This rulemaking is separate from NRC's comprehensive review and reform of its regulations in accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 14300, “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission” (90 FR 22587; May 29, 2025). The rulemakings associated with that effort will comprehensively reexamine NRC requirements. The NRC is moving forward with this final rule at this time because it was in progress before the issuance of E.O. 14300 and is a deregulatory action of high interest to NRC stakeholders.

The NRC's regulations in part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), provide requirements and procedures for licensing of production and utilization facilities. For production or utilization facilities used for commercial or industrial purposes, the NRC issues licenses under section 103, “Commercial Licenses,” of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), and 10 CFR 50.22, “Class 103 licenses; for commercial and industrial facilities.” Section 50.22 currently provides that a production or utilization facility is deemed to be for industrial or commercial purposes if it is to be used so that more than 50 percent of the annual cost of owning and operating the facility is devoted to the production of materials, products, or energy for sale or commercial distribution, or to the sale of services, other than research and development or education or training. Commercial and industrial facilities are subject to additional licensing requirements beyond those for research and development facilities, such as review by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, mandatory hearings, and fixed license terms not to exceed 40 years.

For production or utilization facilities useful in the conduct of research and development, the NRC issues licenses under paragraph c of section 104, “Medical Therapy and Research and Development,” of the AEA and paragraph (c) of § 50.21, “Class 104 licenses; for medical therapy and research and development facilities.” Under the current regulations, a production or utilization facility can be licensed as a research and development facility only if the licensee devotes no more than 50 percent of the annual cost of owning and operating the facility to the commercial activities described in § 50.22.

Amendments made to the AEA by the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA), enacted on January 14, 2019 (Pub. L. 115-439; 132 Stat. 5565), and the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act of 2024 (ADVANCE Act), enacted on July 9, 2024 (Pub. L. 118-67, div. B, 138 Stat. 1448), changed the framework for determining whether a utilization facility would be licensed by the NRC under section 103 or section 104c. of the AEA. This final rule revises the NRC's regulations to be consistent with the AEA, as amended by NEIMA and the ADVANCE Act.

The NRC is amending its regulations in §§ 50.21(c) and 50.22 to conform with changes made to section 104c. of the AEA that apply to the issuance of class 104c licenses for utilization facilities. This final rule does not change the cost expenditure criterion in § 50.22 for production facilities.

Section 106, “Encouraging Private Investment in Research and Test Reactors,” of NEIMA amended section 104c. of the AEA in two ways. First, NEIMA removed language in section 104c. of the AEA that provided that the facility is not of the type specified in section 104b. of the AEA. Second, NEIMA added language to the end of section 104c. of the AEA providing that the NRC may issue a license for a research and development utilization facility under section 104c. of the AEA if two conditions were satisfied: (1) not more than 75 percent of the annual costs of owning and operating the facility are recovered through sales of nonenergy services, energy, or both (not counting sales of research and development or education and training); and (2) not more than 50 percent of the annual costs are recovered through sales of energy. This amendment to the AEA changed the framework under which the NRC determines whether a utilization facility that is useful in the conduct of research and development would be licensed under section 103 or section 104c. of the AEA. Before the enactment of NEIMA, the AEA did not specify the criteria to use when determining whether to issue a class 103 or class 104c license for a facility—the criterion appeared only in § 50.22. Section 601 of the ADVANCE Act amended section 104c. of the AEA to remove the language that NEIMA added and to replace it with new language focused on the percentage of the annual cost of owning and operating a facility that is devoted to commercial activities, similar to the criterion currently included in § 50.22. The new language added by the ADVANCE Act specifies that the NRC may issue a license for a research and development utilization facility under section 104c. of the AEA if two conditions are satisfied: (1) not more than 75 percent of the annual costs of owning and operating the facility are devoted to the sale of nonenergy services, energy, or a combination of these activities (not counting sales of research and development or education and training); and (2) not more than 50 percent of the annual costs of owning and operating the facility are devoted to the sale of energy. The ADVANCE Act thus increases the percentage of annual costs of owning and operating the facility that may be devoted to commercial activities beyond the percentage currently included in the NRC's regulations in § 50.22 for determining whether a utilization facility useful in the conduct of research and development activities may be licensed under section 104c. of the AEA. The changes to § 50.22 made by this final rule align the regulation with the changes to the AEA made by the ADVANCE Act and do not establish new or different classes of production or utilization facilities that are licensed under section 103 of the AEA and § 50.22. The term “class 103 license” continues to be used for production or utilization facilities that are licensed under section 103 of the AEA and § 50.22.

The following paragraphs describe the changes made by this final rule.

This final rule amends paragraph (c) to implement the amendment made by NEIMA to remove language in section 104c. of the AEA that provided that the facility is not of the type specified in section 104b. of the AEA. Consistent with this statutory change, this final rule amends paragraph (c) in § 50.21 to remove the language that specifies that the facility is not of the type specified in paragraph (b) in § 50.21. Paragraph (c) in § 50.21 continues to specify that the facility is not of the type specified in § 50.22.

This final rule amends § 50.22 by reorganizing the section to add paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) for the criteria for issuing class 103 licenses. Paragraph (a) retains the current list of activities covered by a class 103 license. Paragraph (b) retains the current cost expenditure criterion for when a production facility that is useful in the conduct of research and development shall be licensed as an industrial or commercial facility. Paragraph (c) contains the amended cost expenditure criteria for when a utilization facility that is useful in the conduct of research and development shall be licensed as an industrial or commercial facility.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule affects the licensing and operation of utilization facilities that are useful in the conduct of research and development purposes, which are predominately non-power utilization facilities. In general, the companies, universities, and government agencies that own these facilities do not fall within the scope of the definition of “small entities” set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (§ 2.810, “NRC size standards”).

The NRC has prepared a final regulatory analysis for this regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the rulemaking alternative. The NRC estimates that the final rule results in savings of approximately $44,000 (7 percent net present value in 2025 dollars to licensees and the NRC). To conduct this analysis, the NRC assumed that under the regulatory baseline alternative, should the NRC not engage in rulemaking, all 32 existing class 104c licensees would submit license exemption requests in order to continue to abide by the conditions of their licenses should they choose to increase the percentage of the annual costs of owning and operating the facility devoted to commercial activity up to the percentage allowed under the AEA. The NRC did not analyze any additional alternatives because there is no other way to remove the inconsistency between the NRC's regulations and the AEA except for rulemaking.

The savings of the final rule consist of the averted costs of licensees to prepare and submit license exemption requests and the averted costs of the NRC to review those license exemption requests. These averted costs are roughly split evenly between the licensees and the NRC. The NRC expects that licensees will also incur some minor costs to understand the final rule and to update their internal accounting guidelines. The costs for this rule will occur immediately after implementation of the final rule, as there are no costs to the rule over an extended period. In addition, the NRC does not expect that this rule will cause any entities to submit applications to become class 104c licensees. The final rule also provides benefits to regulatory efficiency because it removes the inconsistency between the NRC's regulations in §§ 50.21(c) and 50.22 and section 104c. of the AEA, which may create a lack of clarity for existing and future class 104c licensees. It also allows class 104c licensees to continue to operate as allowed under the AEA without concern for enforcement activities by the NRC. Based on this analysis, the NRC considers this rule to be cost beneficial to both industry and the NRC.

This final rule does not constitute “backfitting” as the term is defined in § 50.109, “Backfitting.” This final rule applies to applicants or future applicants for certain licenses under 10 CFR part 50. In general, applicants for licenses under part 50 are not the subject of the part 50 backfitting provision, with one exception not applicable to this final rule.

The NRC is amending its rule text to be consistent with section 104c. of the AEA. As such, rulemaking to align §§ 50.21(c) and 50.22 with section 104c. of the AEA constitutes a non-discretionary change. The Commission's policy in Management Directive 8.4, “Management of Backfitting, Forward Fitting, Issue Finality, and Information Requests” (ADAMS Accession No. ML18093B087) is that non-discretionary changes generally do not meet the definition of backfitting in § 50.109.

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885).

The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action described in §  51.22(c)(3)(i), which provides a categorical exclusion for amendments to part 50 that relate to procedures for filing and reviewing applications, amendments, or renewals for licenses or other forms of permission. Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor environmental assessment has been prepared for this final rule.

This final rule does not contain any new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). Existing collections of information were approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), approval number 3150-0011.

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the NRC finds that there is good cause to issue this final rule without prior notice and comment. This final rule is limited to changes to make the NRC's regulations consistent with the amendments made to section 104c. of the AEA by NEIMA and the ADVANCE Act. The regulatory revisions are not subject to interpretation, and the NRC lacks any discretion regarding this change. Accordingly, notice and public comment procedures are unnecessary. For these same reasons, the NRC also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date under 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

The following are Executive orders that are related to this final rule:

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action.

The NRC has examined this final rule and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154.

This action is a deregulatory action as defined by E.O. 14192. Details on the estimated costs of this final rule can be found in Section V, “Regulatory Analysis,” of this document.

E.O. 14270, “Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash American Energy,” requires the NRC to insert a conditional sunset date into all new or amended NRC regulations provided the regulations are (1) promulgated under the AEA, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, or the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; (2) not statutorily required; and (3) not part of the NRC's permitting regime. The NRC determined that the regulatory changes in this final rule are limited to making the NRC's regulations consistent with statutory amendments and constitute part of the NRC's permitting regime authorized by statute. Therefore, the NRC views this rulemaking to be outside the scope of E.O. 14270 and did not insert conditional sunset dates for the regulatory changes in this final rule.

This final rule is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has found that it does not meet the criteria at 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 50:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2023-18-07, Amendment 39-22548 (88 FR 66681, September 28, 2023) (AD 2023-18-07). AD 2023-18-07 applied to certain Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes. AD 2023-18-07 required revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate additional new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA issued AD 2023-18-07 to address fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion in principal structural elements. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 6, 2026 (91 FR 5381). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2025-0123, dated May 28, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0123) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require certain actions in AD 2023-18-07 and to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in EASA AD 2025-0123. 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-2026-0740.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the costs.

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. 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.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2025-0123, which specifies procedures for new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits.

This AD also requires EASA AD 2023-0058, dated March 16, 2023, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of November 2, 2023 (88 FR 66681, September 28, 2023).

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

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained actions from AD 2023-18-07 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new actions to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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 invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments using a method listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2026-3861; Project Identifier MCAI-2026-00003-Q” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

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. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brenda Buitrago Perez, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2025-0294R1, dated February 9, 2026 (EASA AD 2025-0294R1) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition on B/E Aerospace Fischer Medical Seat 230/305, part number (P/N) 9613-1-35-( ), having serial numbers 3241, 3242, 3243, 3244, 3245, 3473, 3474, 3475, 3476, 3481, 3482, 3483, 3484, 3546, 3547, 3548, 3549, 3575, 3576, 3577, 3578, 3591, 3646, 3647, 3648, 3649, 3703, 3958, 3959, 3960, 3961, 4114, 4115, 4116, 4117, 4118, 4119, 4120, 4121, 4122, 4131, 4132, 4133, 4134, 4135, 4175, 4180, 4202, 4203, 4204, 4205, 4206, 4207, 4208, 4209, 4210, 4211, 4212 and 4213, installed on, but not limited to, Airbus Helicopters Deutschland (AHD) Model EC135 and MBB-BK 117 helicopters, Bell Textron Canada Limited Model 429 helicopters, and Bell Textron Inc. Model 412 helicopters. The MCAI states that a determination was made that certain seats that are certified for AF and FF installations have been delivered with an incorrect version of the swivel unit, which has been certified only for AF installation. The FAA is issuing this AD to address an incorrect version of the swivel unit on these medical seats. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in injuries to the occupant during an emergency landing.

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 is issuing this AD after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed Collins Aerospace Alert Service Bulletin SB 9613-005, Issue D, dated December 3, 2025. This material specifies procedures for modifying the AF certified swivel unit P/N 9715-1 into an FF and AF certified swivel unit P/N 9715-2 and restoring the approved design data and the certified level of safety for the affected variants of the Medical Seats 230/305. 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.

This AD requires either installing a placard on the affected medical seat or modifying and reidentifying of an affected medical seat, which is considered a terminating action for the actions required by this AD.

Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) 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.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days, upon a finding of good cause.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule. The affected seats that were delivered with an incorrect swivel unit do not meet the approved crashworthiness configuration for forward-facing installations; therefore, the FAA has determined that the corrective action must be accomplished before further flight, in order to prevent injuries to the occupant during an emergency landing. This compliance time is shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for publication of the final rule. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment.

The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 59 medical seats. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

Either the modification or the placard requirement would be required by this AD. The placard would be a minimal parts cost.

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some 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, and

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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 certain PW Model F117-PW-100, PW2037, PW2037D, PW2037M, PW2040, PW2040D, PW2043, PW2143, and PW2643 engines. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 2, 2025 (90 FR 23294). The NPRM was prompted by an updated analysis of an event involving an IAE LLC Model PW1127GA-JM engine, which experienced an HPC IBR-7 separation that resulted in an engine shutdown and aborted takeoff. The analysis revealed that the failure was caused by a nickel powdered metal anomaly and concluded that there is an increased risk of failure for additional nickel powdered metal parts in certain nickel powdered metal production campaigns, and these parts are susceptible to failure much earlier than previously determined. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require repetitive AUSIs of certain HPT 1st-stage disks and turbine hubs for any crack indications, and if necessary, removal from service and replacement, and removal from service of certain HPT lenticular seal assemblies. During the publication process of this AD, the type certificate data sheet (TCDS) was revised and PW Model PW2043, PW2143, and PW2643 engines were removed from the TCDS. Therefore, this final rule does not apply to those engine models. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

Since the NPRM was published, the manufacturer has published PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) PW2000 A72-779, Revision No. 1, dated December 17, 2025. This material corrects an incorrect maintenance manual task reference for disassembly of components and all other information is the same as the material in the NPRM. The FAA has revised the final rule to reference PW ASB PW2000 A72-779, Revision No. 1, dated December 17, 2025, as the appropriate source of material for the AUSIs of the HPT 1st-stage disk.

The FAA received comments from five commenters. The commenters were The Boeing Company (Boeing), Delta Air Lines (DAL), FedEx, MTU Maintenance Hannover GmbH (MTU), and PW. Boeing concurred with the contents of the NPRM. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

MTU stated that the applicability of certain cited material in the proposed AD does not match the applicability in the proposed AD. MTU indicated that the material applies to PW Model PW2037, PW2037(M), and PW2040 engines, while the proposed AD applies to several civil PW2000 engine models.

PW pointed out that the proposed AD would apply to PW Model PW2043, PW2143, and PW2643 engines, none of which are in service. PW indicated that a request has been submitted to the FAA for withdrawal of these models from the TCDS; however, the update was not yet published. PW stated that there are no necessary actions, or operator burden imposed by including these models in the AD.

The FAA acknowledges the observations from MTU and PW. The FAA is aware that certain PW Models are included in the applicability of this AD but are not listed in the material. During the publication process of this AD, the TCDS has been revised and PW Model PW2043, PW2143, and PW2643 engines have been removed. Therefore, those same model engines have been removed from this AD.

DAL and FedEx requested that the FAA revise the Cost of Compliance section of the proposed AD to reflect 14 HPT lenticular seal assemblies. Both commenters indicated that figure 1 to paragraph (g)(4) of the proposed AD lists 14 seal assemblies by part number and serial number, but the Estimated Costs table lists only 13 engines that require replacement. Additionally, DAL stated that the manufacturer has confirmed that 14 is the correct number of affected seals.

The FAA agrees for the reasons provided and has revised the Cost of Compliance section of this AD to indicate there are 14 affected HPT lenticular seal assemblies.

DAL requested that the FAA revise paragraphs (g) and (h) of the proposed AD to specifically state whether HPT 1st-stage disks and turbine hubs are authorized to be re-inspected after initially failing an angled ultrasonic inspection (AUSI), and if so, whether the parts may be returned to service upon passing a re-inspection. DAL indicated that certain parts have failed initial AUSI but then passed re-inspection, however the parts were tagged as unserviceable. The commenter asserted that none of the IBR material provides disposition instructions for parts that pass a re-inspection.

The FAA disagrees with the request. The current revisions of Non-Destructive Inspection Procedure (NDIP)-1282 and NDIP-1283 contain procedures for the AUSI inspections and re-inspections, and are second-tier references in the IBR material that are necessary to complete the actions specified in this AD. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

DAL and MTU requested that the FAA update paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of the proposed AD to include certain PW2000 EM tasks as additional material for compliance for the HPT 1st-stage disk and turbine hub inspections in addition to the referenced Alert Service Bulletins (ASBs). DAL stated that the EM provides the same AUSI scan tasks as the ASBs, and that PW previously incorporated the NDIPs into the EM tasks. DAL also noted that adding this reference as an option will provide an acceptable level of safety.

The FAA disagrees with the request. In determining an appropriate set of required actions for this unsafe condition, the FAA considered the recommendations of the manufacturer, the urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required actions using the specified material for most affected operators. However, under the provisions specified in paragraph (j) of this AD, the FAA will consider requests for alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs). The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

DAL requested that the FAA include the assembly part numbers of the HPT 1st-stage disk assembly and turbine hub assembly, and the detail part numbers of the HPT 1st-stage disks and turbine hubs in paragraphs (h) and (i) of the proposed AD. DAL stated that the Form 8130s, received with each of the parts, occasionally list the assembly level part number instead of the detail part number, and operators sometimes track the parts at the assembly level. DAL indicated that specifying both the detail and assembly part numbers would help to reduce confusion regarding which parts are affected by the NPRM.

The FAA disagrees with the request but agrees that clarification is necessary. The definitions specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) through (vi), and the prohibitions specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this AD are dependent on the part having passed the AUSI requirements specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, which apply to the detail part number only. Additionally, an AUSI will be completed on a detail part number at new manufacture, but not on an assembly part number. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

DAL requested that the FAA update paragraphs (h)(2)(iii) and (h)(2)(vi) of the proposed AD to provide an FAA Form 8130-3 date after which all new zero-time HPT 1st-stage disks and turbine hubs can be considered parts eligible for installation. MTU requested clarification of how to determine which new manufacture parts have passed an AUSI during production. PW requested that the FAA remove paragraphs (h)(2)(iii) and (vi) of the proposed AD and proposed that the FAA allow all new manufactured parts to be eligible for installation regardless of confirmation of receiving an AUSI. PW indicated its fleet management plan does not require confirmation that new affected parts have received an AUSI during manufacture to be eligible for installation. PW also stated that all new parts shipped to PW as of March 1, 2025, have received AUSIs during manufacture, and that all commercial inventory available from PW commercial spares have received an AUSI. DAL indicated that the manufacturer should have the ability to provide proof that new parts have passed an AUSI and are eligible for installation, that operators do not have access to the data, and placing the burden of proof on operators is tedious and problematic. DAL also stated that if providing proof is not possible, then the manufacturer should have the ability to guarantee to the FAA and operators that all newly manufactured parts with an FAA Form 8130-3 dated after a certain date have passed an AUSI and are eligible for installation.

The FAA agrees with the requests. Since operators do not have access to the necessary data to determine whether zero-time components have passed an AUSI at new part manufacture, the FAA has determined that the responsible party may determine if the part is eligible for installation based on the date specified on the FAA Form 8130-3. The FAA has revised paragraphs (h)(2)(iii) and (h)(2)(vi) of this AD by removing the words “that has passed an AUSI at new part production” and replacing them with “that has an FAA Form 8130-3 from the original equipment manufacturer for new production dated March 1, 2025, or later.”

DAL requested that the FAA remove paragraphs (h)(2)(ii) and (v) of the proposed AD, eliminating the references to NDIP-1282 and NDIP-1283. DAL stated that those paragraphs do not provide a revision level or date for the NDIPs which could cause confusion regarding compliance or whether an AMOC might be required to allow use of future revisions of the NDIPs. DAL indicated that those paragraphs all appear to have the same intent; an AUSI performed on parts that are not new production, with a passing result that is documented.

The FAA disagrees with the request. The NDIPs referenced in paragraphs (h)(2)(ii) and (v) of this AD are necessary because some parts may have received an AUSI in compliance with NDIP-1282 or NDIP-1283 prior to publication of this AD. Additionally, the revision of the NDIP is not relevant, as all revisions are acceptable to the FAA for the purposes of this AD. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

DAL requested that the FAA revise the definition of “piece-part exposure” in paragraph (h)(1)(i) and (ii) of the proposed AD (for the HPT 1st-stage disk and turbine hub) to include removal of all parts from the disk and hub and correspond with certain PW2000 EM disassembly tasks. DAL pointed out that the disk and hub can be removed from the engine as specified in the NPRM, with all the blades removed, but for the associated PW2000 EM disassembly tasks, removing the blades from the disk or hub is not the final step in the process and some parts remain installed on the disk or hub. DAL also stated certain workscope levels provided by the manufacturer to operators could be nullified by the definition provided in the NPRM.

