Proposed Rule2025-12132

Pipeline Safety: Rationalize Special Permit Conditions

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 clarify that the conditions in a special permit must relate directly and substantially to the requirement in the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations that an applicant is seeking to waive.

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 28590-28593]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-12132]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 190

[Docket No. PHMSA-2025-0135; Amdt. No. 190-22]
RIN 2137-AF81


Pipeline Safety: Rationalize Special Permit Conditions

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: PHMSA is proposing to clarify that the conditions in a special 
permit must relate directly and substantially to the requirement in the 
Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations that an applicant is seeking to 
waive.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 2, 2025.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Docket Number 
PHMSA-2025-0135 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: Sayler Palabrica, Transportation 
Specialist, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202-744-
0825, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1d6e7c6471786f336d7c717c7f6f747e7c5d797269337a726b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4734263e2b22356937262b2625352e24260723283369202831">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Discussion

    Congress has authorized PHMSA to issue an order to the owner or 
operator of a pipeline facility waiving compliance with any standard 
prescribed in the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations ``on terms 
[PHMSA] considers appropriate if [PHMSA] determines that the waiver is 
not inconsistent with pipeline safety.'' 49 U.S.C. 60118(c)(1)(A), 
(c)(2)(A). PHMSA can issue these waivers either on an emergency basis, 
provided certain conditions are met, or a non-emergency basis. 49 
U.S.C. 60118(c)(1) and (2). If a waiver is granted, PHMSA must state 
the reasons in the order for providing that relief. 49 U.S.C. 
60118(c)(3).
    Congress has also authorized state authorities with a certification 
or agreement with PHMSA to issue orders to owners or operators of 
intrastate pipeline facilities ``waiv[ing] compliance with a safety 
standard to which the certification or agreement applies in the same 
way and to the same extent'' as PHMSA. 49 U.S.C. 60118(d). To issue 
such a waiver, the state authority ``must give [PHMSA] written notice . 
. . at least 60 days before its effective date.'' 49 U.S.C. 60118(d). 
``If [PHMSA] makes a written objection before the effective date of the 
waiver, the waiver is stayed'' until PHMSA makes a final decision. 49 
U.S.C. 60118(d).
    PHMSA refers to these congressionally authorized waivers as 
``special permits'' and has codified procedures for the issuance of the 
same in 49 CFR 190.341. The procedures address, among other things, the 
information that must be contained in a special permit application; the 
process that PHMSA follows in deciding whether to grant, deny, or renew 
a special permit; and the circumstances where PHMSA may seek to revoke, 
suspend, or modify a special permit. 49 CFR 190.341. In addition, the 
procedures generally state that if a special permit is granted, 
``[c]onditions may be imposed . . . if [PHMSA] concludes they are 
necessary to assure safety, environmental protection, or are otherwise 
in the public interest.'' 49 CFR 190.341(d)(2).
    Experience has shown that the current language in the special 
permit procedures provides too much discretion to PHMSA in determining 
the conditions that should be included in granting a waiver. PHMSA has 
in the past often imposed conditions that are not directly, or even 
substantially, related to the requirement in the Federal Pipeline 
Safety Regulations that the applicant asked to be waived. As a result 
of that historical practice, owners and operators of pipeline 
facilities are unable to predict what types of conditions will be 
accepted by or imposed by PHMSA in granting a special permit. These 
uncertain and inconsistent outcomes also discourage owners and 
operators from applying for special permits or from proposing 
conditions to address directly potential risks in their applications.
    PHMSA's historical practice has impeded the agency's ability to 
modernize the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations to accommodate 
innovative technologies and practices as well. Special permits can 
serve as a proving ground for evaluating such technologies and 
practices for potential adoption by regulation under PHMSA's continuing 
oversight.
    Multiple external stakeholders have called on PHMSA to improve 
alignment between the regulatory provisions being waived and special 
permit conditions. In response to a request for information on 
deregulation (90 FR 14593 (Apr. 3, 2025)), the Interstate Natural Gas 
Association of America (INGAA) criticized PHMSA's practice of adopting 
special permits containing ``numerous'' conditions (Docket No. DOT-OST-
2025-0026-0872 (May 5, 2025)). Other pipeline industry trade 
associations have echoed that criticism, calling on Congress to act to 
limit PHMSA's imposition of special permit conditions ``unrelated'' to 
the regulatory provision being waived. Members of Congress have 
responded to those concerns, echoing interest in streamlining special 
permit conditions in their public

