Sec. 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 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 Robert Jagger, 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://
[[Page 22102]]
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. Statutory Requirement and Executive Order 12866
The Pipeline Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 60102(b)) requires that PHMSA
prepare a risk assessment that identifies the costs and benefits
associated with a proposed regulatory change. E.O. 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review, as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B (``Policies
and Procedures for Rulemaking'') and DOT Order 2100.7 (``Ensuring
Reliance upon Sound Economic Analysis in Department of Transportation
Policies, Programs, and Activities''), 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.'' 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. DOT Order 2100.6B
also specifies that regulations should generally ``not be issued unless
their benefits are expected to exceed their costs.'' DOT Order 2100.7
requires that ``all rulemaking activities shall be based on sound
economic principles and analysis supported by rigorous cost-benefit
requirement.''
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 NPRM
is a not significant regulatory action pursuant to E.O. 12866; OMB 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 DOT Order 2100.7,
as well as the requirements in 49 U.S.C. 60102(b), and preliminarily
determined that this proposed rule will result in some cost savings by
reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for gas pipeline
facility operators by clarifying material verification testing
requirements in conjunction with MAOP reconfirmation requirements, and
avoiding unnecessary pipe material tests to reconfirm MAOP. The cost
savings of this rulemaking could not be quantified because PHMSA does
not have information on how many operators have been doing pipe
material tests while they have TVC records due to misunderstanding of
the current requirement. However, PHMSA subject matter experts believe
that it could take an engineer eight hours to complete a pipe material
test. PHMSA expects those potential cost savings from avoided testing
may also result in reduced costs for the public to whom pipeline
operators generally transfer a portion of their compliance costs. PHMSA
also preliminarily determined that the proposed rule will not have any
adverse safety impacts since it only avoids duplicative pipe material
tests.
C. Executive Orders 14192 and 14219
This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, is expected to be a
deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity
Through Deregulation. 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.''
D. Energy-Related Executive Orders 13211, 14154, and 14156
The President has declared in E.O. 14156, Declaring a National
Energy Emergency, a national emergency to address America's inadequate
energy development production, transportation, refining, and generation
capacity. Similarly, E.O. 14154, Unleashing American Energy, 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 gases 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 performing
unnecessary and redundant material verification testing when performing
MAOP confirmation pressure tests. PHMSA therefore expects the
regulatory amendments in this proposed rule will in turn 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, 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; 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, and the Presidential
Memorandum (``Preemption'') published in the Federal Register on 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 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 the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State
safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under the Federal Pipeline
Safety Laws, States that
[[Page 22103]]
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 (RFA, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 601 et seq.)
requires Federal agencies to conduct an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) for a proposed rule subject to notice-and-comment
rulemaking 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, obliges agencies to establish
procedures promoting compliance with the RFA. DOT posts its
implementing guidance on a dedicated web page.\3\ This proposed rule
was developed in accordance with E.O. 13272 and DOT implementing
guidance to ensure compliance with the RFA. The proposed rule is
expected to reduce regulatory burdens by clarifying that, when
performing a pressure test for MAOP reconfirmation in accordance with
Sec. 192.624, operators are only required to perform materials
verification tests in accordance with Sec. 192.607 if the operator
does not have TVC material property records for the pipeline segment.
Further, the changes proposed here are not expected to impose
additional burdens on any operator. Therefore, PHMSA certifies the
proposed rule (if finalized) will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ DOT, Rulemaking Requirements Concerning Small Entities,
https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/rulemaking-requirements-concerning-small-entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA, 2 U.S.C. Sec. 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
($203 million in 2024 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 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. Sec. 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 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, 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 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. Sec. 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,
requires agencies to 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 proposed
regulatory amendments will not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign
trade.
[[Page 22104]]
L. Cybersecurity and Executive Order 14028
E.O. 14028, Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity, directs the
Federal Government to improve its efforts to identify, to deter, and to
respond to ``persistent and increasingly sophisticated malicious cyber
campaigns.'' PHMSA has considered the effects of the proposed rule and
has determined that its proposed regulatory amendments would not
materially affect the cybersecurity risk profile for pipeline
facilities.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 192
Pipeline safety, Materials verification, Maximum allowable
operating pressure reconfirmation, Pressure test.
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. 192.624, revise paragraph (c)(1)(iii) to read as follows:
Sec. 192.624 Maximum allowable operating pressure reconfirmation:
Onshore steel transmission pipelines.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) If the material properties required by paragraph (c)(1)(ii)
of this section are not documented in traceable, verifiable, and
complete records, an operator must obtain the missing records in
accordance with Sec. 192.607.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 22, 2026, under the authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Paul J. Roberti,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2026-08067 Filed 4-23-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P