The FAA agrees with the request for the reasons provided. The FAA has revised paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this AD to state: “. . . when the HPT 1st-stage disk is removed from the engine and all blades, all retaining plates, and all airseals are removed from the HPT 1st-stage disk.” The FAA has revised paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this AD to state: “. . . when the turbine hub is removed from the engine and all blades and all retaining plates are removed from the turbine hub.”

FedEx requested that the FAA revise certain material citations specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of the proposed AD to read “dated May 2, 2024, or later,” or remove the revision date entirely. FedEx stated that if the material is revised in the future, an AMOC would be required for implementation. FedEx also stated that removing the date would minimize the effect on operator engineering orders and maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) inspection provider procedures.

The FAA disagrees with the request. To IBR the material specified in this AD, the citation must refer to a specific document, including the specific revision date. Additionally, the FAA is unable to cite a future revision to a document which does not yet exist. The FAA also notes that, since the NPRM was published, PW has published PW ASB PW2000 A72-779, Revision No. 1, dated December 17, 2025. The FAA has revised this AD to reference PW ASB PW2000 A72-779, Revision No. 1, dated December 17, 2025 as the appropriate source of material for the AUSIs of the HPT 1st-stage disk. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

FedEx requested that the FAA revise paragraph (h)(2)(i) of the proposed AD to state that for all affected parts, used or new production, compliance must be recorded on the associated FAA Form 8130-3, and delete paragraphs (h)(2)(ii), (h)(2)(iii), (h)(2)(v), and (h)(2)(vi). FedEx stated that the specific document type associated with the terms “certificate of conformance” and “passed an AUSI at new part production” is not defined in the NPRM, and that during records verification or audits, the document format or content may be considered invalid. FedEx indicated that a single compliance standard would help to clarify the definitions and the installation prohibition included in paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of the proposed AD.

The FAA disagrees with the request. The proposed document (FAA Form 8130-3) does not contain the information necessary to show compliance. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

PW requested that the FAA revise the NPRM to require updating the ALS instead of the actions specified in the service material. PW stated that the inspections specified in the service material for the HPT 1st-stage disks and 2nd-stage hubs have been included in the ALS/Enhanced Rotor Inspection (ERI) requirements of the EM as of February 2025 and are now duplicate requirements.

The FAA disagrees with the request. However, the FAA finds that updating the ALS provides acceptable mitigation of the unsafe condition. The FAA has added paragraph (i) of this AD to include optional terminating action for operators that update their ALS to include the inspections required by paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this AD.

PW requested that the FAA revise figure 1 to paragraph (g)(4) of the proposed AD to add a note to serial number DKLBG48292 stating “or 2,750 cycles since new, whichever occurs first.” PW stated that it has previously communicated to an operator a 2,750 cycle since new removal requirement for this serial number, while all other HPT lenticular seal assemblies identified in figure 1 to paragraph (g)(4) of the proposed AD only require removal at the next piece-part exposure.

The FAA agrees with the request. The FAA has removed serial number DKLBG48292 from figure 1 to paragraph (g)(4) of this AD and moved that serial number to paragraph (g)(5) of this AD, which states “. . . or before exceeding 2,750 cycles since new, whichever occurs first. . .”

PW requested that the FAA add 25 HPT lenticular seal assembly serial numbers, which are installed on PW Model F117-PW-100 engines, to figure 1 to paragraph (g)(4) of the proposed AD. PW stated that the serial numbers were omitted from the NPRM.

The FAA agrees with the request. The FAA has added the missing serial numbers to figure 1 to paragraph (g)(4) of this AD. However, the Cost of Compliance section has not changed because the additional HPT lenticular seal assemblies are installed on F117 engines which are not installed on U.S. registered airplanes.

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. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed PW ASB PW2000 A72-779, Revision No. 1, dated December 17, 2025, and PW ASB PWF117 A72-434, dated May 1, 2024, which specify procedures for repetitive AUSIs of the HPT 1st-stage disk for crack indications. This material is distinct since each applies to different engine models.

The FAA also reviewed PW ASB PW2000 A72-780, dated May 2, 2024, and PW ASB PWF117 A72-433, dated May 1, 2024, which specify procedures for repetitive AUSIs of the turbine hub. This material is distinct since each applies to different engine models.

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 484 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates that 14 engines will require replacement of the HPT lenticular seal assembly. PW Model F117-PW-100 engines, which are not installed on U.S. registered airplanes, are not included in this cost estimate.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspections. The agency has no way of determining the number of engines that might need these replacements:

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.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on January 27, 2026 (91 FR 3397). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2025-53, dated November 11, 2025 (Transport Canada AD CF-2025-53) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada. The MCAI states that Bombardier has determined that the approach speed adders and landing distance factors in the AFM tables in the non-normal procedure for the SLAT FAIL (Caution) CAS message require correction. If not addressed, the incorrect approach speed adders for the SLAT FAIL (Caution) non-normal procedure could result in a reduced maneuvering margin to stick shaker activation, failing to provide the margins assumed during the airplane's initial certification. This condition may adversely affect the safe operation of the airplane and increase flightcrew workload due to an unexpected stall warning and stick shaker activation.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require revising the existing AFM to provide the flightcrew with the correct approach speed adders and landing distance factors for the non-normal procedures for the SLAT FAIL (Caution) CAS message, as specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-53. 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-2026-0727.

The FAA received comments from a commenter 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 these products. 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.

Transport Canada AD CF-2025-53 specifies procedures for revising the AFM to correct the approach speed adders and landing distance factors in the AFM tables in the non-normal procedures for the SLAT FAIL (Caution) CAS message. 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 925 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 invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments using a method listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2026-3862; Project Identifier MCAI-2026-00317-A” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to regulations.gov , including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

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. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Doug Rudolph, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Emergency AD 2026-0065-E, dated March 25, 2026 (EASA Emergency AD 2026-0065-E) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Pilatus Model PC-12/47G airplanes. The MCAI states that during production operations it was observed that the BSV, installed as a provision for a future emergency autoland system, had shuttled and isolated the brake line between the BSV and the LH brake, which resulted in LH brake lockup. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to unintended asymmetric wheel braking and reduced directional control of the airplane.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-3862.

The FAA reviewed EASA Emergency AD 2026-0065-E, which specifies procedures for the replacement of the LH and RH brake pipe assemblies and prohibits the installation of affected parts. 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.

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 is issuing this AD after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the material already described, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, EASA Emergency AD 2026-0065-E is incorporated by reference in this AD. This AD requires compliance with EASA Emergency AD 2026-0065-E in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA Emergency AD 2026-0065-E does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA Emergency AD 2026-0065-E. Material required by EASA Emergency AD 2026-0065-E for compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-3862 after this AD is published.

The FAA considers this AD to be an interim action. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking.

Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) 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.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days, upon a finding of good cause.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because a BSV can shuttle and isolate the brake line, resulting in brake lockup. This could lead to unintended asymmetric braking during takeoff, aborted takeoff, or landing. Asymmetric braking during the takeoff roll could result in the airplane veering sharply to one side, preventing the airplane from accelerating correctly or maintaining the runway centerline. Similarly, during landing, asymmetric braking could result in reduced directional control and prevent the airplane from maintaining the centerline. Failure to maintain the runway centerline increases the risk of a runway excursion, which can lead to loss of control, departure from the paved surface, and potential damage to the airplane and surrounding infrastructure, or injury to occupants. Additionally, the compliance time in this AD is shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment prior to publication of the final rule. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment.

The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 13 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some 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, and

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

On October 5, 2018, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (2018 FAA Act) was signed into law. 1 Section 429 of the 2018 FAA Act provides that the Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary) shall require covered air carriers to submit a summarized one-page document that describes the rights of passengers in air transportation (Passenger Rights Summary). 2 The Passenger Rights Summary must include “guidelines” for the following:

Section 429 of the 2018 FAA Act also requires that each covered air carrier make its Passenger Rights Summary available in a prominent location on its website within 90 days of submitting the plan to the Department. Section 401 of the 2018 FAA Act defines the term “covered air carrier” for its purposes as an air carrier or foreign air carrier as those terms are defined by 49 U.S.C. 40102. 3 To implement this statutory requirement, this final rule creates a new section at 14 CFR 259.9 requiring covered air carriers to submit the Passenger Rights Summary as dictated by 49 U.S.C. 41727.

In implementing this requirement, covered air carriers should consider creating a “one-page” summary with a concise, user-friendly document designed for quick consumer reference. A Passenger Rights Summary that fulfills this expectation is typically a single-page document—or a digital equivalent such as a one-page PDF— presented in a clear and legible font. Covered air carriers should also consider making the summary available in a location that is highly visible and easily accessible to the public when complying with the requirement to post the summary in a “prominent location.”

Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) provides that when an agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public procedure are impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a final rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). The Department has determined that there is good cause to issue this final rule without notice and an opportunity for public comment because such notice and comment would be unnecessary.

This rule implements Section 429 of the 2018 FAA Act by incorporating the statutory language nearly verbatim. Because the Department has no discretion regarding the submission and posting of the summary, the categories of information required to be disclosed, or the entities covered, public comment would not alter the fundamental requirements of the rule.

To the extent the Department provides recommendations regarding the format of the one-page summary and prominent nature of its posting, these descriptions do not constitute new regulatory requirements. Rather, these statements are guidance to aid covered air carriers in complying with the plain meaning of the statutory text to provide a concise and accessible summary to the public. As this rule simply codifies a clear congressional directive into the Code of Federal Regulations, notice and comment are unnecessary.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. In addition, this rule is not significant under the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures (49 CFR part 5 and DOT Order 2100.6B). This rule implements the statutory requirement that covered air carriers submit a Passenger Rights Summary to the Department and post it on their respective websites. The economic analysis of this final rule is discussed in this section.

The Department anticipates that the economic impact of this rule will be minimal, as the costs and benefits are dictated entirely by the statutory requirements set forth in Section 429 of the 2018 FAA Act. Because the Department is implementing the law exactly as written and providing only ministerial clarifications to facilitate compliance with the statutory text, the primary impact on covered air carriers is the administrative task of summarizing and distributing information. For those carriers that are required to submit customer service plans under 14 CFR 259.5, much of the information required for this one-page summary is already captured in the carriers' existing plans. Because those airlines are already required to maintain these policies, they do not need to develop new procedures or compensation structures to comply with this rule. The Department offers format examples for illustrative purposes only. Covered carriers retain discretion to determine the specific layout of the one-page summary and the method of prominent posting consistent with the statute. The Department expects that many carriers subject to this statutory requirement who are not required to submit customer service plans likely already have internal guidelines for compensation, overbooking, and denied boarding as part of their business operations.

The scope of work for carriers is limited to pulling that existing data into a concise, one-page format and submitting it to the Department as required by Section 429 of the 2018 FAA Act. Following this submission, carriers must ensure the document is posted in a prominent location on their websites within 90 days. This submission and publication process is a direct result of the statutory mandate and provides the Department with an opportunity to verify that the summaries align with the requirements for transparency regarding passenger rights. Ultimately, this rule creates little to no additional burden beyond reformatting and uploading existing policy information.

This rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (Federalism). This final rule does not impose any requirement that: (1) 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, (2) imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments, or (3) preempts State law. States are already preempted from regulating in this area by the Airline Deregulation Act, 49 U.S.C. 41713. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

This rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments). Because the requirements of this final rule do not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs on them, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to review and assess the impact on small entities of any regulation required by 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law to be published as a proposed rule for public comment prior to issuance of a final rule. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) or any other law, the analytical provisions of the RFA do not apply.

This final rule contains “collections of information” as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ) (PRA). Specifically, it establishes two new information collection requirements: (1) the submission of a Passenger Rights Summary to the Department; and (2) the subsequent posting of that summary on carriers' websites. The Department has not yet obtained an OMB Control Number for these information collection requirements.

Under the PRA, no person is required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. Consequently, carriers are not required to submit their Passenger Rights Summary until the Department publishes a separate notice announcing OMB approval and providing specific submission instructions. For clarity, the 90-day statutory clock for website publication described in 14 CFR 259.9(c) and 49 U.S.C. 41727 begins only after a carrier has submitted its summary to the Department. The Department will not begin accepting these submissions until the PRA process is finalized. The Department will provide clear instructions to carriers on the submission method and the 90-day publication window in a subsequent notice.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) at 2 U.S.C. 1532 requires that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. As described elsewhere in the preamble, this final rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments or on the private sector. Therefore, the Department has determined that no assessment is required pursuant to UMRA.

The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this final rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969  4 and has determined that it is categorically excluded pursuant to DOT Order 5610.1D, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, because this rule falls under the categorical exclusion for “[a]ctions relating to consumer protection, including regulations.”  5 The Department does not anticipate any environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the U.S. Department of Transportation amends 14 CFR part 259 as follows:

This action eliminates NIST's regulations at 15 CFR part 255, titled “Fellowships in Laboratory Standardization and Testing for Qualified Citizens of Other American Republics.” These regulations were originally promulgated by final rule on December 28, 1948 (13 FR 8374), pursuant to section 1 of 53 Stat. 1290, a statutory provision enacted on August 9, 1939. That statutory provision authorized the President to “utilize the services of the departments, agencies, and independent establishments of the Government in carrying out the reciprocal undertakings and cooperative purposes enunciated in the treaties, resolutions, declarations, and recommendations signed by all of the twenty-one American republics at the Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace held at Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 1936, and at the Eighth International Conference of American States held at Lima, Peru, in 1938.” Sec. 1, 53 Stat. 1290; see also 22 U.S.C. 501. The purpose of the authorization, according to the statute, was to enable the President “to render closer and more effective the relationship between the American republics.” Id.

Upon review, the Department has determined that 15 CFR part 255 is now appropriate for removal. No statute specifically requires or contemplates the promulgation of the regulations at part 255, and the policy considerations that drove such promulgation in 1948 are, at the very least, dated. Indeed, there has not been an active program under part 255 in decades. Moreover, the removal of part 255 is consistent with the Department's broader efforts to streamline its body of regulations and to re-emphasize and -prioritize U.S. interests.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Department finds good cause to waive the prior notice and opportunity for public participation requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act for this final rule. The Department considers this rule to be uncontroversial, and has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public participation is unnecessary, because this rule only removes dated regulatory language that is neither specifically required nor specifically authorized by any statute. Moreover, there is no active program under part 255 that will be affected by this removal, as there has not been an active program under part 255 for decades. For the same reasons, the Department has determined that delaying the effectiveness of this elimination would be contrary to the public interest; eliminating part 255 will simplify and streamline the Department's body of regulations, thereby promoting accessibility and efficiency, and will help ensure statutory conformity. The Department thus finds good cause to waive the public notice and comment period under 553(b)(B) and to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 553(d).

The Office of Management and Budget has determined this rule is not significant pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. This rule does not contain policies having federalism implications as the term is defined in E.O. 13132.

Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public participation are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

This rule will not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

In this final rule, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) permanently places MDMB-4en-PINACA and its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers, whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation, in schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

The United States is a party to the 1971 United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances (1971 Convention), Feb. 21, 1971, 32 U.S.T. 543, 1019 U.N.T.S. 175, as amended. Procedures respecting changes in drug schedules under the 1971 Convention are governed domestically by 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(2)-(4). When the United States receives notification of a scheduling decision pursuant to Article 2 of the 1971 Convention indicating that a drug or other substance has been added to a schedule specified in the notification, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), 1 after consultation with the Attorney General, shall first determine whether existing legal controls under subchapter I of the CSA and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act meet the requirements of the schedule specified in the notification with respect to the specific drug or substance. 2 In the event that the Secretary did not so consult with the Attorney General, and the Attorney General did not issue a temporary order, as provided under 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(4), the procedures for permanent scheduling set forth in 21 U.S.C. 811(a) and (b) control.

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) and (2), the Attorney General (as delegated to the Administrator of the DEA pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100) may, by rule, and upon the recommendation of the Secretary, add to such a schedule or transfer between such schedules any drug or other substance, if she finds that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse, and makes with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by 21 U.S.C. 812(b) for the schedule in which such drug or other substance is to be placed.

The neurochemical effects of MDMB-4en-PINACA occur primarily through cannabinoid receptor systems in the brain. MDMB-4en-PINACA binds to cannabinoid subtype 1 (CB1) receptors, functions as a full agonist, and has a binding affinity and functional activity profile that is similar to that of other schedule I cannabinoids, including Δ9-THC, JWH-018, XLR11, and AKB-48. On June 10, 2021, the Secretary-General of the United Nations advised the Secretary of State of the United States that the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) voted to place MDMB-4en-PINACA in Schedule II of the 1971 Convention during its 64th Session held on April 14, 2021.

As a signatory to this international treaty, the United States is required, by scheduling under the CSA, to place appropriate controls on MDMB-4en-PINACA to meet the minimum requirements of the treaty. Because the procedures in 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(3) and (4) for consultation and issuance of a temporary order, discussed in the above legal authority section, were not followed for MDMB-4en-PINACA, DEA is utilizing the procedures for permanent scheduling set forth in 21 U.S.C. 811(a) and (b) to control MDMB-4en-PINACA. Such scheduling would satisfy the United States' international obligations.

To meet the minimum requirements of this treaty and to confront this emerging substance, DEA published an order in the Federal Register on December 12, 2023, temporarily placing MDMB-4en-PINACA in schedule I of the CSA based upon a finding that this substance poses an imminent hazard to the public safety under 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). 3 That temporary order was effective upon the date of publication. On December 11, 2025, DEA published a temporary scheduling order to extend the temporary schedule I status of MDMB-4en-PINACA for one year, or until the permanent scheduling action for this substance is completed, whichever occurs first. 4

In a letter dated September 29, 2023, in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(b), and in response to DEA's November 19, 2021 request, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provided to DEA a scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation for MDMB-4en-PINACA. DEA reviewed the scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation for schedule I placement provided by HHS, and all other relevant data, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(b) and (c), and conducted its own analysis under the eight factors stipulated in 21 U.S.C. 811(c). DEA found, under 21 U.S.C. 811(b)(1), that MDMB-4en-PINACA warrants control in schedule I. Both the DEA and HHS's Eight-Factor Analyses are available in their entirety under the tab Supporting Documents of the public docket for this action at https://www.regulations.gov under docket number DEA-1356.

On October 2, 2025, DEA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to permanently control MDMB-4en-PINACA in schedule I. 5 Specifically, DEA proposed to add MDMB-4en-PINACA to the list of hallucinogenic substances under 21 CFR 1308.11(d). The NPRM provided an opportunity for interested persons to file a request for hearing in accordance with DEA regulations on or before November 3, 2025. DEA did not receive any requests for a hearing. The NPRM also provided an opportunity for interested persons to submit comments on or before November 3, 2025.

DEA received 50 comments in response to the NPRM for the placement of MDMB-4en-PINACA into schedule I of the CSA. As described in detail below, comments were organized into the following general categories: (1) Support of the rule; (2) Opposition to the rule; (3) Mixed support and opposition to the rule; (4) Request for additional information; (5) Procedural deficiencies; and (6) Responses that were not related to this rulemaking.

Comments in support of the rulemaking: Thirty-seven comments were in support of the rulemaking. Supporting responses commonly noted the severe adverse effects following the ingestion of MDMB-4en-PINACA, the link to toxicity and deaths reported following its use, the concern about the drugs availability in the community, the access to the drug by children, its high potential for abuse, and the lack of accepted medical use.

DEA Response: DEA appreciates the comments in support of this rulemaking.

Comments in opposition to the rulemaking: Three comments were in opposition to the rulemaking. Two commenters felt that placing MDMB-4en-PINACA in schedule I would inhibit research on this substance. The third commenter only noted their opposition to the rule with no additional detail.

