Proposed Rule2025-12128
Pipeline Safety: Harmonize Class Location Change Pressure Test Requirements With Subpart J Pressure Test Requirements
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 1, 2025
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Abstract
PHMSA is proposing to revise the regulation for confirming or revising the maximum allowable operating pressure following a class location change to clarify that owners and operators of gas pipeline facilities can use to satisfy that requirement certain pressure tests authorized by subpart J of part 192 for small segments of pipe.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 124 (Tuesday, July 1, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 124 (Tuesday, July 1, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28600-28603]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-12128]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 192
[Docket No. PHMSA-2025-0116]
RIN 2137-AF86
Pipeline Safety: Harmonize Class Location Change Pressure Test
Requirements With Subpart J Pressure Test Requirements
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: PHMSA is proposing to revise the regulation for confirming or
revising the maximum allowable operating pressure following a class
location change to clarify that owners and operators of gas pipeline
facilities can use to satisfy that requirement certain pressure tests
authorized by subpart J of part 192 for small segments of pipe.
DATES: Persons interested in submitting written comments on this
proposed rule must do so by September 2, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Docket Number
PHMSA-2025-0116 using any of the following methods:
E-Gov Web: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. This site allows the public
to enter comments on any Federal Register notice issued by any agency.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Docket Management System: U.S. Department of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery: U.S. DOT Docket Management System: West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
For commenting instructions and additional information about
commenting, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Jagger, Senior Transportation
Specialist, by telephone at 202-366-4361 or by email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#daa8b5b8bfa8aef4b0bbbdbdbfa89abeb5aef4bdb5ac"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f98b969b9c8b8dd793989e9e9c8bb99d968dd79e968f">[email protected]</span></a>.
I. General Discussion
PHMSA proposes amending the requirement at Sec. 192.611(a)(1) for
confirming or revising the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP)
of gas pipelines where the hoop stress corresponding to the established
MAOP of a segment of pipeline is not commensurate with the present
class location. Currently, Sec. 192.611(a)(1) states that any pipeline
segment involved in a class location change that has been previously
tested in place for a period of not less than 8 hours must follow
certain requirements to confirm or revise the MAOP of that segment.
PHMSA adopted the 8-hour pressure test duration requirement in Sec.
192.611(a)(1) in the early 1970s based
[[Page 28601]]
on the provisions in a then-current edition of a consensus industry
standard, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Standard B31.8
``Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems'' (35 FR 13248 (Aug.
19, 1970)). PHMSA's regulations elsewhere at Sec. 192.505 authorize
the use of a 4-hour pressure test for short or prefabricated pipeline
segments if an 8-hour, post-installation test is impractical. These
short or prefabricated pipeline segments generally present a lower risk
to public safety, which justifies the shorter pressure testing interval
at the time of installation.
The current language governing the 8-hour pressure testing
requirement in Sec. 192.611(a)(1) prevents operators from using an
otherwise valid 4-hour test to confirm or revise the MAOP of a segment
following a change in class location. To the extent that such a
conflict exists, prohibiting operators from using a valid pressure test
to confirm or revise the MAOP of a segment is not consistent with the
intent of the pressure testing requirement in Sec. 192.611(a)(1).
For more than five decades, Sec. 192.505(d) has allowed operators
to conduct pre-installation strength tests of fabricated units and
short sections of pipe for which a post-installation test is
impractical by maintaining the pressure at or above the test pressure
for at least 4 hours. That requirement has proven its safety value
since its adoption. Indeed, PHMSA recently expanded the use of 4-hour
pressure testing duration requirements to additional provisions in the
Pipeline Safety Regulations (86 FR 2210, 2233 (Jan. 21, 2021)).
Operational experience with subpart J-compliant pipe demonstrates an 8-
hour test duration is not essential to evaluating the mechanical
strength of a pipeline undergoing a class change pursuant to Sec.
192.611(a)(1).
Moreover the language at Sec. 192.611(a)(1) confronts operators
with a dilemma: incur additional compliance costs (and safety risks)
associated with an 8-hour pressure test or assume the risk that PHMSA
will enforce the apparent violation of Sec. 192.611(a)(1) by relying
on shorter, subpart J-compliant pressure testing. There is no reason
that operators should be faced with that dilemma. PHMSA therefore has
preliminarily concluded that the regulatory amendment proposed in this
NPRM will reduce burdens on operators without adversely affecting
safety.
Commenting
Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2025-0116 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Note: Comments are posted without changes or edits to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, including any personal information provided.
There is a privacy statement published on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 United States Code (U.S.C.)
553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its rulemaking
process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal
information the commenter provides, to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, as
described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can
be reviewed at <a href="https://www.dot.gov/privacy">https://www.dot.gov/privacy</a>.
Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business
Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both
customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from
public disclosure. It is important that you clearly designate the
comments submitted as CBI if: your comments responsive to this document
contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated
as private; you actually treat such information as private; and your
comment is relevant or responsive to this notice. Pursuant to 49 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) 190.343, you may ask PHMSA to provide
confidential treatment to information you give to the agency by taking
the following steps: (1) mark each page of the original document
submission containing CBI as ``Confidential''; (2) send PHMSA, along
with the original document, a second copy of the original document with
the CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the information that you are
submitting is CBI. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Robert
Jagger, PHP-30, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), 2nd Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-
0001, or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cbb9a4a9aeb9bfe5a1aaacacaeb98bafa4bfe5aca4bd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b5c7dad7d0c7c19bdfd4d2d2d0c7f5d1dac19bd2dac3">[email protected]</span></a>. 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the docket. Alternatively, you may review
the documents in person at the street address listed above.
II. Regulatory Analysis and Notices
A. Legal Authority
This proposed rule is published under the authority of the
Secretary of Transportation set forth in the Federal Pipeline Safety
Laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.) and delegated to the PHMSA Administrator
pursuant to 49 CFR 1.97.
B. Executive Order 12866; Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'';
58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)) as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B
(``Policies and Procedures for Rulemaking''), requires agencies to
regulate in the ``most cost-effective manner,'' to make a ``reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its
costs,'' and to develop regulations that ``impose the least burden on
society.'' DOT Order 2100.6B specifies that regulations should
generally ``not be issued unless their benefits are expected to exceed
their costs.'' In arriving at those conclusions, E.O. 12866 requires
that agencies should consider ``both quantifiable measures . . . and
qualitative measures of costs and benefits that are difficult to
quantify'' and ``maximize net benefits . . . unless a statute requires
another regulatory approach.'' E.O. 12866 also requires that ``agencies
should assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating.'' DOT Order
2100.6B directs that PHMSA and other Operating Administrations must
generally choose the ``least costly regulatory alternative that
achieves the relevant objectives'' unless required by law or compelling
safety need.
E.O. 12866 and DOT Order 2100.6B also require that PHMSA submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the
President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This
proposed rule is a not significant regulatory action pursuant to E.O.
12866; it also has not designated this rule as a ``major rule'' as
defined by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.).
PHMSA has complied with the requirements in E.O. 12866 as
implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B and expects the proposed rule will
result in cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory
uncertainty for pipeline facility
[[Page 28602]]
operators by clarifying the regulations for confirming or revising the
MAOP of gas pipeline facilities following a change in class location.
PHMSA expects these cost savings would be realized by the public to
whom pipeline operators generally transfer a portion of their
compliance costs. The cost savings of this rulemaking could not be
quantified.
C. Executive Orders 14192 and 14219
This proposed rule would be a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O.
14192 (``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation''; (90 FR 9065
(Feb. 6, 2025)). PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the rulemaking
on the regulated community would be less than zero. Nor does this
rulemaking implicate any of the factors identified in section 2(a) of
E.O. 14219 (``Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the
President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory
Initiative'') indicative that a regulation is ``unlawful . . . [or]
that undermine[s] the national interest.'' (90 FR 10583 (Feb. 25,
2025).
D. Energy-Related Executive Orders 13211, 14154, and 14156
The President has declared in E.O. 14156 (``Declaring a National
Energy Emergency''; (90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) a national emergency
to address America's inadequate energy development production,
transportation, refining, and generation capacity. Similarly, E.O.
14154 (``Unleashing American Energy,'' (90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025))
asserts a Federal policy to unleash American energy by ensuing access
to abundant supplies of reliable, affordable energy from (inter alia)
the removal of ``undue burden[s]'' on the identification, development,
or use of domestic energy resources such as PHMSA-jurisdictional gasses
and hazardous liquids. PHMSA preliminarily finds this rulemaking is
consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. This proposal herein
would give affected pipeline operators greater flexibility in pressure
testing methods associated with reconfirming or revising MAOP following
a class location change. PHMSA therefore expects the proposed
regulatory amendments will in turn increase national pipeline
transportation capacity and improve pipeline operators' ability to
provide abundant, reliable, affordable natural gas in response to
residential, commercial, and industrial demand.