DEA Response: DEA appreciates these comments and would like to provide further clarification regarding the control of MDMB-4en-PINACA. MDMB-4en-PINACA has been placed under international control. To comply with treaty obligations, DEA must place MDMB-4en-PINACA under the most appropriate schedule, taking into consideration all appropriate scientific data. Additionally, as set forth in the NPRM, MDMB-4en-PINACA has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, nor were there any approved New Drug Applications. Therefore, MDMB-4en-PINACA must be placed in schedule I of the CSA along with other substances which have no currently accepted medical use, lack accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and possess a high potential for abuse. With respect to research for potential medical use, the placement of substances in schedule I of the CSA does not preclude bona fide research on these substances. 6 DEA registrants wishing to conduct research on schedule I substances may apply for permission to do so through the schedule I researcher registration program. 7 8

Comments showing mixed support and opposition to the rulemaking: Six comments showed mixed support and opposition to the rulemaking. Five of the comments were similar in nature, wherein support was noted due to the serious harmful effects of MDMB-4en-PINACA. In opposition, these five comments noted their concern regarding placement of MDMB-4en-PINACA in schedule I could hinder further research. The sixth comment noted that there “was minimum research on MDMB-4en-PINACA to confirm the potential negative effects of its consumption.”

DEA Response: As discussed previously, DEA appreciates the comments regarding the serious adverse effects that were described in both the HHS and DEA Eight-Factor Analyses on MDMB-4en-PINACA. DEA noted in the second response above that the placement of MDMB-4en-PINACA in schedule I of the CSA does not preclude bona fide research on this substance. As noted above, a schedule I researcher registration program exists for researchers to continue to conduct research on MDMB-4en-PINACA in compliance with the CSA. 9 The CSA as well as the corresponding regulations provide opportunities for scientific and medical research for all controlled substances while simultaneously mitigating the risk of diversion and potential for public harm. 10 In reference to the sixth comment, DEA notes that research has demonstrated the binding and functional activity of MDMB-4en-PINACA, as well as results from drug discrimination studies. Multiple case reports, including fatal intoxications following the ingestion of MDMB-4en-PINACA, have demonstrated the dangerous effects of this substance, which supports its placement in schedule I of the CSA.

Comment requesting additional information: One commenter requested additional information on why this rulemaking was proposed.

DEA Response: As described within DEA's Eight-Factor Analysis, on June 10, 2021, the Secretary-General of the United Nations advised the Secretary of State of the United States that, during its 64th Session on April 14, 2021, the CND voted to place MDMB-4en-PINACA in Schedule II of the 1971 Convention. As a signatory to this international treaty, the United States is required, by scheduling under the CSA, to place appropriate controls on MDMB-4en-PINACA to meet the minimum requirements of the treaty. In addition, this substance has shown to be a threat to public health and safety due to the serious adverse effects and fatalities described within the supporting material. For these reasons, MDMB-4en-PINACA was placed in schedule I of the CSA.

Comment raising procedural requests: One comment was received from a public advocacy group with an accompanying attachment, which raised four primary issues and made several requests. First, the commenter claimed that DEA “did not identify or estimate the number of small entities directly regulated, describe the compliance requirements for those entities, or explain why the impacts are not significant,” and requested that DEA either (1) withdraw its Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) certification and publish an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, or (2) “reopen the record for 30 days” to receive small-entity impact data and consider reasonable accommodations. Second, the commenter claims that any invocation of good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) “to waive the 30-day delayed effective date” is “inadequate” because “[t]he timing of permanent scheduling is foreseeable” and “avoiding a gap after a temporary order expires is not good cause where the agency had ample time to plan.” Third, the commenter stated, in reference to the Paperwork Reduction Act and Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, that “DEA should confirm in the record that this rule does not create any new information collection requirements and identify the relevant Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control numbers that will cover compliance activities related to MDMB-4en-PINACA.” Lastly, the commenter requested that “DEA should clarify in the docket its E.O. 12866 significance determination and whether OIRA reviewed the action.”  11

DEA Response: Regarding the first issue, DEA certified in the NPRM that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and provided the factual basis for that certification. To begin, DEA identified the types of entities that would be affected by the proposed rule and determined the North American Industry Classification System industries that best represent those business activities. To determine whether a substantial number of small entities are affected in any of the industries, DEA also relied on data from the Statistics of U.S. Businesses to determine the number of firms and small firms for each of the affected industries, and it then compared the number of affected small entities to the number of small entities for each industry. Further, based on the American Chemical Society's SciFinder database, DEA identified one entity supplying MDMB-4en-PINACA across the relevant industries, and that entity was already registered with DEA to handle controlled substances. Finally, because MDMB-4en-PINACA is not approved for medical use and has a substantial capability to be a hazard to the health of the user and to the safety of the community, DEA expected that the number of researchers working with MDMB-4en-PINACA would be small, and that the researchers working with MDMB-4en-PINACA may also work with other controlled substances; therefore, researchers are likely already registered with DEA and are qualified to handle controlled substances. 12

Regarding the second issue, DEA finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for this scheduling action to be immediately effective upon publication because a delay in the effective date is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. The reasons in support of DEA's good-cause finding are set forth below.

Regarding the third issue, DEA stated in the NPRM that the “proposed rule would not impose a new collection or modify an existing collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,” and that the “proposed rule would not impose new or modify existing recordkeeping or reporting requirements on state or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations.”  13 Because any collection of information requirements have been in place since the DEA temporarily scheduled MDMB-4en-PINACA, and the permanent scheduling of MDMB-4en-PINACA does not create any additional collection requirements, DEA asserts that its statement regarding information collection in the NPRM is supported. DEA also stated in the NPRM that the proposed rule would require compliance with the following existing OMB collections: 1117-0003, 1117-0004, 1117-0006, 1117-0008, 1117-0009, 1117-0010, 1117-0012, 1117-0014, 1117-0021, 1117-0023, 1117-0029, and 1117-0056. 14 Like the NPRM, this final rule provides that same below.

Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act), 29 U.S.C. 667, provides that States that wish to assume responsibility for developing and enforcing their own occupational safety and health standards may do so by submitting and obtaining federal approval of a State Plan. State Plan approval occurs in stages that include initial approval under Section 18(c) of the Act and, ultimately, final approval under Section 18(e). In the interim, between initial approval and final approval, there is a period of concurrent federal/state jurisdiction within a state operating an approved plan.

Puerto Rico administers an OSHA-approved State Plan to develop and enforce occupational safety and health standards for public-sector and private-sector employers, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18 of the OSH Act. The Puerto Rico Occupational Safety and Health Administration (PR OSHA) was designated as the state agency responsible for administering the State Plan. PR OSHA is part of the Puerto Rico Department of Labor and Human Resources which is headed by Maria del Pilar Vélez Casanova. The Puerto Rico State Plan received initial federal OSHA approval as a developmental State Plan under Section 18(c) of the OSH Act on August 15, 1977 (42 FR 43628). Subsequently, on September 7, 1982, federal OSHA issued a Certification of Completion of Developmental Steps for the Puerto Rico State Plan (47 FR 39164).

Pursuant to Section 18(e) of the OSH Act, as implemented by 29 CFR 1954.3, OSHA and Puerto Rico entered into an initial OSA dated December 8, 1981 (47 FR 25323), whereby concurrent federal enforcement authority was suspended with regard to federal occupational safety and health standards in issues covered by the State Plan.

On September 25, 2025, OSHA and the Puerto Rico Department of Labor and Human Resources signed a new OSA, replacing the previous one. The new OSA makes several changes to the respective coverage between federal OSHA and PR OSHA, as described below.

The revisions to the OSA were initially precipitated when, on April 4, 2025, Puerto Rico's Assistant Secretary of Labor, Nelvin Rodriguez-Sanchez, sent a letter to OSHA to state PR OSHA's belief that it lacks the occupational safety and health resources to provide coverage for private sector employees performing work in the following circumstances: on land, property, or space that the federal government owns or leases where federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties; at federal government-owned contractor-operated sites; on federal property under construction; and marine construction performed by private sector employees. Under the existing OSA, federal OSHA only had coverage of enforcement related to contractors or sub-contractors on federal establishments when the State Plan could not obtain entry, and federal OSHA did not have coverage over marine construction conducted by private sector employers. In PR OSHA's letter, the State Plan requested a change in coverage and sought confirmation that federal OSHA will always provide coverage over private sector employees in both of these circumstances. After discussions between federal OSHA and the Puerto Rico State Plan on this issue, both agencies agreed that federal OSHA coverage of such private-sector employers on property owned or leased by the federal government in Puerto Rico and marine construction conducted by private sector employees was the best solution to ensure prompt and effective protection of these workers. Accordingly, notice is hereby given of this change in federal enforcement authority, and coverage is transferred from the Puerto Rico State Plan to federal OSHA. This change is memorialized in the 2025 OSA, which now states that federal OSHA has enforcement authority in these circumstances.

While reviewing the existing OSA in response to this coverage change request from the Puerto Rico State Plan, it was determined that several other revisions and clarifications to the OSA were also needed. First, it has long been the case that federal OSHA exercises enforcement authority over private sector employers within the secured borders of all U.S. military installations where access is controlled, and PR OSHA has enforcement authority over state and local government employers on such military installations. However, this division of coverage was not previously specified in the 1981 OSA. Accordingly, that provision was added to the 2025 OSA for thoroughness and clarity.

Second, the existing 1981 OSA did not have provisions reflecting coverage changes that occurred after it became effective, including that federal OSHA covers federal government employers, including the United States Postal Service (USPS), as well as contractors and contractor-operated facilities engaged in USPS mail operations, and that federal OSHA covers all working conditions of aircraft cabin crewmembers onboard aircraft in operation. Accordingly, provisions identifying both of those as subject to federal OSHA coverage were also added to the 2025 OSA.

Third, the 1981 OSA contained several sections discussing aspects of the Puerto Rico State Plan un-related to the respective coverage between federal OSHA and PR OSHA, including, for example, OSHA's determination that the Puerto Rico State Plan had achieved operational status and various commitments that the State Plan made to continue as an operational State Plan moving forward. OSHA no longer includes this kind of information in more modern OSAs and instead focuses the content of the OSA on its stated purpose, i.e., to set forth the scope of the exercise of federal authority by delineating areas of state versus federal responsibility. Accordingly, the 2025 OSA no longer contains sections discussing those aspects of the Puerto Rico State Plan that do not relate to the scope of federal coverage. However, the removal of those sections from the 2025 OSA does not change any of federal OSHA's determinations on the State Plan's operational status, nor the State Plan's ongoing obligations.

Fourth, the 1981 OSA had a provision noting that federal OSHA would retain coverage over any open cases remaining from federal inspections conducted prior to the “operational status” of the Puerto Rico State Plan. Because PR OSHA has now been operational for over forty years, there are no longer any open federal cases falling within this provision, therefore it was determined this provision was no longer necessary and it has been deleted from the 2025 OSA.

Fifth, the 1981 OSA had a provision noting that federal OSHA could exercise its authority to enforce new standards until such time as the State Plan adopted a comparable standard and a provision noting that Federal OSHA could exercise its authority to enforce new standards that are particularly unique or complex. As is common in more modern OSAs, these specific provisions have been removed and replaced with a more general provision noting that federal OSHA can inspect and take appropriate enforcement action in extraordinary circumstances or when the State Plan is not able to fully or effectively exercise its enforcement authority, which could include both situations, among others.

Sixth, the 2025 OSA includes a new provision that notes that federal OSHA can exercise its authority to inspect and take appropriate enforcement action at an entire project or facility where federal and State Plan authorities both have enforcement authority in the interest of administrative practicability. The provision states that federal enforcement may be exercised immediately upon agreement between federal OSHA and the State Plan. This provision was not included in the 1981 OSA but is a standard provision federal OSHA has found helpful with experience over the past several decades to include in more modern OSAs. Accordingly, it has been added to the 2025 OSA.

Finally, the 1981 OSA contained a provision noting that OSHA would publish a notice in the Federal Register to describe instances of resumed federal enforcement authority. This provision has been removed from the 2025 OSA, as it is redundant of existing notice obligations OSHA has codified in State Plan-related regulations. Accordingly, it is no longer necessary to include this provision in the OSA.

Effective immediately, federal OSHA and PR OSHA will exercise their respective enforcement authorities according to the terms of the 2025 OSA between them. As detailed in the 2025 OSA, federal enforcement responsibility under the OSH Act will continue to be exercised with regard to: federal government employers, including the United States Postal Service (USPS), as well as contractors and contractor-operated facilities engaged in USPS mail operations; private sector employers within the secured borders of all United States military installations where access is controlled; all working conditions of aircraft cabin crewmembers onboard aircraft in operation; private sector employers performing work on federal government owned or leased property where federal employees are regularly present, at federal government-owned contractor-operated sites, and construction on federal property; marine construction conducted by private employers; all maritime employment, including shipyard employment, marine terminals, and longshoring; situations where PR OSHA is refused entry and is unable to obtain a warrant or enforce the right of entry; and situations where PR OSHA is temporarily unable to exercise its enforcement authority fully or effectively. Federal responsibility will also continue to be exercised with regard to investigation and inspection for the purpose of carrying out the monitoring obligations under Section 18(f) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 667(f), as implemented by 29 CFR part 1954, and the enforcement of complaints filed with federal OSHA under the OSH Act's whistleblower provision, Section 11(c), 29 U.S.C. 660(c). The exceptions to the Puerto Rico State Plan's occupational safety and health coverage are listed on OSHA's website at https://www.osha.gov/stateplans/pr.

David. Keeling, Assistant Secretary for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, authorized the preparation of this notice. OSHA is issuing this notice under the authority specified by Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 667), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 07-2025 (90 FR 27878), and 29 CFR parts 1902 and 1953.

In this final rule, PHMSA is making certain editorial corrections and non-substantive changes to the procedural requirements in 49 CFR part 190 to facilitate the electronic submission of requests for written interpretations and special permits. Specifically, § 190.11(b) specifies the procedures for obtaining a written regulatory interpretation, response to a question, or an opinion concerning pipeline safety. PHMSA is revising § 190.11(b) to include an email address as an additional option for submitting the requests to PHMSA. Currently, operators may submit a written regulatory interpretation request by mail to the Office of Pipeline Safety at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

Similarly, § 190.341(b) specifies the procedures for applying for a special permit. Applications for special permits must be submitted either by direct fax to PHMSA at (202) 366-4566 or by mail, including express mail or overnight courier, to the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, PHMSA at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, East Building, Washington, DC 20590. PHMSA is revising § 190.341(b) to add the option for applicants to submit requests for special permits electronically.

This 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 good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to issue this final rule without prior notice and comment. PHMSA finds that notice and comment is unnecessary as the change is a minor amendment and is inherently non-burdensome because PHMSA is simply revising the requirements in §§ 190.11(b) and 190.341(b) to include the option to submit certain requests to PHMSA electronically.

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” except where required by law or compelling safety need. DOT Order 2100.7 requires that “all rulemaking activities shall be based on sound economic principles and analysis supported by rigorous cost-benefit requirement,” 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 final rule 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. This final rule does not impose new burdens, as the changes made therein are non-substantive and do not impose new requirements in the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations. Similarly, the final rule does not have any adverse effects on safety.

This final rule is considered a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the rule on the regulated community will be de minimis. This final rule adds the option for applicants to submit requests for special permits electronically. The non-substantive changes of this rulemaking do not impose any new requirements on pipeline operators and should improve the clarity and compliance with the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations. 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.”

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 finds this final rule is consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The final rule will improve the ease of submitting certain requests to PHMSA by adding the option to submit them electronically. The provisions of this final rule are non-substantive and will not impose new requirements on pipeline operators; they are intended to promote the ease of operators complying with the existing regulations.

This final 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 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.

PHMSA analyzed this final 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 final rule 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 the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under the 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 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 (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule ( see 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)). PHMSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule, so the RFA does not apply. However, PHMSA expects the final rule will provide operators additional flexibility by allowing for special permit requests via email. Further, the regulatory amendments introduced here will not impose additional burdens on any operator.

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 ($203 million in 2024) 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 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.

PHMSA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Under section 9 of DOT Order 5610.1D (“DOT's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”), PHMSA may apply a categorical exclusion in another Operating Administration's apply a categorical exclusion issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to this deregulatory action. PHMSA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this rule, and PHMSA has determined no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). PHMSA's Categorical Exclusion Determination memo for this action is available on PHMSA's website. 1

PHMSA analyzed this final 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 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 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, 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 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, directs 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 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 190 as follows:

The Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety (PIPES) Act of 2020 directed PHMSA to “allow an operator to request that an issue of controversy or uncertainty be addressed through a declaratory order in accordance with section 554(e) of title 5.” Public Law 116-260, 134 Stat. 2222, Sec. 108(a)(2), Dec. 27, 2020 (codified at 49 U.S.C. 60117(b)(1)(J)). PHMSA has adopted pipeline safety enforcement and regulatory procedures in part 190, but those regulations do not address the issuance of declaratory orders under the PIPES Act of 2020 mandate. PHMSA has indicated in prior proceedings that it is “committed to including an opportunity for public comment in circumstances in which it exercises its authority to issue a declaratory order.” (88 FR 77245 (Nov. 9, 2023)). In writing this final rule, PHMSA reviewed the declaratory order processes used by other agencies, including the U.S. Maritime Administration, the Federal Maritime Commission, and the Federal Communications Commission.

This final rule adopts procedures for the issuance of declaratory orders in § 190.13, including filing and public notice requirements and provisions for the granting and denial of petitions. It also addresses the availability of petition for reconsiderations and judicial review.

This 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. The amendments adopted herein affect provisions in part 190 governing PHMSA's procedures and therefore pertain to “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” that are being published as a final rule without notice and comment and with an immediate effective date as permitted by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). PHMSA also finds that publication of a proposed rulemaking on which comment is solicited would be “unnecessary” pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) because this rulemaking merely codifies PHMSA's current, informal procedures governing the submission and review of petitions for declaratory orders.

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” except where required by law or compelling safety need. 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 final rule 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. This final rule does not impose new burdens, as the changes made therein are non-substantive and do not impose additional requirements to how previous petitions have been processed. By establishing a written procedure, the final rule will introduce uniformity in the petition process. PHMSA also determined that the final rule will not have any adverse safety impacts.

This final rule is considered a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the rule on the regulated community will be de minimis, as the non-substantive changes of this rulemaking do not impose any new requirements on pipeline operators, and the changes therein should improve the clarity and compliance with PHMSA regulations. 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.”

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 finds this final rule is consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The final rule will give clarity to pipeline operators on how they may request a declaratory order to address an issue of controversy or uncertainty regarding the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations. The provisions of this final rule are non-substantive and will not impose new requirements on pipeline operators.

This final 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 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.

PHMSA analyzed this final 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 final rule 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 the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under the 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 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 final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule ( see 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)). PHMSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule, so the RFA does not apply. However, PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs from regulatory amendments clarifying procedures for declaratory orders; such clarification will likely reduce regulatory burdens as it enhances regulatory certainty in the procedures governing declaratory orders.

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 ($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 final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under UMRA because it does not result in costs of $100 million or more in 1996 dollars ($203 million in 2024 dollars) per year for either State, local, or Tribal governments, or to the private sector.

PHMSA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Under section 9 of DOT Order 5610.1D (“DOT's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”), PHMSA may apply a categorical exclusion (CE) established in another Operating Administration's procedures. PHMSA followed the requirements outlined in DOT Order 5610.1D to apply a CE issued by the Federal Highway Administration to this deregulatory action. PHMSA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this rule, and PHMSA has determined no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). PHMSA's CE Determination memo for this action is available on PHMSA's website. 1

PHMSA analyzed this final 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 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 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, 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 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, directs 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 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 190 as follows:

PHMSA regulations governing enforcement proceedings in 49 CFR 190 allow parties to resolve certain matters by entering into consent agreements and orders. However, the regulations do not specifically authorize the use of consent agreements and orders to resolve all enforcement proceedings, including those involving civil penalties.

In this final rule, PHMSA is clarifying that consent agreements and orders may be used to resolve all enforcement proceedings brought under the part 190, subpart B regulations. Specifically, the final rule amends § 190.219(a) to state that any pending enforcement proceeding may be resolved by consent agreement and order. It also amends § 190.219(b)(3) to reference enforcement notices generally, rather than notices of probable violation specifically. Finally, the final rule includes as an available response option in § 190.208(a) a request for execution of a consent agreement and order for notices of probable violation that include a civil penalty.

This 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. The amendments adopted herein affect provisions in 49 CFR part 190 governing PHMSA's enforcement procedures and therefore pertain to “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” that are being published as a final rule without notice and comment and with an immediate effective date as permitted by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). PHMSA similarly finds that publication of a proposed rulemaking on which comment is solicited would be “unnecessary” pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) because this rulemaking merely aligns PHMSA enforcement regulations with current practices for resolving some enforcement actions.

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 final rule 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. This final rule does not impose new burdens, as the changes made therein are non-substantive and do not impose additional requirements to how previous petitions have been processed. By establishing a written procedure, the final rule will introduce uniformity in the petition process. PHMSA also determined that the final rule will not have any adverse safety impacts.

This final rule is considered a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the rule on the regulated community will be de minimis, as the non-substantive changes of this rulemaking do not impose any new requirements on pipeline operators, and the changes therein should improve the clarity and compliance with PHMSA regulations. By codifying PHMSA's current, informal procedures governing the submission and review of petitions for declaratory orders, the rulemaking places guardrails preventing potential abuse of agency discretion in the review of such petitions. 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.”

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 finds this final rule is consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The final rule will clarify that consent agreements may be used to resolve all PHMSA enforcement proceedings, including cases with civil penalties. The provisions of this final rule are non-substantive and will not impose new requirements on pipeline operators.

This final 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 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 final rule as a significant energy action.

PHMSA analyzed this final 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.”

Because this final rule governs PHMSA's enforcement procedures, 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. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of E.O. 13132 do not apply.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule ( see 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)). PHMSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule, so the RFA does not apply. However, PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs from clarifying that consent orders may be used to resolve all PHMSA enforcement proceedings; such clarification will likely reduce regulatory burdens as it enhances regulatory certainty in the procedures governing resolution of PHMSA enforcement proceedings.

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 ($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 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.

PHMSA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Under section 9 of DOT Order 5610.1D (“DOT's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”), PHMSA may apply a categorical exclusion (CE) established in another Operating Administration's (OA's) procedures. PHMSA followed the requirements outlined in DOT Order 5610.1D to apply the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) CE to this deregulatory action. PHMSA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this rule, and PHMSA has determined no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). PHMSA's Categorical Exclusion Determination memo for this action is available on PHMSA's website. 1

PHMSA analyzed this final 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 final rule and determined that it will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities or Indian Tribal governments. The rulemaking's procedural amendments have a broad, national scope; therefore, this 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, 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 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, 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 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, 49 CFR part 190 is amended to read as follows:

PHMSA's procedural regulations at § 190.11 authorize interested stakeholders to submit requests for a written regulatory interpretation, response to a question, or an opinion concerning a pipeline safety matter. However, those regulations do not require PHMSA to follow its recent new practice of posting such requests on its public website and providing the public with an opportunity to submit comments. 1 Section 190.11(a) also refers to an outdated message board that PHMSA no longer maintains.

In this final rule, PHMSA is amending § 190.11 by adding a new paragraph (c) to require the posting of requests for regulatory interpretations on its public website and to provide an opportunity for public comment. Consistent with new practice, paragraph (c) provides that PHMSA's obligation to consider public comments is discretionary, not mandatory. PHMSA is also amending § 190.11(a) to strike reference to the ability for the public to post messages on the PHMSA website.

This 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. The amendments adopted herein affect provisions in part 190 governing PHMSA's enforcement procedures and therefore pertain to “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” that are being published as a final rule without notice and comment and with an immediate effective date as permitted by 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(A).

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”), require 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” except where required by law or compelling safety need. 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 final rule 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. This final rule may result in some cost savings to operators. By engaging the public in the interpretations process, the number of interpretations requested by operators may be reduced. In addition, the clarification the interpretation provides may result in fewer misapplication of the regulations by operators, resulting in fewer enforcement actions. The increased transparency in the interpretation process and inclusion of stakeholder comments for PHMSA's consideration may increase opportunities for regulatory certainty and deregulation through the issuance of interpretations. PHMSA has determined that the final rule will not have any adverse safety impacts.

This final rule is considered a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the rule on the regulated community will be de minimis, as the non-substantive changes of this rulemaking do not impose any new requirements on pipeline operators, and the changes therein should improve the clarity and compliance with PHMSA regulations. 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.”

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 finds this final rule is consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The final rule amends PHMSA's procedural regulations related to interpretive assistance requiring PHMSA to post requests for regulatory interpretations on its public website and to provide opportunity for the public to comment. The provisions of this final rule are non-substantive and will not impose new requirements on pipeline operators.

This final 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 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.

PHMSA analyzed this final 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.”

Because this final rule governs PHMSA's procedural regulations, 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. 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 final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule ( see 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)). PHMSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule, so the RFA does not apply. However, PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs from codifying current interpretation request procedures.

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 ($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 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.

PHMSA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Under section 9 of DOT Order 5610.1D (“DOT's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”), PHMSA may apply a categorical exclusion (CE) established in another Operating Administration's procedures. PHMSA followed the requirements outlined in DOT Order 5610.1D to apply a CE issued by the Federal Highway Administration to this deregulatory action. PHMSA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this rule, and PHMSA has determined no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). PHMSA's Categorical Exclusion Determination memo for this action is available on PHMSA's website. 2

PHMSA analyzed this final 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 final rule and determined that it will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities or Indian Tribal governments. The rulemaking's procedural amendments have a broad, national scope; therefore, this 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, 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 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, directs 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 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 190 as follows:

In this final rule, PHMSA is amending the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 100-199) to remove obsolete references to telephone and facsimile numbers. The telephone number 202-366-4046 is no longer operable. PHMSA is therefore revising §§ 192.7(a), 193.2013(a)(1)(i), and 195.3(a) to replace that telephone number with 202-366-4595.

PHMSA is also making editorial corrections to the procedural requirements in 49 CFR part 190 to remove the option to submit requests for special permits by facsimile. Specifically, §§ 190.341(b)(1), 190.341(e)(2)(i), and 190.341(h)(1) specify the procedures for applying for a special permit, renewing a special permit, and requesting an emergency special permit. PHMSA is revising §§ 190.341(b)(1), 190.341(e)(2)(i), and 190.341(h)(1)) to remove the facsimile numbers associated with making those requests. Operators may submit requests for a new special permit, a special permit renewal, or an emergency special permit by email to pipelinespecialpermits@dot.gov or by express mail or overnight courier to the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, East Building, Washington, DC 20590.

Similarly, PHMSA is revising §§ 192.727(g)(1) and 195.59(a) to remove the facsimile numbers associated with reporting abandoned pipelines and deactivated pipeline facilities. Operators may continue to submit such reports by mail to the Office of Pipeline Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Information Resources Manager at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-001 or by email to InformationResourcesManager@dot.gov.

This 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 good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to issue this final rule without prior notice and comment. PHMSA finds that notice and comment is unnecessary because PHMSA is simply revising the requirements to include the option to submit certain requests to PHMSA electronically by email; replace obsolete telephone numbers with an operable telephone number; and remove obsolete facsimile numbers.

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,” also specifies that regulations should generally “not be issued unless their benefits are expected to exceed their costs” except where required by law or compelling safety need. 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 final rule 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. The final rule removes the option for operators to submit requests for special permits by facsimile, and such requests must be exclusively done by email. This final rule does not impose new burdens, as the changes made therein are non-substantive and do not impose new requirements in the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations. Similarly, the final rule does not have any adverse effects on safety.

This final rule is considered a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the rule on the regulated community will be de minimis. The non-substantive changes of this rulemaking do not impose any new requirements on pipeline operators and should improve the clarity and compliance with the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations. 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.”

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 finds this final rule is consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The final rule will revise the Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 190-199) to remove erroneous and obsolete telephone and facsimile numbers. The provisions of this final rule are non-substantive and will not impose new requirements on pipeline operators; they are intended to promote the ease of operators complying with the existing regulations.

This final 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 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.

PHMSA analyzed this final 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 final rule 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 the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under the 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 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 (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule ( see 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)). PHMSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule, so the RFA does not apply. However, PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs from the regulatory amendments introduced here, as they are editorial and non-substantive in nature.

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 ($203 million in 2024) 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 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.

PHMSA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Under section 9 of DOT Order 5610.1D (“DOT's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”), PHMSA may apply a categorical exclusion established in another Operating Administration's procedures. PHMSA followed the requirements outlined in DOT Order 5610.1D to apply a categorical exclusion issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to this deregulatory action. PHMSA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this rule, and PHMSA has determined no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). PHMSA's Categorical Exclusion Determination memo for this action is available on PHMSA's website. 1

PHMSA analyzed this final 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 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 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, 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 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, directs 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 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 190, 192, 193, and 195 as follows:

In this final rule, PHMSA is making certain non-substantive changes to the incident reporting requirements for gas pipeline facilities in the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 190-199). Specifically, § 191.5 requires operators of gas pipeline facilities to provide immediate notice of certain incidents to the National Response Center (NRC) either by telephone or electronically. The NRC no longer allows operators to provide electronic incident notifications. PHMSA is therefore revising § 191.5(b) to remove all references to electronic NRC submissions. Operators must provide notices of incidents to the NRC by telephone to 800-424-8802 or, in Washington, DC, to 202-267-2675. This correction will remove unnecessary delays in the process of operators reporting incidents to the NRC.

This 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. PHMSA has good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to issue this final rule without prior notice and comment. The NRC no longer accepts electronic notifications, and PHMSA is simply revising the incident reporting requirements in § 191.5(b) to account for that fact. PHMSA finds that notice and comment is unnecessary because the electronic notification provision in § 191.5(b) is obsolete and serves no useful purpose.

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” except where required by law or compelling safety need. 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 final rule 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. This final rule does not impose new burdens. The changes made are not substantive in nature and do not impose new requirements in the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations. Similarly, the final rule does not have any adverse effects on safety.

This final rule is considered a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the rule on the regulated community will be de minimis. The non-substantive changes of this rulemaking do not impose any new requirements on pipeline operators and should improve the clarity and compliance with the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations. 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.”

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 finds this final rule is consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The final rule will clarify how to make immediate notice of incidents to the NRC by removing erroneous and obsolete references to electronic submissions. The provisions of this final rule are not substantive and will not impose new requirements on pipeline operators; they are intended to promote the ease of operators complying with the existing regulations.

This final 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 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.

PHMSA analyzed this final 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 final rule 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 the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under the 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 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 (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule ( see 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)). PHMSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule, so the RFA does not apply. However, PHMSA expects this final rule to reduce burdens and provide regulatory certainty for operators by ensuring that PHMSA regulations reflect existing practice that electronic incident notifications are not accepted by the NRC. Further, the regulatory amendments introduced here do not impose additional burdens on any operator.

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 ($203 million in 2024) 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 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.

PHMSA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Under section 9 of DOT Order 5610.1D (“DOT's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”), PHMSA may apply a categorical exclusion established in another Operating Administration's procedures. PHMSA followed the requirements outlined in DOT Order 5610.1D to apply a categorical exclusion issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to this deregulatory action. PHMSA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this rule, and PHMSA has determined no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). PHMSA's Categorical Exclusion Determination memo for this action is available on PHMSA's website. 1

PHMSA analyzed this final 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 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 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 amend the instructions for notifying the NRC in the event of certain incidents. Accordingly, PHMSA intends to request a revision to the information collection under OMB Control Number 2137-0635.

E.O. 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, 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 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, directs 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 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:

In this final rule, PHMSA is removing an obsolete provision from the safety-related condition reporting requirements in § 191.25. Specifically, § 191.25(c) gives operators the option to file a safety-related condition report by email or by facsimile. PHMSA no longer allows operators to file a safety-related condition report by facsimile. PHMSA is therefore revising § 191.25(c) to remove all references to filing a safety-related condition report by facsimile. Safety-related condition reports must be filed by email to InformationResourcesManager@dot.gov. This correction will remove unnecessary delays in the process of operators filing a safety-related condition report.

This 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 good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to issue this final rule without prior notice and comment. PHMSA no longer accepts safety-related condition reports by facsimile and is simply revising the safety-related condition reporting requirements in § 191.25(c) to account for that fact. PHMSA finds that notice and comment is unnecessary because the facsimile number in § 191.25(c) is obsolete and serves no useful purpose.

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” except where required by law or compelling safety need. 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 final rule 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. This final rule does not impose new burdens, as the changes made therein are non-substantive and do not impose new requirements in the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations. Similarly, the final rule does not have any adverse effects on safety.

This final rule is considered a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the rule on the regulated community will be de minimis. This final rule requires operators to file a safety-related condition exclusively by email. The non-substantive changes of this rulemaking do not impose any new requirements on pipeline operators and should improve the clarity and compliance with the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations. 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.”

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 finds this final rule is consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The final rule will clarify how to file a safety-related condition report in accordance with § 191.25 by removing language pertaining to filing safety-related condition reports by facsimile. The provisions of this final rule are non-substantive and will not impose new requirements on pipeline operators; they are intended to promote the ease of operators complying with the existing regulations.

This final 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 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.

PHMSA analyzed this final 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 final rule 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 the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under the 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 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 (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule ( see 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)). PHMSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule, so the RFA does not apply. However, PHMSA expects the regulatory amendments introduced here will reduce burdens and provide regulatory certainty for operators by clarifying that PHMSA does not accept facsimiles for safety-related condition reporting, consistent with its experience operators prefer to submit such reporting by email. Further, these changes are not expected to impose additional burdens on any operator.

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 ($203 million in 2024) 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 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.

PHMSA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Under section 9 of DOT Order 5610.1D, PHMSA may apply a categorical exclusion established in another Operating Administration's procedures. PHMSA followed the requirements outlined in DOT Order 5610.1D to apply a categorical exclusion issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to this deregulatory action. PHMSA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this rule, and PHMSA has determined no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). PHMSA's Categorical Exclusion Determination memo for this action is available on PHMSA's website. 1

PHMSA analyzed this final 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 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 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, 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 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, directs 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 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:

PHMSA is issuing a correction to 49 CFR 192, including § 192.624, which establishes requirements for reconfirming the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of gas transmission lines and was amended by a final rule published in the Federal Register on October 1, 2019 (84 FR 52180).

Operators of onshore steel transmission pipelines electing to use an alternative technical evaluation process to establish MAOP must adhere to the criteria set forth in § 192.624(c)(6). The existing list of criteria in § 192.624(c)(6) is numbered incorrectly and includes a duplicate § 192.624(c)(6)(vii). PHMSA is revising § 192.624 to replace the duplicate paragraph (c)(6)(vii) with paragraph (c)(6)(viii). This typographical correction will remove regulatory uncertainty relating to § 192.624(c)(6).

This 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 good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to issue this final rule without prior notice and comment. PHMSA is simply correcting a typographical error in § 192.624(c)(6)(vii). PHMSA finds that notice and comment is unnecessary because this amendment is editorial in nature and does not impose any new requirements.

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” except where required by law or compelling safety need. 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 final rule 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. This final rule does not impose new burdens, as the changes made therein are non-substantive and do not impose new requirements in the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations. Similarly, the final rule does not have any adverse effects on safety.

This final rule is considered a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the rule on the regulated community will be de minimis. The non-substantive changes of this rulemaking do not impose any new requirements on pipeline operators and should improve the clarity and compliance with the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations. 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.”

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 finds this final rule is consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The final rule will correct a typographical numbering error in the second 49 CFR 192.624(c)(6)(vii). The provisions of this final rule are non-substantive and will not impose new requirements on pipeline operators; they are intended to promote the ease of operators complying with the existing regulations.

This final 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 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.

PHMSA analyzed this final 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 final rule 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 the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under the 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 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 (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule ( see 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)). PHMSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule, so the RFA does not apply. However, PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs from the regulatory amendments introduced here, as they are editorial in nature.

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 ($203 million in 2024) 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 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.

PHMSA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Under section 9 of DOT Order 5610.1D (“DOT's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”), PHMSA may apply a categorical exclusion established in another Operating Administration's procedures. PHMSA followed the requirements outlined in DOT Order 5610.1D to apply a categorical exclusion issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to this deregulatory action. PHMSA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this rule, and PHMSA has determined no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). PHMSA's Categorical Exclusion Determination memo for this action is available on PHMSA's website. 1

PHMSA analyzed this final 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 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 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, 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 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, directs 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 final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not materially affect the cybersecurity risk profile for pipeline facilities.

Accordingly, 49 CFR part 192 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:

Through this DFR, PHMSA is incorporating by reference an update to a voluntary, consensus industry technical standard already incorporated by reference within 49 CFR part 192. Specifically, PHMSA is updating the referenced edition of industry standard NFPA 58, Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code to the 2024 edition (NFPA 58).

NFPA 58 provides criteria for all aspects of the safe design, construction, installation, and operation of the full range of LP-Gas piping, equipment, and venting, along with highway transportation of liquefied petroleum gas. Reference to the 2024 edition of the standard will replace the existing reference in § 192.11 to NFPA 58, Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code, 2020 edition, effective August 25, 2019.

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 U.S.C. 272 (note)) directs Federal agencies to, “when practical and consistent with applicable laws, use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standard bodies instead of government-developed technical standards.” Consistent with that mandate, PHMSA incorporates more than 80 industry standards by reference into the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 190-199); however, many standards become outdated over time as new editions become available. 49 U.S.C. 60102( l ) directs PHMSA to update incorporated industry standards.

Updating this standard ensures better alignment of PHMSA's regulations with 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 evaluated the changes in the updated edition of NFPA 58 and concluded it will either maintain or enhance the protection of public safety. These updates effectively mitigate safety gaps by incorporating innovations in equipment design, operational and maintenance practices, and testing, while addressing latent vulnerabilities that were historically unidentifiable due to the technical limitations of legacy data-gathering and monitoring capabilities. 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, codified at 49 U.S.C. 60102(p)), “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.” The standard incorporated in this direct final rule is available from the following website: https://www.nfpa.org/Codes-and-Standards/All-Codes-and-Standards/List-of-Codes-and-Standards. The material can also be obtained by interested parties through the applicable publisher contact information listed in § 192.7. Additional information regarding standards availability can be found at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/standards-incorporated-reference.

Commenting Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2026-1522 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 our docket at https://www.regulations.gov. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement by visiting 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 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 into its regulations—is unlikely to elicit significant adverse comment. See 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(A). PHMSA similarly finds that publication of a proposed rulemaking on which comment is solicited would be “unnecessary” pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) because this rulemaking merely adopts an updated version of an industry standard that itself reflects a broad consensus among affected industry stakeholders.

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” except where required by law or compelling safety need. 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 final rule 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 and determined that this direct final rule may result in minimal cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility operators. In general, updates to consensus industry standards are widely 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 the standard referenced in this direct final rule 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.

Updating to a more recent edition of the industry standard will ensure better alignment of PHMSA's regulations with innovations in operational and maintenance practices, equipment design, and testing. These updates address known safety risks, encourage facilities to invest in safety enhancing innovations, and improve public safety.

This direct final rule is considered a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the direct final rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor do the regulatory amendments 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.”

The President has declared in E.O. 14156, Declaring a National Energy Emergency, a National emergency to address inadequate U.S. 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 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 amendment 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, 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.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final 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 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 the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under the 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 (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule ( see 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)). PHMSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this DFR, so the RFA does not apply. However, PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs because the referenced standard is widely available for purchase at relatively low cost, most operators are already in compliance with the content of the referenced standard, and compliance costs for any remaining operators are expected to be negligible.

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 ($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 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.

PHMSA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Under section 9 of DOT Order 5610.1D (“DOT's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”), PHMSA may apply a categorical exclusion established in another Operating Administration's procedures. PHMSA followed the requirements outlined in DOT Order 5610.1D to apply a categorical exclusion issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to this deregulatory action. PHMSA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this rule, and PHMSA has determined no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). PHMSA's Categorical Exclusion Determination memo for this action is available on PHMSA's website. 1

PHMSA analyzed this direct final 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 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, 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 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, 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.

Through this DFR, PHMSA is incorporating by reference an update to a voluntary, consensus industry technical standard already incorporated by reference within 49 CFR part 192. Specifically, PHMSA is updating the referenced edition of industry standard ASTM D2564, Standard Specification for Solvent Cements for Poly (Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) Plastic Piping Systems, to the reapproved 2020 edition (ASTM D2564).

ASTM D2564 presents the current requirements for solvent cements that are used to join PVC piping systems. It addresses the requirements in Specification D1784 regarding PVC pipe that was created from compounds and includes Practice D2855's procedure for joining PVC fittings and pipe.

A reference to the 2024 edition of this standard will replace the existing reference in § 192.281 to ASTM D2564-20, Standard Specification for Solvent Cements for Poly (Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) Plastic Piping Systems, approved August 1, 2020. 1 In parallel with incorporating by reference the 2020 edition in August 2025, PHMSA continued its technical review of more recent editions of the standard for potential incorporation in its regulations. Based on that technical review, PHMSA now supports further updating of the standard to the 2024 version.