However, this proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action''
under E.O. 13211 (``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use''; (66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001)), which requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of
Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' Because this
proposed rule is not a significant action under E.O. 12866, it would
not have a significant adverse effect on supply, distribution, or
energy use, as further discussed in the Regulatory Impact Analysis;
OIRA has therefore not designated this NPRM as a significant energy
action.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
PHMSA analyzed this NPRM in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in E.O. 13132 (``Federalism''; 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10,
1999)) and the Presidential Memorandum (``Preemption'') published in
the Federal Register on May 22, 2009 (74 FR 24693). E.O. 13132 requires
agencies to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local
officials in the development of regulatory policies that may have
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
While this NPRM's proposal may operate to preempt some State
requirements, it would not impose any regulation that has substantial
direct effects on the States, the relationship between the National
Government and the States, or the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Section
60104(c) of Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety
regulation of interstate pipelines. Under Federal Pipeline Safety Laws,
States that have submitted a current certification under section
60105(a) can augment Federal pipeline safety requirements for
intrastate pipelines regulated by PHMSA but may not approve safety
requirements less stringent than those required by Federal law. A State
may also regulate an intrastate pipeline facility that PHMSA does not
regulate. The preemptive effect of the proposed regulatory amendments
would be limited to the minimum level necessary to achieve the
objectives of the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws. Therefore, the
consultation and funding requirements of E.O. 13132 do not apply.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA) for a rulemaking subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking under
the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 500 et seq.) unless the
agency head certifies that the proposed rule in the rulemaking will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. E.O. 13272 (``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking''; 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002)) obliges agencies to
establish procedures promoting compliance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. DOT posts its implementing guidance on a dedicated web
page. This NPRM was developed in accordance with E.O. 13272 and DOT
implementing guidance to ensure compliance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. PHMSA expects the NPRM's proposals will relieve
regulatory burdens and therefore certifies it will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
requires agencies to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions
on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector. For
any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may
result in the expenditure by state, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) in any given
year, the agency must prepare, amongst other things, a written
statement that qualitatively and quantitatively assesses the costs and
benefits of the Federal mandate.
This NPRM would 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.
H. National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) requires that Federal agencies assess and consider the impact of
major Federal actions on the human and natural environment.
PHMSA analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with NEPA and
issues this draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), as it has
preliminarily determined that the rulemaking would not adversely affect
safety and therefore will not significantly affect the quality of the
human and natural environment.
I. Executive Order 13175
PHMSA analyzed this proposed rule according to the principles and
criteria in E.O. 13175 (``Consultation and
[[Page 28603]]
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''; 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9,
2000)) and DOT Order 5301.1A (``Department of Transportation Tribal
Consultation Polices and Procedures''). E.O. 13175 requires agencies to
assure meaningful and timely input from Tribal government
representatives in the development of rules that significantly or
uniquely affect Tribal communities by imposing ``substantial direct
compliance costs'' or ``substantial direct effects'' on such
communities or the relationship or distribution of power between the
Federal Government and Tribes.
PHMSA assessed the impact of this proposed rule and preliminarily
determined that it would not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal
communities or Indian Tribal governments. The rulemaking's regulatory
amendments have a broad, national scope; therefore, the NPRM would not
significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities, much less impose
substantial compliance costs on Native American Tribal governments or
mandate Tribal action. For these reasons, PHMSA has concluded that the
funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 and DOT Order
5301.1A do not apply.
J. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and its
implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d) requires that PHMSA provide
interested members of the public and affected agencies with an
opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping
requests. This rulemaking will not create, amend, or rescind any
existing information collections.
K. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis
E.O. 13609 (``Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation''; 77
FR 26413 (May 4, 2012)) requires agencies consider whether the impacts
associated with significant variations between domestic and
international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the
ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In
meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation
can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that
are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation.
International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or
prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.
Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as
amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465),
prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging
in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements,
Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international
standards, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic
objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude
imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that
they be the basis for U.S. standards.
PHMSA engages with international standards setting bodies to
protect the safety of the American public. PHMSA has assessed the
effects of this proposed rule and has determined that its regulatory
amendments will not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade.
L. Cybersecurity and Executive Order 14028
E.O. 14028 (``Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity''; 86 FR 26633
(May 17, 2021)) directed the Federal Government to improve its efforts
to identify, deter, and respond to ``persistent and increasingly
sophisticated malicious cyber campaigns.'' PHMSA has considered the
effects of this rulemaking and has determined that its regulatory
amendments would not materially affect the cybersecurity risk profile
for pipeline facilities.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 192
Pipelines, pipeline safety, Natural gas.
In consideration of the foregoing, PHMSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 192 as follows:
PART 192--TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY PIPELINE:
MINIMUM FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for part 192 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 185(w)(3), 49 U.S.C. 5121, 60101 et seq.,
and 49 CFR 1.97.
0
2. Amend Sec. 192.611 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 192.611 Change in class location: Confirmation or revision of
maximum allowable operating pressure.
(a) * * *
(1) If the segment involved has been previously tested in place for
a period of not less than 8 hours or received a pre-installation
strength test for a period of at least 4 hours pursuant to Sec.
192.505(d):
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 26, 2025, under the authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Benjamin D. Kochman,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2025-12128 Filed 6-27-25; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 1, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.