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 U.S.C. 272 (note)) directs Federal agencies to, “when practical and consistent with applicable laws, use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standard bodies instead of government-developed technical standards.” Consistent with that mandate, PHMSA incorporates more than 80 industry standards by reference into the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 190-199); however, many standards become outdated over time as new editions become available. 49 U.S.C. 60102( l ) directs PHMSA to update incorporated industry standards.

Updating this standard ensures better alignment of PHMSA's regulations with 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 evaluated the changes in the updated edition of ASTM D2564 and concluded it will either maintain or enhance the protection of public safety. These updates effectively mitigate safety gaps by incorporating innovations in equipment design, operational and maintenance practices, and testing, while addressing latent vulnerabilities that were historically unidentifiable due to the technical limitations of legacy data-gathering and monitoring capabilities. Indeed, PHMSA on August 21, 2025, published a final rule updating the reference within part 192 to the 2020 edition of this standard after preliminarily finding the revisions in that edition enhanced pipeline safety (90 FR 40749); PHMSA's evaluation of the handful of changes introduced in the standard since 2020 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, codified at 49 U.S.C. 60102(p)), “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.” The standard incorporated in this direct final rule is available from the following website: https://www.astm.org/standards-and-solutions/standards-and-publications/reading-room. The material can also be obtained by interested parties through the applicable publisher contact information listed in § 192.7. Additional information regarding standards availability can be found at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/standards-incorporated-reference.

Commenting Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2026-1526 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 our docket at https://www.regulations.gov. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement by visiting 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 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 into its regulations—is unlikely to elicit significant adverse comment. See 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(A). PHMSA similarly finds that publication of a proposed rulemaking on which comment is solicited would be “unnecessary” pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) because this rulemaking merely adopts an updated version of an industry standard reflecting a broad consensus among affected industry stakeholders.

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” except where required by law or compelling safety need. 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 final rule 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 and determined that this direct final rule may result in minimal cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility operators. In general, updates to consensus industry standards are widely 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 the standard referenced in this direct final rule 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.

Updating to a more recent edition of the industry standard will ensure better alignment of PHMSA's regulations with innovations in operational and maintenance practices, equipment design, and testing. These updates address known safety risks, encourage facilities to invest in safety enhancing innovations, and improve public safety.

This direct final rule is considered a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the direct final rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor do the regulatory amendments 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.”

The President has declared in E.O. 14156, Declaring a National Energy Emergency, a National emergency to address inadequate U.S. 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 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 amendment 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, 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.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final 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 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 the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under the 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 (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule ( see 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)). PHMSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this DFR, so the RFA does not apply. However, PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs because the referenced standard is widely available for purchase at relatively low cost, most operators are already in compliance with the content of the referenced standard, and compliance costs for any remaining operators are expected to be negligible.

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 ($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 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.

PHMSA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Under section 9 of DOT Order 5610.1D (“DOT's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”), PHMSA may apply a categorical exclusion established in another Operating Administration's procedures. PHMSA followed the requirements outlined in DOT Order 5610.1D to apply a categorical exclusion issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to this deregulatory action. PHMSA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this rule, and PHMSA has determined no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). PHMSA's Categorical Exclusion Determination memo for this action is available on PHMSA's website. 2

PHMSA analyzed this direct final 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 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, 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 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, 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 49 CFR part 192. Specifically, PHMSA is updating the referenced edition of industry standard NACE SP0206, Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment Methodology for Pipelines Carrying Normally Dry Natural Gas (DG-ICDA), to the 2016 edition (NACE SP0206).

NACE SP0206 presents the current state of knowledge and technology applicable to the NACE internal corrosion direct assessment (ICDA) process for normally dry natural gas pipeline systems. The standard formalizes the ICDA process and helps pipeline operators identify corrosion-related threats and mitigation measures in a consistent manner.

References to the 2016 version of the standard will replace the existing references within §§ 192.923 and 192.927 to NACE SP0206-2006, Standard Practice, “Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment Methodology for Pipelines Carrying Normally Dry Natural Gas (DG-ICDA),” December 1, 2006.

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 U.S.C. 272 (note)) directs Federal agencies to, “when practical and consistent with applicable laws, use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standard bodies instead of government-developed technical standards.” Consistent with that mandate, PHMSA incorporates more than 80 industry standards by reference into the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 190-199); however, many standards become outdated over time as new editions become available. 49 U.S.C. 60102( l ) directs PHMSA to update incorporated industry standards.

Updating this standard ensures better alignment of PHMSA's regulations with 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 evaluated the changes in the updated edition of NACE SP0206 and concluded it will either maintain or enhance the protection of public safety. These updates effectively mitigate safety gaps by incorporating innovations in equipment design, operational and maintenance practices, and testing, while addressing latent vulnerabilities that were historically unidentifiable due to the technical limitations of legacy data-gathering and monitoring capabilities. 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, codified at 49 U.S.C. 60102(p)), “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.”

The standard incorporated in this direct final rule is available from the following website: https://ibr.ansi.org/Standards/nace.aspx . The material can also be obtained by interested parties through the applicable publisher contact information listed in § 192.7. Additional information regarding standards availability can be found at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/standards-incorporated-reference .

Commenting Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2026-1534 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 our docket at https://www.regulations.gov . You may review DOT's Complete Privacy Statement by visiting 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 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 into its regulations—is unlikely to elicit significant adverse comment. See 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(A). PHMSA similarly finds that publication of a proposed rulemaking on which comment is solicited would be “unnecessary” pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) because this rulemaking merely adopts an updated version of an industry standard reflecting a broad consensus among affected industry stakeholders.

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” except where required by law or compelling safety need. 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 final rule 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 and determined that this direct final rule may result in minimal cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility operators. In general, updates to consensus industry standards are widely 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 the standard referenced in this direct final rule 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.

Updating to a more recent edition of the industry standard will ensure better alignment of PHMSA's regulations with innovations in operations and maintenance practices, equipment design, and testing. These updates address known safety risks, encourage facilities to invest in safety enhancing innovations, and improve public safety.

This direct final rule is considered a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the direct final rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor do the regulatory amendments 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.”

The President has declared in E.O. 14156, Declaring a National Energy Emergency, a National emergency to address inadequate U.S. 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 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, 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.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final 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 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 the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under the 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 (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule ( see 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)). PHMSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this DFR, so the RFA does not apply. However, PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs because the referenced standard is widely available for purchase at relatively low cost, most operators are already in compliance with the content of the referenced standard, and compliance costs for any remaining operators are expected to be negligible.

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 ($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 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.

PHMSA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Under section 9 of DOT Order 5610.1D (“DOT's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”), PHMSA may apply a categorical exclusion established in another Operating Administration's procedures. PHMSA followed the requirements outlined in DOT Order 5610.1D to apply a categorical exclusion issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to this deregulatory action. PHMSA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this rule, and PHMSA has determined no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). PHMSA's Categorical Exclusion Determination memo for this action is available on PHMSA's website. 1

PHMSA analyzed this direct final 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 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, 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 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, 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 49 CFR part 192. Specifically, PHMSA is updating the referenced edition of industry standard ASTM F1055, Standard Specification for Electrofusion Type Polyethylene Fittings for Outside Diameter Controlled Polyethylene and Crosslinked Polyethylene (PEX) Pipe and Tubing, to the reapproved 2022 edition (ASTM F1055).

ASTM F1055 covers electrofusion-type polyethylene fittings for outside diameter-controlled polyethylene pipe and tubing.

References to the reapproved 2022 edition of the standard will replace existing references in § 192.283(a) and Appendix B to part 192 to ASTM F1055-16a, Standard Specification for Electrofusion Type Polyethylene Fittings for Outside Diameter Controlled Polyethylene and Crosslinked Polyethylene (PEX) Pipe and Tubing, approved November 15, 2016. 1 In parallel with updating in August 2025 regulatory references to this standard to the 2016 edition, PHMSA continued to review more recent editions of the standard for potential incorporation in its regulations. Based on that technical review, PHMSA now supports updating of the standard to the 2022 version.

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 U.S.C. 272 (note)) directs Federal agencies to, “when practical and consistent with applicable laws, use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standard bodies instead of government-developed technical standards.” Consistent with that mandate, PHMSA incorporates more than 80 industry standards by reference into the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 190-199); however, many standards become outdated over time as new editions become available. 49 U.S.C. 60102( l ) directs PHMSA to update incorporated industry standards.

Updating this standard ensures better alignment of PHMSA's regulations with 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 evaluated the changes in the updated edition of ASTM F1055 and concluded it will either maintain or enhance the protection of public safety. These updates effectively mitigate safety gaps by incorporating innovations in equipment design, operational and maintenance practices, and testing, while addressing latent vulnerabilities that were historically unidentifiable due to the technical limitations of legacy data-gathering and monitoring capabilities. Indeed, PHMSA on August 21, 2025, published a final rule updating the reference within part 192 to the 2016 edition of this standard after preliminarily finding the revisions in that edition enhanced pipeline safety (90 FR 40749); PHMSA's evaluation of the handful of changes introduced in the standard since 2016 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, codified at 49 U.S.C. 60102(p)), “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.” The standard incorporated in this direct final rule is available from the following website: https://www.astm.org/products-services/reading-room.html. The material can also be obtained by interested parties through the applicable publisher contact information listed in § 192.7. Additional information regarding standards availability can be found at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/standards-incorporated-reference.

Commenting Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2026-1531 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 our docket at https://www.regulations.gov. You may review DOT's Complete Privacy Act Statement by visiting 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 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 into its regulations—is unlikely to elicit significant adverse comment. See 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(A). PHMSA similarly finds that publication of a proposed rulemaking on which comment is solicited would be “unnecessary” pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) because this rulemaking merely adopts an updated version of an industry standard reflecting a broad consensus among affected industry stakeholders.

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” except where required by law or compelling safety need. 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 final rule 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 and determined that this direct final rule may result in minimal cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility operators. In general, updates to consensus industry standards are widely 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 the standard referenced in this direct final rule 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.

Updating to a more recent edition of the industry standard will ensure better alignment of PHMSA's regulations with innovations in operational and maintenance practices, equipment design, and testing. These updates address known safety risks, encourage facilities to invest in safety enhancing innovations, and improve public safety.

This direct final rule is considered a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the direct final rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor do the regulatory amendments 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.”

The President has declared in E.O. 14156, Declaring a National Energy Emergency, a National emergency to address inadequate U.S. 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 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, 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.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final 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 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 the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under the 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 (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule ( see 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)). PHMSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this DFR, so the RFA does not apply. However, PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs because the referenced standard is widely available for purchase at relatively low cost, most operators are already in compliance with the content of the referenced standard, and compliance costs for any remaining operators are expected to be negligible.

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 ($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 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.

PHMSA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Under section 9 of DOT Order 5610.1D (“DOT's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”), PHMSA may apply a categorical exclusion established in another Operating Administration's procedures. PHMSA followed the requirements outlined in DOT Order 5610.1D to apply a categorical exclusion issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to this deregulatory action. PHMSA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this rule, and PHMSA has determined no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). PHMSA's Categorical Exclusion Determination memo for this action is available on PHMSA's website. 2

PHMSA analyzed this direct final 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 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, 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 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, 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:

Through this DFR, PHMSA is incorporating by reference an update to a voluntary, consensus industry technical standard already incorporated by reference within 49 CFR part 192. Specifically, PHMSA is updating the referenced edition of industry standard ASTM F2767, Standard Specification for Electrofusion Type Polyamide-12 Fittings for Outside Diameter Controlled Polyamide-12 Pipe and Tubing for Gas Distribution, to the approved 2024 edition (ASTM F2767).

ASTM F2767 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.

A reference to the 2024 version of the standard will replace the existing reference within Appendix B to part 192 to ASTM F2767-18(2023), “Specification for Electrofusion Type Polyamide-12 Fittings for Outside Diameter Controlled Polyamide-12 Pipe and Tubing for Gas Distribution,” November 1, 2023. 1 While In parallel with updating in August 2025 regulatory references to this standard to the 2023 edition, PHMSA continued to review more recent editions of the standard for potential incorporation in its regulations. Based on that technical review, PHMSA now supports further updating the standard to the 2024 edition.

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 U.S.C. 272 (note)) directs Federal agencies to, “when practical and consistent with applicable laws, use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standard bodies instead of government-developed technical standards.” Consistent with that mandate, PHMSA incorporates more than 80 industry standards by reference into the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 190-199); however, many standards become outdated over time as new editions become available. 49 U.S.C. 60102( l ) directs PHMSA to update incorporated industry standards.

Updating this standard ensures better alignment of PHMSA's regulations with 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 evaluated the changes in the updated edition of ASTM F2767 and concluded it will either maintain or enhance the protection of public safety. These updates effectively mitigate safety gaps by incorporating innovations in equipment design, operational and maintenance practices, and testing, while addressing latent vulnerabilities that were historically unidentifiable due to the technical limitations of legacy data-gathering and monitoring capabilities. Indeed, PHMSA on July 1, 2025, published a direct final rule updating the reference within part 192 to the 2023 edition of this standard after preliminarily finding the revisions in that edition enhanced pipeline safety (90 FR 28090); PHMSA's evaluation of the handful of changes introduced in the standard since 2023 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, codified at 49 U.S.C. 60102(p)), “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.” The standard incorporated in this direct final rule is available from the following website: https://www.astm.org/standards-and-solutions/standards-and-publications/reading-room. The material can also be obtained by interested parties through the applicable publisher contact information listed in § 192.7. Additional information regarding standards availability can be found at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/standards-incorporated-reference.

Commenting Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2026-1529 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 our docket at https://www.regulations.gov. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement by visiting 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 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 into its regulations—is unlikely to elicit significant adverse comment. See 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(A). PHMSA similarly finds that publication of a proposed rulemaking on which comment is solicited would be “unnecessary” pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) because this rulemaking merely adopts an updated version of an industry standard reflecting a broad consensus among affected industry stakeholders.

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” except where required by law or compelling safety need. 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 final rule 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 and determined that this direct final rule may result in minimal cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility operators. In general, updates to consensus industry standards are widely 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 the standard referenced in this direct final rule 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.

Updating to a more recent edition of the industry standard will ensure better alignment of PHMSA's regulations with innovations in operational and maintenance practices, equipment design, and testing. These updates address known safety risks, encourage facilities to invest in safety enhancing innovations, and improve public safety.

This direct final rule is considered a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the direct final rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor do the regulatory amendments 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.”

The President has declared in E.O. 14156, Declaring a National Energy Emergency, a National emergency to address inadequate U.S. 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 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, 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.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final 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 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 the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under the 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 (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule ( see 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)). PHMSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this DFR, so the RFA does not apply. However, PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs because the referenced standard is widely available for purchase at relatively low cost, most operators are already in compliance with the content of the referenced standard, and compliance costs for any remaining operators are expected to be negligible.

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 ($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 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.

PHMSA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Under section 9 of DOT Order 5610.1D (“DOT's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”), PHMSA may apply a categorical exclusion established in another Operating Administration's procedures. PHMSA followed the requirements outlined in DOT Order 5610.1D to apply a categorical exclusion issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to this deregulatory action. PHMSA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this rule, and PHMSA has determined no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). PHMSA's Categorical Exclusion Determination memo for this action is available on PHMSA's website. 2

PHMSA analyzed this direct final 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 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, 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 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, 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 49 CFR part 192. Specifically, PHMSA is updating the referenced edition of industry standard ASTM F2620, Standard Practice for Heat Fusion Joining of Polyethylene Pipe and Fittings, to the 2024 edition (ASTM F2620).

ASTM F2620 describes procedures for making joints with polyethylene pipe and fittings by means of heat fusion joining in, but not limited to, a field environment.

References to the 2024 edition of the standard will replace the existing references in §§ 192.281(c) and 192.285(b) to ASTM F2620-20ae2, Standard Practice for Heat Fusion Joining of Polyethylene Pipe and Fittings, approved December 1, 2020. In parallel with updating in August 2025 regulatory references to this standard to the 2020 edition, PHMSA continued to review more recent editions of the standard for potential incorporation in its regulations. Based on that technical review, PHMSA now supports further updating of the standard to the 2024 edition.

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 U.S.C. 272 (note)) directs Federal agencies to, “when practical and consistent with applicable laws, use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standard bodies instead of government-developed technical standards.” Consistent with that mandate, PHMSA incorporates more than 80 industry standards by reference into the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 190-199); however, many standards become outdated over time as new editions become available. 49 U.S.C. 60102( l ) directs PHMSA to update incorporated industry standards.

Updating this standard ensures better alignment of PHMSA's regulations with 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 evaluated the changes in the updated edition of ASTM F2620 and concluded it will either maintain or enhance the protection of public safety. These updates effectively mitigate safety gaps by incorporating innovations in equipment design, operational and maintenance practices, and testing, while addressing latent vulnerabilities that were historically unidentifiable due to the technical limitations of legacy data-gathering and monitoring capabilities. Indeed, PHMSA on August 21, 2025, published a final rule updating the reference within part 192 to the 2020 edition of this standard after preliminarily finding the revisions in that edition enhanced pipeline safety (90 FR 40749); PHMSA's evaluation of the handful of changes introduced in the standard since 2020 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, codified at 49 U.S.C. 60102(p)), “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.” The standard incorporated in this direct final rule is available from the following website: https://www.astm.org/standards-and-solutions/standards-and-publications/reading-room. The material can also be obtained by interested parties through the applicable publisher contact information listed in § 192.7. Additional information regarding standards availability can be found at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/standards-incorporated-reference.

Commenting Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2026-1527 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 our docket at https://www.regulations.gov. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement by visiting 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 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 into its regulations—is unlikely to elicit significant adverse comment. See 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(A). PHMSA similarly finds that publication of a proposed rulemaking on which comment is solicited would be “unnecessary” pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) because this rulemaking merely adopts an updated version of an industry standard reflecting a broad consensus among affected industry stakeholders.

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” except where required by law or compelling safety need. 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 final rule 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 and determined that this direct final rule may result in minimal cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility operators. In general, updates to consensus industry standards are widely 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 the standard referenced in this direct final rule 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.

Updating to a more recent edition of the industry standard will ensure better alignment of PHMSA's regulations with innovations in operational and maintenance practices, equipment design, and testing. These updates address known safety risks, encourage facilities to invest in safety enhancing innovations, and improve public safety

This direct final rule is considered a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the direct final rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor do the regulatory amendments 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.”

The President has declared in E.O. 14156, Declaring a National Energy Emergency, a National emergency to address inadequate U.S. 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 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 amendment 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, 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.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final 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 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 the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under the 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 (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule ( see 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)). PHMSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this DFR, so the RFA does not apply. However, PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs because the referenced standard is widely available for purchase at relatively low cost, most operators are already in compliance with the content of the referenced standard, and compliance costs for any remaining operators are expected to be negligible.

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 ($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 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.

PHMSA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Under section 9 of DOT Order 5610.1D (“DOT's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”), PHMSA may apply a categorical exclusion established in another Operating Administration's procedures. PHMSA followed the requirements outlined in DOT Order 5610.1D to apply a categorical exclusion issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to this deregulatory action. PHMSA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this rule, and PHMSA has determined no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). PHMSA's Categorical Exclusion Determination memo for this action is available on PHMSA's website. 1

PHMSA analyzed this direct final 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 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, 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 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, 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 49 CFR part 192. Specifically, PHMSA is updating the referenced edition of industry standard ASTM A372/A372M, Standard Specification for Carbon and Alloy Steel Forgings for Thin-Walled Pressure Vessels, to the reapproved 2025 edition (ASTM A372/A372M).

ASTM A372/A372M presents the current state of knowledge and technology regarding the manufacture of relatively thin-walled forgings—including gas bottles—for use in pressure vessels. This specification covers carbon and alloy steel forgings.

A reference to the reapproved 2025 edition of this standard will replace the existing reference in § 192.177 to ASTM A372/A372M-20e1, Standard Specification for Carbon and Alloy Steel Forgings for Thin-Walled Pressure Vessels, approved March 1, 2020. 1 In parallel with updating this standard to the 2020 edition in August 2025, it continued to review more recent editions of the standard for potential incorporation in its regulations. Based on that technical review, PHMSA supports updating of the standard to the 2025 version.

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 U.S.C. 272 (note)) directs Federal agencies to, “when practical and consistent with applicable laws, use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standard bodies instead of government-developed technical standards.” Consistent with that mandate, PHMSA incorporates more than 80 industry standards by reference into the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 190-199); however, many standards become outdated over time as new editions become available. 49 U.S.C. 60102( l ) directs PHMSA to update incorporated industry standards.

Updating this standard ensures better alignment of PHMSA's regulations with 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 evaluated the changes in the updated edition of ASTM A372/A372M and concluded it will either maintain or enhance the protection of public safety. These updates effectively mitigate safety gaps by incorporating innovations in equipment design, operational and maintenance practices, and testing, while addressing latent vulnerabilities that were historically unidentifiable due to the technical limitations of legacy data-gathering and monitoring capabilities. Indeed, PHMSA on August 21, 2025, published a final rule updating the reference within part 192 to the 2020 edition of this standard after preliminarily finding the revisions in that edition enhanced pipeline safety (90 FR 40749); PHMSA's evaluation of the handful of changes introduced in the standard since 2020 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, codified at 49 U.S.C. 60102(p)), “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.” The standard incorporated in this direct final rule is available from the following website: https://www.astm.org/standards-and-solutions/standards-and-publications/reading-room. The material can also be obtained by interested parties through the applicable publisher contact information listed in § 192.7. Additional information regarding standards availability can be found at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/standards-incorporated-reference.

Commenting Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2026-1524 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 our docket at https://www.regulations.gov. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement by visiting 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 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 into its regulations—is unlikely to elicit significant adverse comment. See 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(A). PHMSA similarly finds that publication of a proposed rulemaking on which comment is solicited would be “unnecessary” pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) because this rulemaking merely adopts an updated version of an industry standard reflecting a broad consensus among affected industry stakeholders.

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” except where required by law or compelling safety need. 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 final rule 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 and determined that this direct final rule may result in minimal cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility operators. In general, updates to consensus industry standards are widely 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 the standard referenced in this direct final rule 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.

Updating to a more recent edition of the industry standard will ensure better alignment of PHMSA's regulations with innovations in operational and maintenance practices, equipment design, and testing. These updates address known safety risks, encourage facilities to invest in safety enhancing innovations, and improve public safety.

This direct final rule is considered a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the direct final rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor do the regulatory amendments 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.”

The President has declared in E.O. 14156, Declaring a National Energy Emergency, a National emergency to address inadequate U.S. 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 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 amendment 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, 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.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final 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 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 the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under the 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 (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule ( see 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)). PHMSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this DFR, so the RFA does not apply. However, PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs because the referenced standard is widely available for purchase at relatively low cost, most operators are already in compliance with the content of the referenced standard, and compliance costs for any remaining operators are expected to be negligible.

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 ($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 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.

PHMSA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Under section 9 of DOT Order 5610.1D (“DOT's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”), PHMSA may apply a categorical exclusion established in another Operating Administration's procedures. PHMSA followed the requirements outlined in DOT Order 5610.1D to apply a categorical exclusion issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to this deregulatory action. PHMSA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this rule, and PHMSA has determined no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). PHMSA's Categorical Exclusion Determination memo for this action is available on PHMSA's website. 2

PHMSA analyzed this direct final 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 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, 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 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, 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 49 CFR part 192. Specifically, PHMSA is updating the referenced edition of industry standard NFPA 59, Utility LP-Gas Plant Code, to the 2024 edition (NFPA 59).

NFPA 59 covers general requirements for the design, construction, location, installation, operation, and maintenance of refrigerated and non-refrigerated liquefied petroleum utility gas plants. A reference to the 2024 edition of this standard will replace the existing reference in § 192.11 to NFPA 59, Utility LP-Gas Plant Code, 2018 edition, effective September 6, 2017.

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 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 Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 190-199); however, many standards become outdated over time as new editions become available. 49 U.S.C. 60102( l ) directs PHMSA to update incorporated industry standards.

Updating this standard ensures better alignment of PHMSA's regulations with 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 evaluated the changes in the updated edition of NFPA 59 and concluded it will either maintain or enhance the protection of public safety. These updates mitigate safety gaps by incorporating innovative equipment designs, operational and maintenance practices, and testing, while addressing latent vulnerabilities that were historically unidentifiable due to the technical limitations of legacy data-gathering and monitoring capabilities. 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, codified at 49 U.S.C. 60102(p)), “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.” The standard incorporated in this direct final rule is available from the following website: https://www.nfpa.org/Codes-and-Standards/All-Codes-and-Standards/List-of-Codes-and-Standards. The material can also be obtained by interested parties through the applicable publisher contact information listed in § 192.7. Additional information regarding standards availability can be found at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/standards-incorporated-reference.

Commenting Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2026-1521 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 our docket at https://www.regulations.gov. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement by visiting 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 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 into its regulations—is unlikely to elicit significant adverse comment. See 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(A). PHMSA similarly finds that publication of a proposed rulemaking on which comment is solicited would be “unnecessary” pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) because this rulemaking merely adopts an updated version of an industry standard that itself reflects a broad consensus among affected industry stakeholders.

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” except where required by law or compelling safety need. 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 final rule 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 and determined that this direct final rule may result in minimal cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility operators. In general, updates to consensus industry standards are widely 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 the standard referenced in this direct final rule 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.

Updating to a newer edition of the industry standard will ensure better alignment of PHMSA's regulations with innovations in operations and maintenance practices, equipment design, and testing. These updates address known safety risks, encourage facilities to invest in safety enhancing innovations, and improve public safety.

This direct final rule is considered a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the direct final rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor do the regulatory amendments 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.”

The President has declared in E.O. 14156, Declaring a National Energy Emergency, a National emergency to address inadequate U.S. 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 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, 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.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final 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 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 the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under the 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 (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule ( see 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)). PHMSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this DFR, so the RFA does not apply. However, PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs because the referenced standard is widely available for purchase at relatively low cost, most operators are already in compliance with the content of the referenced standard, and compliance costs for any remaining operators are expected to be negligible.

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 ($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 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.

PHMSA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Under section 9 of DOT Order 5610.1D (“DOT's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”), PHMSA may apply a categorical exclusion established in another Operating Administration's procedures. PHMSA followed the requirements outlined in DOT Order 5610.1D to apply a categorical exclusion issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to this deregulatory action. PHMSA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this rule, and PHMSA has determined no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). PHMSA's Categorical Exclusion Determination memo for this action is available on PHMSA's website. 1

PHMSA analyzed this direct final 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 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, 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 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, 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:

In this final rule, PHMSA is making certain editorial corrections and non-substantive changes to the criteria for conducting integrity assessments using guided wave ultrasonic testing (GWUT). Specifically, Appendix F to 49 CFR part 192 establishes criteria for using GWUT as an integrity assessment method. The existing list of criteria in part 192, Appendix F is numbered incorrectly and includes a duplicate XIV. PHMSA is revising part 192, Appendix F to replace the duplicate XIV with XIX. This typographical correction will remove regulatory uncertainty regarding part 192, Appendix F.

This 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 good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to issue this final rule without prior notice and comment. PHMSA is simply correcting a typographical error in 49 CFR part 192, Appendix F. PHMSA finds that notice and comment is unnecessary because this amendment is editorial in nature and does not impose any new requirements.

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” except where required by law or compelling safety need. 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 final rule 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. This final rule does not impose new burdens. The changes made are editorial in nature and do not impose new requirements in the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations. Therefore, it is not necessary that PHMSA prepare a regulatory impact analysis.

This final rule is considered a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation . PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the rule on the regulated community will be de minimis . The non-substantive changes of this rulemaking do not impose any new requirements on pipeline operators and should improve the clarity and compliance with the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations. 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.”

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 finds this final rule is consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The final rule will correct a typographical numbering error in 49 CFR part 192, Appendix F to remove the duplicate number XIV. The provisions of this final rule are not substantive and will not impose new requirements on pipeline operators; they are intended to promote the ease of operators complying with the existing regulations.

This final 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 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.

PHMSA analyzed this final 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 final rule 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 the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under the 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 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 (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule ( see 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)). PHMSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule, so the RFA does not apply. However, PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs from the regulatory amendments introduced here as they are editorial and non-substantive in nature.

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 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.

PHMSA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Under section 9 of DOT Order 5610.1D (“DOT's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”), PHMSA may apply a categorical exclusion established in another Operating Administration's procedures. PHMSA followed the requirements outlined in DOT Order 5610.1D to apply a categorical exclusion issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to this deregulatory action. PHMSA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this rule, and PHMSA has determined no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). PHMSA's Categorical Exclusion Determination memo for this action is available on PHMSA's website. 1

PHMSA analyzed this final 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 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 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, 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 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, directs 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 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 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 49 CFR part 192. Specifically, PHMSA is updating the referenced edition of industry standard ASTM F1973, “Standard Specification for Factory Assembled Anodeless Risers and Transition Fittings in Polyethylene (PE) and Polyamide (PA11) and Polyamide 12 (PA12) Fuel Gas Distribution Systems,” to the 2025 edition (ASTM F1973).

ASTM F1973 covers requirements and test methods for the qualification of factory assembled anodeless risers and transition fittings, for use in polyethylene (PE), in sizes through NPS 8, and Polyamide 11 (PA11), in sizes through NPS 6, gas distribution systems.

References to the 2025 edition of the standard will replace existing references in § 192.204(b) and Appendix B to part 192 to ASTM F1973-21, Standard Specification for Factory Assembled Anodeless Risers and Transition Fittings in Polyethylene (PE) and Polyamide 11 (PA11) and Polyamide 12 (PA12) Fuel Gas Distribution Systems, November 1, 2021. 1 In parallel with updating in August 2025 regulatory references to this standard to the 2021 edition, PHMSA continued to review more recent editions of the standard for potential incorporation in its regulations. Based on that technical review, PHMSA now supports further updating of the standard to the 2025 edition.

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 U.S.C. 272 (note)) directs Federal agencies to, “when practical and consistent with applicable laws, use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standard bodies instead of government-developed technical standards.” Consistent with that mandate, PHMSA incorporates more than 80 industry standards by reference into the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 190-199); however, many standards become outdated over time as new editions become available. 49 U.S.C. 60102( l ) directs PHMSA to update incorporated industry standards.

Updating this standard ensures better alignment of PHMSA's regulations with 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 evaluated the changes in the updated edition of ASTM F1973 and concluded it will either maintain or enhance the protection of public safety. These updates effectively mitigate safety gaps by incorporating innovations in equipment design, operational and maintenance practices, and testing, while addressing latent vulnerabilities that were historically unidentifiable due to the technical limitations of legacy data-gathering and monitoring capabilities. Indeed, PHMSA on July 1, 2025, published a direct final rule updating the reference within part 192 to the 2021 edition of this standard after preliminarily finding the revisions in that edition enhanced pipeline safety (90 FR 28079); 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, codified at 49 U.S.C. 60102(p)), “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.” The standard incorporated in this direct final rule is available from the following website: https://www.astm.org/standards-and-solutions/standards-and-publications/reading-room. The material can also be obtained by interested parties through the applicable publisher contact information listed in § 192.7. Additional information regarding standards availability can be found at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/standards-incorporated-reference.

Commenting Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2026-1530 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 our docket at https://www.regulations.gov. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement by visiting 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 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 into its regulations—is unlikely to elicit significant adverse comment. See 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(A). PHMSA similarly finds that publication of a proposed rulemaking on which comment is solicited would be “unnecessary” pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) because this rulemaking merely adopts an updated version of an industry standard reflecting a broad consensus among affected industry stakeholders.

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” except where required by law or compelling safety need. 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 final rule 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 and determined that this direct final rule may result in minimal cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility operators. In general, updates to consensus industry standards are widely 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 the standard referenced in this direct final rule 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.

Updating to a more recent edition of the industry standard will ensure better alignment of PHMSA's regulations with innovations in operational and maintenance practices, equipment design, and testing. These updates address known safety risks, encourage facilities to invest in safety enhancing innovations, and improve public safety.

This direct final rule is considered a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the direct final rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor do the regulatory amendments 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.”

The President has declared in E.O. 14156, Declaring a National Energy Emergency, a National emergency to address inadequate U.S. 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 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, 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.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final 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 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 the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under the 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 (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule ( see 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)). PHMSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this DFR, so the RFA does not apply. However, PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs because the referenced standard is widely available for purchase at relatively low cost, most operators are already in compliance with the content of the referenced standard, and compliance costs for any remaining operators are expected to be negligible.

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 ($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 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.

PHMSA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Under section 9 of DOT Order 5610.1D (“DOT's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”), PHMSA may apply a categorical exclusion established in another Operating Administration's procedures. PHMSA followed the requirements outlined in DOT Order 5610.1D to apply a categorical exclusion issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to this deregulatory action. PHMSA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this rule, and PHMSA has determined no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). PHMSA's Categorical Exclusion Determination memo for this action is available on PHMSA's website. 2

Through this DFR, PHMSA is incorporating by reference an update to a voluntary, consensus industry technical standard already incorporated by reference within 49 CFR part 192. Specifically, PHMSA is updating the referenced edition of industry standard ASTM D2513, Standard Specification for Polyethylene (PE) Gas Pressure Pipe, Tubing, and Fittings, to the approved 2024 edition (ASTM D2513).

ASTM D2513 presents the current state of knowledge and technology applicable to PE pipe, tubing, and fittings used for fuel gas pipelines, including pipe that is used to distribute natural gas.

A reference to the 2024 edition of the standard will replace the existing reference within Appendix B to part 192 to ASTM D2513-20, Standard Specification for Polyethylene (PE) Gas Pressure Pipe, Tubing, and Fittings, approved December 1, 2020. 1 While In parallel with updating in August 2025 regulatory references to this standard to the 2020 edition, PHMSA continued to review more recent editions of the standard for potential incorporation in its regulations. Based on that technical review, PHMSA now supports further updating of the standard to the 2024 edition.

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 U.S.C. 272 (note)) directs Federal agencies to, “when practical and consistent with applicable laws, use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standard bodies instead of government-developed technical standards.” Consistent with that mandate, PHMSA incorporates more than 80 industry standards by reference into the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 190-199); however, many standards become outdated over time as new editions become available. 49 U.S.C. 60102( l ) directs PHMSA to update incorporated industry standards.

Updating this standard ensures better alignment of PHMSA's regulations with 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 evaluated the changes in the updated edition of ASTM D2513 and concluded it will either maintain or enhance the protection of public safety. These updates effectively mitigate safety gaps by incorporating innovations in equipment design, operational and maintenance practices, and testing, while addressing latent vulnerabilities that were historically unidentifiable due to the technical limitations of legacy data-gathering and monitoring capabilities. Indeed, PHMSA on August 21, 2025, published a final rule updating the reference within part 192 to the 2020 edition of this standard after preliminarily finding the revisions in that edition enhanced pipeline safety (90 FR 40749); PHMSA's evaluation of the handful of changes introduced in the standard since 2020 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, codified at 49 U.S.C. 60102(p)), “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.” The standard incorporated in this direct final rule is available from the following website: https://www.astm.org/standards-and-solutions/standards-and-publications/reading-room. The material can also be obtained by interested parties through the applicable publisher contact information listed in § 192.7. Additional information regarding standards availability can be found at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/standards-incorporated-reference.

Commenting Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2026-1528 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 our docket at https://www.regulations.gov. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement by visiting 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 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 into its regulations—is unlikely to elicit significant adverse comment. See 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(A). PHMSA similarly finds that publication of a proposed rulemaking on which comment is solicited would be “unnecessary” pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) because this rulemaking merely adopts an updated version of an industry standard reflecting a broad consensus among affected industry stakeholders.

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” except where required by law or compelling safety need. 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 final rule 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 and determined that this direct final rule may result in minimal cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility operators. In general, updates to consensus industry standards are widely 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 the standard referenced in this direct final rule 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.

Updating to a more recent edition of the industry standard will ensure better alignment of PHMSA's regulations with innovations in operational and maintenance practices, equipment design, and testing. These updates address known safety risks, encourage facilities to invest in safety enhancing innovations, and improve public safety.

This direct final rule is considered a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the direct final rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor do the regulatory amendments 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.”

The President has declared in E.O. 14156, Declaring a National Energy Emergency, a National emergency to address inadequate U.S. 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 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, 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.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final 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 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 the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under the 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 (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule ( see 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)). PHMSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this DFR, so the RFA does not apply. However, PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs because the referenced standard is widely available for purchase at relatively low cost, most operators are already in compliance with the content of the referenced standard, and compliance costs for any remaining operators are expected to be negligible.

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 ($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 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.

PHMSA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Under section 9 of DOT Order 5610.1D (“DOT's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”), PHMSA may apply a categorical exclusion established in another Operating Administration's procedures. PHMSA followed the requirements outlined in DOT Order 5610.1D to apply a categorical exclusion issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to this deregulatory action. PHMSA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this rule, and PHMSA has determined no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). PHMSA's Categorical Exclusion Determination memo for this action is available on PHMSA's website. 2

PHMSA analyzed this direct final 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 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, 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 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, 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 49 CFR parts 192 and 195. Specifically, PHMSA is updating the referenced edition of industry standard NACE SP0502, Pipeline External Corrosion Direct Assessment Methodology to the 2025 edition (NACE SP0502).

NACE SP0502 covers the Association for Materials Protection and Performance (AMPP) external corrosion direct assessment (ECDA) process for buried onshore ferrous piping systems.

References to the 2025 edition of the standard will replace existing references in §§ 192.319(f); 192.461(h); 192.620(d); 192.923(b); 192.925(b); 192.931(d); 192.935(b); 192.939(a); and § 195.588(b) to ANSI/NACE SP0502-2010, “Pipeline External Corrosion Direct Assessment Methodology,” revised June 24, 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 U.S.C. 272 (note)) directs Federal agencies to, “when practical and consistent with applicable laws, use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standard bodies instead of government-developed technical standards.” Consistent with that mandate, PHMSA incorporates more than 80 industry standards by reference into the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 190-199); however, many standards become outdated over time as new editions become available. 49 U.S.C. 60102(l) directs PHMSA to update incorporated industry standards.

Updating this standard ensures better alignment of PHMSA's regulations with 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 evaluated the changes in the updated edition of NACE SP0502 and concluded it will either maintain or enhance the protection of public safety. These updates effectively mitigate safety gaps by incorporating innovations in equipment design, operational and maintenance practices, and testing, while addressing latent vulnerabilities that were historically unidentifiable due to the technical limitations of legacy data-gathering and monitoring capabilities. 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, codified at 49 U.S.C. 60102(p)), “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.” The standard incorporated in this direct final rule is available from the following website: https://ibr.ansi.org/Standards/nace.aspx. The material can also be obtained by interested parties through the applicable publisher contact information listed in §§ 192.7 and 195.3. Additional information regarding standards availability can be found at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/standards-incorporated-reference.

Commenting Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2026-1533 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 our docket at https://www.regulations.gov. You may review DOT's Complete Privacy Act Statement by visiting 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 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 into its regulations—is unlikely to elicit significant adverse comment. See 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(A). PHMSA similarly finds that publication of a proposed rulemaking on which comment is solicited would be “unnecessary” pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) because this rulemaking merely adopts an updated version of an industry standard reflecting a broad consensus among affected industry stakeholders.

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” except where required by law or compelling safety need. 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 final rule 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 and determined that this direct final rule may result in minimal cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility operators. In general, updates to consensus industry standards are widely 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 the standard referenced in this direct final rule 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.

Updating to a more recent edition of the industry standard will ensure better alignment of PHMSA's regulations with innovations in operational and maintenance practices, equipment design, and testing. These updates address known safety risks, encourage facilities to invest in safety enhancing innovations, and improve public safety.

This direct final rule is considered a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the direct final rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor do the regulatory amendments 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.”

The President has declared in E.O. 14156, Declaring a National Energy Emergency, a National emergency to address inadequate U.S. 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 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, 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.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final 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 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 the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under the 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 (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule ( see 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)). PHMSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this DFR, so the RFA does not apply. However, PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs because the referenced standard is widely available for purchase at relatively low cost, most operators are already in compliance with the content of the referenced standard, and compliance costs for any remaining operators are expected to be negligible.

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 ($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 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.

PHMSA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Under section 9 of DOT Order 5610.1D (“DOT's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”), PHMSA may apply a categorical exclusion established in another Operating Administration's procedures. PHMSA followed the requirements outlined in DOT Order 5610.1D to apply a categorical exclusion issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to this deregulatory action. PHMSA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this rule, and PHMSA has determined no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). PHMSA's Categorical Exclusion Determination memo for this action is available on PHMSA's website. 1

PHMSA analyzed this direct final 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 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, 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 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, 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:

Through this DFR, PHMSA is incorporating by reference an update to a voluntary, consensus industry technical standard already incorporated by reference within 49 CFR parts 192 and 195. Specifically, PHMSA is updating the referenced edition of industry standard ASTM A333/A333M, Standard Specification for Seamless and Welded Steel Pipe for Low-Temperature Service and Other Applications with Required Notch Toughness, to the 2024 edition (ASTM A333/A333M).

ASTM A333/A333M covers wall seamless and welded carbon and alloy steel pipe intended for use at low temperatures. It also specifies requirements for tensile tests, impact tests, hydrostatic tests, and nondestructive electric tests.

References to the 2024 edition of this standard will replace the existing references in § 192.113; Appendix B to part 192; and § 195.106(e) to ASTM A333/A333M-18, Standard Specification for Seamless and Welded Steel Pipe for Low-Temperature Service and Other Applications with Required Notch Toughness, approved November 1, 2018.

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 U.S.C. 272 (note)) directs Federal agencies to, “when practical and consistent with applicable laws, use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standard bodies instead of government-developed technical standards.” Consistent with that mandate, PHMSA incorporates more than 80 industry standards by reference into the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 190-199); however, many standards become outdated over time as new editions become available. 49 U.S.C. 60102( l ) directs PHMSA to update incorporated industry standards.

Updating this standard ensures better alignment of PHMSA's regulations with 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 evaluated the changes in the updated edition of ASTM A333/A333M and concluded it will either maintain or enhance the protection of public safety. These updates effectively mitigate safety gaps by incorporating innovations in equipment design, operational and maintenance practices, and testing, while addressing latent vulnerabilities that were historically unidentifiable due to the technical limitations of legacy data-gathering and monitoring capabilities. 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, codified at 49 U.S.C. 60102(p)), “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.” The standard incorporated in this direct final rule is available from the following website: https://www.astm.org/standards-and-solutions/standards-and-publications/reading-room. The material can also be obtained by interested parties through the applicable publisher contact information listed in §§ 192.7 and 195.3. Additional information regarding standards availability can be found at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards- rulemaking/pipeline/standards-incorporated-reference.

Commenting Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2026-1525 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 our docket at https://www.regulations.gov. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement by visiting 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 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 into its regulations—is unlikely to elicit significant adverse comment. See 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(A). PHMSA similarly finds that publication of a proposed rulemaking on which comment is solicited would be “unnecessary” pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) because this rulemaking merely adopts an updated version of an industry standard reflecting a broad consensus among affected industry stakeholders.

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” except where required by law or compelling safety need. 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 final rule 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 and determined that this direct final rule may result in minimal cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility operators. In general, updates to consensus industry standards are widely 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 the standard referenced in this direct final rule 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.

Updating to a more recent edition of the industry standard will ensure better alignment of PHMSA's regulations with innovations in operational and maintenance practices, equipment design, and testing. These updates address known safety risks, encourage facilities to invest in safety enhancing innovations, and improve public safety.

This direct final rule is considered a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the direct final rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor do the regulatory amendments 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.”

The President has declared in E.O. 14156, Declaring a National Energy Emergency, a National emergency to address inadequate U.S. 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 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 amendment 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, 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.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final 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 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 the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under the 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 (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule ( see 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)). PHMSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this DFR, so the RFA does not apply. However, PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs because the referenced standard is widely available for purchase at relatively low cost, most operators are already in compliance with the content of the referenced standard, and compliance costs for any remaining operators are expected to be negligible.

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 ($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 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.

PHMSA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Under section 9 of DOT Order 5610.1D (“DOT's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”), PHMSA may apply a categorical exclusion established in another Operating Administration's procedures. PHMSA followed the requirements outlined in DOT Order 5610.1D to apply a categorical exclusion issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to this deregulatory action. PHMSA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this rule, and PHMSA has determined no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). PHMSA's Categorical Exclusion Determination memo for this action is available on PHMSA's website. 1

PHMSA analyzed this direct final 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 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, 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 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, 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:

Through this DFR, PHMSA is incorporating by reference an update to a voluntary, consensus industry technical standard already incorporated by reference within the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations, 49 CFR parts 192 and 195. Specifically, PHMSA is updating the referenced edition of industry standard ASTM A53/A53M, Standard Specification for Pipe, Steel, Black and Hot-Dipped, Zinc-Coated, Welded and Seamless, to the 2024 edition (ASTM A53/A53M).

ASTM A53/A53M covers seamless and welded black and hot-dipped galvanized steel pipe in NPS 1/8 to NPS 26. The steel categorized in this standard must be open-hearth, basic-oxygen or electric-furnace processed and must have the following chemical requirements: carbon, manganese, phosphorus, sulfur, copper, nickel, chromium, molybdenum, and vanadium.

References to the 2024 edition of this standard will replace the existing references in § 192.113, Appendix B to part 192, and § 195.106(e) to ASTM A53/A53M-22, Standard Specification for Pipe, Steel, Black and Hot-Dipped, Zinc-Coated, Welded and Seamless, approved July 1, 2022. 1 While in July 2025, PHMSA updated this standard to the 2022 edition, further technical review supports further updating of the standard to the 2024 edition.

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 U.S.C. 272 (note)) directs Federal agencies to, “when practical and consistent with applicable laws, use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standard bodies instead of government-developed technical standards.” Consistent with that mandate, PHMSA incorporates more than 80 industry standards by reference into the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 190-199); however, many standards become outdated over time as new editions become available. 49 U.S.C. 60102( l ) directs PHMSA to update incorporated industry standards.

Updating this standard ensures better alignment of PHMSA's regulations with 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 evaluated the changes in the updated edition of ASTM A53/A53M and concluded it will either maintain or enhance the protection of public safety. These updates effectively mitigate safety gaps by incorporating innovations in equipment design, operational and maintenance practices, and testing, while addressing latent vulnerabilities that were historically unidentifiable due to the technical limitations of legacy data-gathering and monitoring capabilities. Indeed, PHMSA on July 1, 2025, published a direct final rule updating the reference within parts 192 and 195 to the 2022 edition of this standard after preliminarily finding the revisions in that edition enhanced pipeline safety (90 FR 28108); PHMSA's evaluation of the handful of changes introduced in the standard since 2022 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, codified at 49 U.S.C. 60102(p)), “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.” The standard incorporated in this direct final rule is available from the following website: https://www.astm.org/standards-and-solutions/standards-and-publications/reading-room. The material can also be obtained by interested parties through the applicable publisher contact information listed in §§ 192.7 and 195.3. Additional information regarding standards availability can be found at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/standards-incorporated-reference.

Commenting Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2026-1523 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 our docket at https://www.regulations.gov. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement by visiting 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 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 into its regulations—is unlikely to elicit significant adverse comment. See 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(A). PHMSA similarly finds that publication of a proposed rulemaking on which comment is solicited would be “unnecessary” pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) because this rulemaking merely adopts an updated version of an industry standard reflecting a broad consensus among affected industry stakeholders.

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” except where required by law or compelling safety need. 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 final rule 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 and determined that this direct final rule may result in minimal cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility operators. In general, updates to consensus industry standards are widely 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 the standard referenced in this direct final rule 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.

Updating to a more recent edition of the industry standard will ensure better alignment of PHMSA's regulations with innovations in operational and maintenance practices, equipment design, and testing. These updates address known safety risks, encourage facilities to invest in safety enhancing innovations, and improve public safety.

This direct final rule is considered a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the direct final rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor do the regulatory amendments 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.”

The President has declared in E.O. 14156, Declaring a National Energy Emergency, a National emergency to address inadequate U.S. 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 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 amendment 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, 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.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final 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 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 the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under the 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 (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule ( see 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)). PHMSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this DFR, so the RFA does not apply. However, PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs because the referenced standard is widely available for purchase at relatively low cost, most operators are already in compliance with the content of the referenced standard, and compliance costs for any remaining operators are expected to be negligible.

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 ($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 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.

PHMSA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Under section 9 of DOT Order 5610.1D (“DOT's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”), PHMSA may apply a categorical exclusion established in another Operating Administration's procedures. PHMSA followed the requirements outlined in DOT Order 5610.1D to apply a categorical exclusion issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to this deregulatory action. PHMSA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this rule, and PHMSA has determined no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). PHMSA's Categorical Exclusion Determination memo for this action is available on PHMSA's website. 2

PHMSA analyzed this direct final 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 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, 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 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, 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:

Through this DFR, PHMSA is incorporating by reference an update to a voluntary, consensus industry technical standard already incorporated by reference within 49 CFR part 195. Specifically, PHMSA is updating the referenced edition of industry standard ASME B31.4, Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquids and Slurries: ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31, to the 2022 edition (ASME 31.4).

ASME 31.4 prescribes requirements for the design, materials, construction, assembly, inspection, testing, operation, and maintenance of liquid pipeline systems between production fields or facilities, tank farms, above- or belowground storage facilities, natural gas processing plants, refineries, pump stations, ammonia plants, terminals (marine, rail, and truck), and other delivery and receiving points, as well as pipelines transporting liquids within pump stations, tank farms, and terminals associated with liquid pipeline systems. It also prescribes requirements for the design, materials, construction, assembly, inspection, testing, operation, and maintenance of piping transporting aqueous slurries of nonhazardous materials such as coal, mineral ores, concentrates, and other solid materials, between a slurry processing plant or terminal and a receiving plant or terminal.

A reference to the 2022 edition of this standard will replace the existing reference in § 195.110(a) to ASME B31.4-2019, “Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquids and Slurries: ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31,” issued November 1, 2019. 1 In parallel with updating in August 2025 regulatory references to this standard to the 2019 edition, PHMSA continued to review more recent editions of the standard for potential incorporation in its regulations. Based on that technical review, PHMSA now supports further updating of the standard to the 2022 edition.

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 U.S.C. 272 (note)) directs Federal agencies to, “when practical and consistent with applicable laws, use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standard bodies instead of government-developed technical standards.” Consistent with that mandate, PHMSA incorporates more than 80 industry standards by reference into the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 190-199); however, many standards become outdated over time as new editions become available. 49 U.S.C. 60102( l ) directs PHMSA to update incorporated industry standards.

Updating this standard ensures better alignment of PHMSA's regulations with 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 evaluated the changes in the updated edition of ASME B31.4 and concluded it will either maintain or enhance the protection of public safety. These updates effectively mitigate safety gaps by incorporating innovations in equipment design, operational and maintenance practices, and testing, while addressing latent vulnerabilities that were historically unidentifiable due to the technical limitations of legacy data-gathering and monitoring capabilities. Indeed, PHMSA on August 21, 2025, published a final rule updating the reference within part 195 to the 2019 edition of this standard after preliminarily finding the revisions in that edition enhanced pipeline safety (90 FR 40749); 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, codified at 49 U.S.C. 60102(p)), “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.”

As of the publication of this direct final rule, PHMSA was not able to reach a general agreement with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) to make the standards readily available online as ASME heavily relies on the revenue the standards generate. Individuals and organizations may access the ASME standard incorporated by reference in this direct final rule by contacting the PHMSA standards library at the following email address: phmsaphpstandards@dot.gov. Such requests should include a phone number, physical address, and an email address. The material can also be obtained by interested parties through the applicable publisher contact information listed in § 195.3. Additional information regarding standards availability can be found at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/standards-incorporated-reference.

Commenting Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2026-1535 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 our docket at https://www.regulations.gov. You may review DOT's Complete Privacy Act Statement by visiting 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 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 into its regulations—is unlikely to elicit significant adverse comment. See 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(A). PHMSA similarly finds that publication of a proposed rulemaking on which comment is solicited would be “unnecessary” pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) because this rulemaking merely adopts an updated version of an industry standard reflecting a broad consensus among affected industry stakeholders.

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” except where required by law or compelling safety need. 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 final rule 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 and determined that this direct final rule may result in minimal cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility operators. In general, updates to consensus industry standards are widely 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 the standard referenced in this direct final rule 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.

Updating to a more recent edition of the industry standard will ensure better alignment of PHMSA's regulations with innovations in operational and maintenance practices, equipment design, and testing. These updates address known safety risks, encourage facilities to invest in safety enhancing innovations, and improve public safety.

This direct final rule is considered a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the direct final rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor do the regulatory amendments 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.”

The President has declared in E.O. 14156, Declaring a National Energy Emergency, a National emergency to address inadequate U.S. 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 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, 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.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final 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 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 the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under the 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 (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule ( see 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)). PHMSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this DFR, so the RFA does not apply. However, PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs because the referenced standard is widely available for purchase at relatively low cost, most operators are already in compliance with the content of the referenced standard, and compliance costs for any remaining operators are expected to be negligible.

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 ($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 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.

PHMSA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Under section 9 of DOT Order 5610.1D (“DOT's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”), PHMSA may apply a categorical exclusion established in another Operating Administration's procedures. PHMSA followed the requirements outlined in DOT Order 5610.1D to apply a categorical exclusion issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to this deregulatory action. PHMSA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this rule, and PHMSA has determined no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). PHMSA's Categorical Exclusion Determination memo for this action is available on PHMSA's website. 2

PHMSA analyzed this direct final 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 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, 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 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, 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 195 as follows:

Through this DFR, PHMSA is incorporating by reference an update to a voluntary, consensus industry technical standard already incorporated by reference within 49 CFR part 195. Specifically, PHMSA is updating the referenced edition of industry standard MSS SP-75 High Strength, Wrought, Butt-Welding Fittings to the 2025 edition (MSS SP-75).

MSS SP-75 covers factory-made, seamless, and electric welded carbon and low alloy steel, butt welding fittings for use in high pressure gas and oil transmission and distribution systems, including pipelines, compressor stations, metering and regulating stations, and mains.

A reference to the 2025 edition of the standard will replace the existing reference in § 195.118(a) to MSS SP-75-2019 Standard Practice, High Strength, Wrought, Butt-Welding Fittings, published December 2019.

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 U.S.C. 272 (note)) directs Federal agencies to, “when practical and consistent with applicable laws, use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standard bodies instead of government-developed technical standards.” Consistent with that mandate, PHMSA incorporates more than 80 industry standards by reference into the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 190-199); however, many standards become outdated over time as new editions become available. 49 U.S.C. 60102( l ) directs PHMSA to update incorporated industry standards.

Updating these standards ensures better alignment of PHMSA's regulations with 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 evaluated the changes in the updated edition of MSS SP-75 and concluded it will either maintain or enhance the protection of public safety. These updates effectively mitigate safety gaps by incorporating innovations in equipment design, operational and maintenance practices, and testing, while addressing latent vulnerabilities that were historically unidentifiable due to the technical limitations of legacy data-gathering and monitoring capabilities. 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, codified at 49 U.S.C. 60102(p)), “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.” The standard incorporated in this direct final rule is available from the following website: https://ibr.ansi.org/Standards/mss.aspx. The material can also be obtained by interested parties through the applicable publisher contact information listed in § 195.3. Additional information regarding standards availability can be found at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/standards-incorporated-reference.

Commenting Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2026-1532 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 our docket at https://www.regulations.gov. You may review DOT's Complete Privacy Act Statement by visiting 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 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 into its regulations—is unlikely to elicit significant adverse comment. See 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(A). PHMSA similarly finds that publication of a proposed rulemaking on which comment is solicited would be “unnecessary” pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) because this rulemaking merely adopts an updated version of an industry standard reflecting a broad consensus among affected industry stakeholders.

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” except where required by law or compelling safety need. 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 final rule 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 and determined that this direct final rule may result in minimal cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility operators. In general, updates to consensus industry standards are widely 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 the standard referenced in this direct final rule 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.

Updating to a more recent edition of the standard will ensure better alignment of PHMSA's regulations with innovations in operational and maintenance practices, equipment design, and testing. These updates address known safety risks, encourage facilities to invest in safety enhancing innovations, and improve public safety.

This direct final rule is considered a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the direct final rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor do the regulatory amendments 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.”

The President has declared in E.O. 14156, Declaring a National Energy Emergency, a National emergency to address inadequate U.S. 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 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, 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.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final 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 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 the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under the 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 (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule ( see 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)). PHMSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this DFR, so the RFA does not apply. However, PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs because the referenced standard is widely available for purchase at relatively low cost, most operators are already in compliance with the content of the referenced standard, and compliance costs for any remaining operators are expected to be negligible.

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 ($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 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.

PHMSA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Under section 9 of DOT Order 5610.1D (“DOT's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”), PHMSA may apply a categorical exclusion established in another Operating Administration's procedures. PHMSA followed the requirements outlined in DOT Order 5610.1D to apply a categorical exclusion issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to this deregulatory action. PHMSA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this rule, and PHMSA has determined no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). PHMSA's Categorical Exclusion Determination memo for this action is available on PHMSA's website. 1

PHMSA analyzed this direct final 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 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, 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 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, 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 195 as follows:

Through this DFR, PHMSA is making corrections and clarifications to Appendix C to 49 CFR part 195. Appendix C provides guidance to operators for implementing integrity management (IM) requirements in §§ 195.450-195.454. This includes guidance on conditions an operator should consider when determining whether a hazardous liquid pipeline is located in or could-affect a High-Consequence Area (HCA), and therefore subject to IM requirements. It also includes guidance on identifying threats to the integrity of a pipeline.

This DFR finalizes revisions proposed in a prior deregulatory effort published in 2020 (85 FR 21140 (Apr. 16, 2020)) and addresses comments received in that proceeding. In response to a 2017 Notification of Regulatory Review (82 FR 45750 (Oct. 2, 2017)), stakeholders raised concerns with the guidance for considering the possibility of spilled product migrating via drainage tiles when determining whether a pipeline crossing an agricultural field could affect an HCA. In the same comment, stakeholders suggested that the guidance to consider physical support, operating pressure, and natural forces that are currently listed in the guidance for identifying HCAs should instead be listed with the guidance for identifying threats to pipeline integrity.

In the 2020 NPRM, PHMSA proposed to address these comments by clarifying that the recommended consideration of agricultural drainage tiles is based on information and knowledge available to the operator. PHMSA also proposed to relocate the guidance to consider the physical support of the pipeline, maximum operating pressure exceedances, and natural force damage caused by earth movement or seismicity from the guidance for identifying segments that could-affect HCAs in section I.B of Appendix C to the guidance on identifying threats in section II.A. Finally, PHMSA proposed to clarify at the beginning of Appendix C that the document provides non-binding guidance, but if an operator incorporates it into their IM program, then they would have to comply with it. Public comments submitted in response to the NPRM were generally supportive of clarifying guidance, however a group of stakeholders commented that PHMSA must emphasize the need for site-specific flexibility and that the appendix is non-enforceable guidance (Docket No. PHMSA-2018-0047-0029). This proposal was otherwise non-controversial.

To address concerns raised by comments in response to the 2020 NPRM, this DFR omits language from the 2020 NPRM that suggested that Appendix C became mandatory if an operator elects to incorporate it into their IM programs or operations and maintenance (O&M) manuals. Appendix C remains non-binding guidance. While an operator is required to follow their written O&M manuals and IM programs, incorporating portions of Appendix C does not make any other portion of that document enforceable, nor is an operator prohibited from modifying elements in Appendix C when they choose to adapt them to their facility's IM plan provided it meets the minimum requirements in Part 195.

Commenting Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2026-1520 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 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 are 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. PHMSA similarly finds that publication of a proposed rulemaking on which comment is solicited would be “unnecessary” pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) because this rulemaking merely adopts language previously recommended by stakeholders in response to a 2020 NPRM. Lastly, PHMSA notes that the amendments to Appendix C adopted in this rulemaking are more consistent with the non-binding character of that guidance to its IM regulations than alternative language that PHMSA had proposed in the 2020 NPRM.

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 direct final rule 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. In so doing, PHMSA has determined that this direct final rule will result in minimal cost savings by reducing regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility operators in developing and implementing their IM plans. The cost savings of this rulemaking could not be quantified because PHMSA lacks information on operators' baseline practices and how many fewer surveys would be required following this guidance. PHMSA also determined that this final rule will not have any adverse safety effects.

This final rule will be a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. 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.”

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 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 clarifies non-binding guidance and therefore the benefits are primarily from regulatory certainty. To the extent guidance regarding considering drainage tiles caused operators to survey for such facilities, revising that guidance will reduce costs for hazardous liquid pipeline operators. 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 petroleum, petroleum products, and other hazardous liquids 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, 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, and the Presidential Memorandum (“Preemption”) published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2009. 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 the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under the 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 (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule ( see 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)). PHMSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this DFR, so the RFA does not apply. However, PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs because the rule only makes clarifying changes to the non-binding guidance found in Appendix C; indeed, those clarifications generally reinforce that Appendix C guidance does not prescribe mandatory requirements. Therefore, PHMSA certifies that this DFR will not have a significant economic 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 ($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 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 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, 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 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, 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 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, directed 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 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 195 as follows:

In this final rule, PHMSA is making certain editorial corrections and non-substantive changes to the requirements for assessing newly identified unusually sensitive areas for low-stress pipelines in rural areas. Specifically, PHMSA is revising § 195.12(e)(1)(ii) to correct an erroneous citation that identifies when operators are required to complete baseline assessments. Section 195.12(e)(1)(ii) requires operators to complete the baseline assessment required by paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(C) or (c)(2)(iii)(C) of § 195.12, as appropriate, according to the schedule set forth in § 195.452(d)(3). Since § 195.452(d)(3) does not exist, PHMSA is revising § 195.12(e)(1)(ii) to correct the citation. Operators should complete their baseline assessments, as appropriate, according to the schedule set forth in § 195.452(d).

This 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 good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to issue this final rule without prior notice and comment. The regulatory citation listed in § 195.12(e)(1)(ii) that identifies when operators are required to complete baseline assessments is incorrect. PHMSA is simply revising the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations to correct the error. PHMSA finds that notice and comment is unnecessary because this revision is editorial in nature and does not impose any new requirements.

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” except where required by law or compelling safety need. 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 final rule 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. This final rule does not impose new burdens, as the changes made therein are non-substantive and do not impose new requirements in the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations. Similarly, the final rule does not have any adverse effects on safety.

This final rule is considered a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the rule on the regulated community will be de minimis. The non-substantive changes of this rulemaking do not impose any new requirements on pipeline operators and should improve the clarity and compliance with the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations. 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.”

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 finds this final rule is consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The final rule will correct an erroneous citation that specifies when an operator of a low-stress pipeline in a rural area, who identifies a new unusually sensitive area, must complete a baseline assessment. The provisions of this final rule are not substantive and will not impose new requirements on pipeline operators; they are intended to promote the ease of operators complying with the existing regulations.

This final 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 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.

PHMSA analyzed this final 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 final rule 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 the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under the 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 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 (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule ( see 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)). PHMSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule, so the RFA does not apply. However, PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs from the regulatory amendments introduced here, as they are editorial and non-substantive in nature.

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 ($203 million in 2024) 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 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.

PHMSA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Under section 9 of DOT Order 5610.1D (“DOT's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”), PHMSA may apply a categorical exclusion established in another Operating Administration's procedures. PHMSA followed the requirements outlined in DOT Order 5610.1D to apply a categorical exclusion issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to this deregulatory action. PHMSA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this rule, and PHMSA has determined no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). PHMSA's Categorical Exclusion Determination memo for this action is available on PHMSA's website. 1

PHMSA analyzed this final 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 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 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, 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 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, directs 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 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 195 as follows:

In this final rule, PHMSA is making certain editorial corrections and non-substantive changes to the safety-related condition reporting requirements in 49 CFR 195.56. Specifically, § 195.56(a) gives operators the option to file a safety-related condition report by email or by facsimile. PHMSA no longer allows operators to file a safety-related condition report by facsimile. PHMSA is therefore revising § 195.56(a) to remove all references to filing a safety-related condition report by facsimile. Safety-related condition reports must be filed by email to InformationResourcesManager@dot.gov. This correction will remove unnecessary delays in the process of operators filing a safety-related condition report.

This 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 good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to issue this final rule without prior notice and comment. PHMSA no longer accepts safety-related condition reports by facsimile and is simply revising the safety-related condition reporting requirements in § 195.56(a) to account for that fact. PHMSA finds that notice and comment is unnecessary because the facsimile number in § 195.56(a) is obsolete and serves no useful purpose.

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” except where required by law or compelling safety need. 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 final rule 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. This final rule does not impose new burdens. The changes made are not substantive and do not impose new requirements in the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations. Similarly, the final rule does not have any adverse effects on safety.

This final rule is considered a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the rule on the regulated community will be de minimis. This final rule requires operators to file a safety-related condition exclusively by email. The non-substantive changes of this rulemaking do not impose any new requirements on pipeline operators and should improve the clarity and compliance with the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations. 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.”

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 finds this final rule is consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The final rule will clarify how to file a safety-related condition report in accordance with § 195.56 by removing language pertaining to filing safety-related condition reports by facsimile. The provisions of this final rule are not substantive and will not impose new requirements on pipeline operators; they are intended to promote the ease of operators complying with the existing regulations.

This final 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 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.

PHMSA analyzed this final 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 final rule 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 the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under the 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 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 (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule ( see 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)). PHMSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule, so the RFA does not apply. However, PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs from the regulatory amendments introduced here, as they are editorial and non-substantive in nature.

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 ($203 million in 2024) 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 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.

PHMSA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Under section 9 of DOT Order 5610.1D (“DOT's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”), PHMSA may apply a categorical exclusion established in another Operating Administration's procedures. PHMSA followed the requirements outlined in DOT Order 5610.1D to apply a categorical exclusion issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to this deregulatory action. PHMSA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this rule, and PHMSA has determined no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). PHMSA's Categorical Exclusion Determination memo for this action is available on PHMSA's website. 1

PHMSA analyzed this final 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 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 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, 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 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, directs 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 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 195 as follows:

In this final rule, PHMSA is making certain editorial corrections and non-substantive changes to the accident reporting requirements for hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipeline facilities in the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 190-199). Specifically, § 195.52 requires operators of hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipeline facilities to provide immediate notice of certain accidents to the National Response Center (NRC) either by telephone or electronically. The NRC no longer allows operators to provide electronic incident notifications. PHMSA is therefore revising § 195.52(b) to remove all references to electronic NRC submissions. Operators must provide notices of accidents to the NRC by telephone to 800-424-8802 or, in Washington, DC, 202-267-2675. This correction will remove unnecessary delays in the process of operators reporting accidents to the NRC.

This 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. PHMSA has good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to issue this final rule without prior notice and comment. The NRC no longer accepts electronic notifications, and PHMSA is simply revising the accident reporting requirements in § 195.52(b) to account for that fact. PHMSA finds that notice and comment is unnecessary because the electronic notification provision in section 195.52(b) is obsolete and serves no useful purpose.

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” except where required by law or compelling safety need. 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 final rule 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. This final rule does not impose new burdens. The changes made are not substantive and do not impose new requirements in the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations. Similarly, the final rule does not have any adverse effects on safety.

This final rule is considered a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the rule on the regulated community will be de minimis. This final rule requires operators to notify the National Response Center (NRC) exclusively by telephone immediately following certain accidents. The non-substantive changes of this rulemaking do not impose any new requirements on pipeline operators and should improve the clarity and compliance with the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations. 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.”

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 finds this final rule is consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The final rule will clarify how to make immediate notice of accidents to the NRC by removing erroneous and obsolete references to electronic submissions. The provisions of this final rule are non-substantive and will not impose new requirements on pipeline operators; they are intended to promote the ease of operators complying with the existing regulations.

This final 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 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.

PHMSA analyzed this final 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 final rule 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 the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under the 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 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 (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule ( see 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)). PHMSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule, so the RFA does not apply. However, PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs from the regulatory amendments introduced here, as they merely align PHMSA regulations with current NRC practice of no longer accepting electronic notifications of incidents.

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 ($203 million in 2024) 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 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.

PHMSA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Under section 9 of DOT Order 5610.1D (“DOT's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”), PHMSA may apply a categorical exclusion established in another Operating Administration's procedures. PHMSA followed the requirements outlined in DOT Order 5610.1D to apply a categorical exclusion issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to this deregulatory action. PHMSA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this rule, and PHMSA has determined no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). PHMSA's Categorical Exclusion Determination memo for this action is available on PHMSA's website. 1

PHMSA analyzed this final 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 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 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 amend the instructions for notifying the NRC in the event of certain accidents. Accordingly, PHMSA intends to request a revision to the information collection under OMB Control Number 2137-0047.

E.O. 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, 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 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, directs 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 final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not materially affect the cybersecurity risk profile for pipeline facilities.

In this final rule, PHMSA is making an editorial correction to the requirements for pipelines on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Specifically, § 195.9 requires operators of pipelines on the OCS to identify the specific point at which operating responsibility transfers to a producing operator. In cases where adjoining operators have not agreed on a transfer point by September 15, 1998, § 195.9 states the Regional Director and the MMS Regional Supervisor will make a joint determination of the transfer point. The MMS, formally known as the Minerals Management Service, has since changed its name to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE. PHMSA is therefore revising the text in § 195.9 to reflect this change.

This 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 good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to issue this final rule without prior notice and comment. The MMS is now called BOEMRE and PHMSA is simply revising the requirements in § 195.9 to reflect this change. PHMSA finds that notice and comment is unnecessary because the reference to the MMS in § 195.9 is obsolete and serves no useful purpose.

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” except where required by law or compelling safety need. 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 final rule 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. This final rule does not impose new burdens. The changes made are not substantive and do not impose new requirements in the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations. Similarly, the final rule does not have any adverse effects on safety.

This final rule is considered a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the rule on the regulated community will be de minimis. The non-substantive changes of this rulemaking do not impose any new requirements on pipeline operators and should improve the clarity and compliance with the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations. 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.”

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 finds this final rule is consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The provisions of this final rule are non-substantive and will not impose new requirements on pipeline operators; they are intended to promote the ease of operators complying with the existing regulations.

This final 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 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.

PHMSA analyzed this final 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 final rule 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 the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under the 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 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 (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule ( see 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)). PHMSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule, so the RFA does not apply. However, PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs from the regulatory amendments introduced here, as they are editorial and non-substantive in nature.

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 ($203 million in 2024) 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 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.

PHMSA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Under section 9 of DOT Order 5610.1D (“DOT's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”), PHMSA may apply a categorical exclusion established in another Operating Administration's procedures. PHMSA followed the requirements outlined in DOT Order 5610.1D to apply a categorical exclusion issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to this deregulatory action. PHMSA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this rule, and PHMSA has determined no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). PHMSA's Categorical Exclusion Determination memo for this action is available on PHMSA's website. 1

PHMSA analyzed this final 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 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 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, 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 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, directs 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 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 195 as follows:

Consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025), and E.O. 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative (90 FR 10583, Feb. 25, 2025), and as described in more detail below, this rule updates FRA's railroad safety enforcement procedures and rules of practice to require electronic service of documents; establishes procedures to implement new authority regarding civil penalties for alleged Federal railroad safety violations; and makes other necessary administrative updates, such as correcting addresses.

On July 1, 2025, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed accounting for technological changes, conforming FRA's procedures for hazardous materials (hazmat) and non-hazmat assessments, aligning FRA's service provisions with those at other agencies, and helping agency operations to continue, without interruption, during emergencies. See 90 FR 28612.

As discussed in the NPRM, this rule also establishes procedures in part 209 to implement new authority regarding civil penalties provided in section 22418 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. 117-58 (Nov. 15, 2021), codified at 49 U.S.C. 21301(a). This statutory authority allows FRA to resolve administratively civil penalty assessments alleging violations under FRA's railroad safety authority.

FRA received two comments in response to the NPRM that sought clarification or changes to the proposed procedural requirements in part 209.

The Transportation Division of the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART-TD) asserted that electronic communications “cannot be relied upon for urgent communications,” and “transmission” should not be considered “receipt.”  1 SMART-TD noted hurdles such as “IT systems [that] block or reroute email,” “addresses go stale when workers change crafts or carriers,” and “spam filters bury critical notices.” SMART-TD suggested that FRA retain personal or certified-mail service for subpoenas and other documents. In response to these concerns, FRA is not modifying the rule text but notes that issues pertaining to the accuracy of addresses may exist regardless of the method of service and emphasizes that personal or certified-mail service remain options if electronic service is not available.

In addition, SMART-TD noted concern with the NPRM's discussion of individual liability civil penalty actions. Though FRA acknowledges these concerns, the policy stated in the proposal regarding FRA's individual liability policy is almost entirely verbatim from the existing appendix A. FRA did not propose to modify the standard for individual liability actions in this rule, nor does FRA find modifying this language appropriate.

Moreover, SMART-TD requested that FRA extend the amount of time to respond to a demand letter, from 60 days, as proposed in subpart G, to 90 days, and that FRA provide the entire evidentiary record with the demand letter. In response, FRA notes that as a matter of practice, FRA has requested a response within 60 days to each notice of alleged violation of railroad safety regulations and this rule merely formalizes that period for response. In comparison, for hazmat violations (part 209, subpart B) respondents are provided 30 days to respond to a notice of probable violation (NOPV). FRA finds that the 60 days allotted in these procedures is sufficient time for a respondent to acknowledge receipt of a letter of alleged violation, at a minimum, and should additional time be necessary, the agency will allow an extension of time for cause stated. See section 209.607(b). FRA also notes that along with the demand letter, FRA will provide (as it has always done) supporting evidence of the alleged violation(s), to include a violation report, inspection report, and other relevant exhibits, such as photographs and railroad records, as applicable.

SMART-TD took issue with FRA's proposal to have hearing officers designated by the Office of the Chief Counsel, as the same office prosecutes cases. FRA notes in response that the new subpart G procedures regarding administrative hearings for rail safety cases mimics the procedures currently located in subpart B regarding hazmat cases. A hearing officer designated by the Office of the Chief Counsel is independent from the personnel prosecuting the substantive violation(s), and different Offices within the Office of the Chief Counsel perform different functions (the Office of Safety Law handles enforcement prosecution, whereas the Office of General Law handles the hearing officer function for the Office). A designated hearing officer in the Office of General Law is not involved in any rail safety enforcement activity and operates independently from all Safety Law functions, including enforcement activities. There is already established Department of Transportation policy to ensure the appropriate separation of functions during administrative enforcement proceedings; “[i]t is in the public interest and fundamental to good government that the Department carry out its enforcement responsibilities in a fair and just manner.”  2

Finally, SMART-TD asked FRA to provide “secure, accessible systems for electronic submissions.” FRA notes that email is a standard method of communication, and submissions can be protected through encryption, in addition to routine technological safeguards. Any party making an electronic filing under this rule is encouraged to do so through secure means. For example, a party can select to encrypt and/or password protect the filing using an email provider of the party's choice. FRA does not find it necessary to modify the rule in response to this concern.

Separately, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) submitted a comment regarding the procedural requirements proposed in subpart G. 3 Specifically, AAR stated that the NPRM “(like the existing hazmat civil penalty rule it mirrors) is ambiguous, and one possible interpretation of the rule would complicate the process and place additional burdens upon railroads by creating an unnecessary paperwork requirement.” To address this asserted ambiguity, AAR recommends that FRA clarify that the written response and the request for a conference are available independently and requests that FRA modify language in section 209.611(b). Overall, AAR emphasized that FRA should “allow for continued use of consolidated annual submissions for penalty mitigation” and clarify the framework.

In response to AAR's comment, FRA has modified section 209.611 as recommended and clarifies that with the new process outlined in part 209, FRA did not intend to alter the typical process for Class 1 railroad carriers and other larger respondents that discuss numerous cases during consolidated annual settlement conferences. Moreover, FRA did not intend to require a form letter to be submitted for each case within 60 days to acknowledge receipt and deferring the informal conference. FRA is not modifying the similar provisions in part 209, subpart B, at this time, as changes to those hazmat procedures were not previously proposed in this rulemaking.

For more information, please review the SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS below.

Unless noted otherwise, please refer to the discussion in the NPRM, as FRA has generally adopted the rule text as proposed. See 90 FR 28613-28615.

FRA adopts these provisions as proposed in the NPRM. 90 FR 28613.

FRA adopts this provision as proposed in the NPRM. 90 FR 28613. Though SMART-TD suggested that FRA should retain the “in person” method of service, FRA notes that “in person” service remains available for subpoenas. FRA has determined that electronic service should be sufficient in most cases, and “in person” service should only be relied on in rare circumstances ( i.e., when electronic service is impossible).

FRA adopts these provisions as proposed in the NPRM. 90 FR 28613, 28614.

FRA adopts this provision as proposed in the NPRM. 90 FR 28614.

While FRA generally adopts § 209.109(b) as proposed in the NPRM, 90 FR 28614, subsequent to the publication of the NPRM, FRA moved to electronic-only methods for payments and receipts made to or from FRA consistent with E.O. 14247, “Modernizing Payments To and From America's Bank Account,” issued on March 25, 2025. Thus, FRA is amending § 209.109(a) to remove the mailing and overnight delivery addresses for payments and directs payment to be made through https://www.pay.gov/ instead.

FRA adopts these provisions as proposed in the NPRM. 90 FR 28614.

FRA amends 49 CFR part 209 by adding a new subpart G, Enforcement, Hearing, and Appeal Procedures for Rail Safety Violations, generally as proposed in the NPRM, 90 FR 28614, but with minor modifications as described below.

FRA adopts this provision as proposed in the NPRM. 90 FR 28614.

FRA adopts these provisions generally as proposed in the NPRM. 90 FR 28614. FRA is making minor formatting changes in § 209.603 and § 209.605(c) to reflect comments from the Office of the Federal Register on similar language in other penalty provisions in other parts of the CFR.

FRA adopts this provision as proposed in the NPRM. 90 FR 28614.

FRA adopts § 209.609(b) as proposed in the NPRM but modifies § 209.609(a) to mirror the changes to § 209.109(a) in this rule to remove the mailing and overnight delivery addresses for payments originally proposed and directs payment to be made through https://www.pay.gov / instead.

Section 209.611 explains the process for how a respondent may respond informally to a demand letter. As discussed above, in response to AAR's comment, FRA is modifying the language in this section to clarify that the written response and the request for a conference are available independently. FRA is adding the word “written” in the phrase “informal written response” in paragraph (a). FRA is striking the sentence in proposed section 209.611(b) “[u]pon receipt of such a request, the Office of the Chief Counsel arranges for a conference as soon as practicable,” and is modifying the language to read “Instead of or in addition to an informal written response as described in paragraph (a), an informal response may consist of a request for a conference.” Overall, FRA expresses its intent to continue use of consolidated annual submissions for penalty mitigation and conferences with railroads covering more than one case.

FRA adopts these provisions and language as proposed in the NPRM. 90 FR 28614, 28615.

FRA has considered the impact of this final rule under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.

FRA analyzed the potential costs and benefits of this final rule. This final rule will allow electronic methods of serving documents, such as email, whenever possible. This will expedite the speed at which documents are delivered while also reducing costs that would otherwise exist from having to print and mail documents. In addition, this rule makes miscellaneous changes such as reflecting updated web and email addresses. This rule will reduce burdens on regulated entities and provide some qualitative benefits to regulated entities and the U.S. government, by clarifying, simplifying, and updating the language of part 209.

E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  4 Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 5

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This final rule will have total costs less than zero, and therefore it will be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance of this final rule. FRA affirms that each amendment proposed in this final rule has a cost that is negligible or “less than zero” consistent with E.O. 14192.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 ((RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) and E.O. 13272 (67 FR 53461, Aug. 16, 2002), Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking, requires an agency to prepare and make available to the public a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental 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. This final rule will not preclude small entities from continuing existing practices that comply with part 209; it merely offers clarification that could result in cost savings, if a small entity or other regulated entity chooses to utilize the flexibilities. Consequently, FRA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule offers regulatory flexibilities, and it contains no new collection of information requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., therefore, an information collection submission to OMB is not required.

FRA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 4336 and DOT NEPA Order 5610.1D, FRA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). This rulemaking is not anticipated to result in any environmental impacts, and there are no unusual or extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

This final rule will not have a substantial 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. Thus, in accordance with E.O. 13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not warranted.

This final rule will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more, adjusted for inflation, in any one year by State, local, or Indian Tribal governments, or the private sector. Thus, consistent with section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1532), FRA is not required to prepare a written statement detailing the effect of such an expenditure.

E.O. 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use, requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.”  6 FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with E.O. 13211 and determined that this final rule is not a “significant energy action” within the meaning of E.O. 13211.

FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, Nov. 6, 2000). The final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply, and a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. This final rule is purely domestic in nature and is not expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the United States.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends part 209 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

(c) * * *

(3) Are in a position to direct the commission of violations of any of the requirements of parts 213 through 299 of this title, or any of the requirements of 49 U.S.C. ch. 51, or any regulation or order prescribed thereunder.