[[Page 28591]]

statements and draft legislation introduced, for example, through the 
Promoting Innovation in Pipeline Efficiency and Safety Act of 2023.
    To address these concerns, PHMSA is proposing to amend Sec.  
190.341 to impose a limitation on the types of conditions that can be 
included special permits. The proposal would require that such 
conditions be directly and substantially related to the provision in 
the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations being waived. PHMSA does not 
expect that the proposed revisions would have any adverse effect on 
pipeline safety.

Commenting

    Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2025-0135 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 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a6d5c7dfcac3d488d6c7cac7c4d4cfc5c7e6c2c9d288c1c9d0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c1b2a0b8ada4b3efb1a0ada0a3b3a8a2a081a5aeb5efa6aeb7">[email&#160;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="http://www.regulations.gov">http://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 NPRM 
is not a 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 made a preliminary determination 
that this proposed rule will result in cost savings by reducing 
regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility 
operators by reducing barriers to the acceptance of special permits. 
PHMSA expects those cost savings will also result in reduced costs for 
the public to whom pipeline operators generally transfer a portion of 
their compliance costs. The cost savings of this rulemaking could not 
be quantified.

C. Executive Orders 14192 and 14219

    This NPRM is expected to be a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 
14192 (``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation''; (90 FR 9065 
(Feb. 6, 2025)). PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the NPRM on 
the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor does this 
rulemaking implicate any of the factors identified in section 2(a) of 
E.O. 14219 (``Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the 
President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory 
Initiative'') indicative that a regulation is ``unlawful . . . [or] 
that undermine[s] the national interest.'' (90 FR 10583 (Feb. 25, 
2025).

D. Energy-Related Executive Orders 13211, 14154, and 14156

    The President has declared in E.O. 14156 (``Declaring a National 
Energy Emergency''; (90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) a national emergency 
to address America's inadequate energy development production, 
transportation, refining, and generation capacity. Similarly, E.O. 
14154 (``Unleashing American Energy,'' (90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) 
asserts a Federal policy to unleash American energy by ensuing access 
to abundant supplies of reliable, affordable energy from (inter alia) 
the removal of ``undue burden[s]'' on the identification, development, 
or use of domestic energy resources such as PHMSA-jurisdictional gasses 
and hazardous liquids. PHMSA preliminarily finds this NPRM is

[[Page 28592]]

consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The proposed rule 
(if finalized) will give affected pipeline operators a more efficient 
process for requesting waivers for pipeline safety requirements. PHMSA 
therefore expects the proposed regulatory amendments herein would in 
turn increase national pipeline transportation capacity and improve 
pipeline operators' ability to provide abundant, reliable, affordable 
natural gas and hazardous liquid products in response to residential, 
commercial, and industrial demand.
    However, this proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' 
under E.O. 13211 (``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly 
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use''; (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 
2001)), which requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of 
Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' Because this 
proposed rule is not a significant action under E.O. 12866, it will not 
have a significant adverse effect on supply, distribution, or energy 
use; 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 the amendments proposed in this NPRM may operate to preempt 
some State requirements, they would not have 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 in this NPRM is limited to the 
minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of the Federal 
Pipeline Safety Laws. Therefore, the consultation and funding 
requirements of E.O. 13132 do not apply.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
Federal agencies to conduct a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA) for 
a rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking under the 
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 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. The proposed rule is expected to reduce regulatory 
burdens. Therefore, PHMSA certifies the proposed rulemaking 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 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) 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 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.

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 has 
preliminarily determined that the rulemaking should not adversely 
affect safety and therefore will not significantly affect the quality 
of the human and natural environment. The public is invited to comment 
on the impact of the proposed action.

I. Executive Order 13175

    PHMSA analyzed this NPRM according to the principles and criteria 
in Consultation and DOT Order 5301.1A (``Department of Transportation 
Tribal Consultation Polices and Procedures''). E.O. 13175 requires 
agencies to assure meaningful and timely input from Tribal government 
representatives in the development of rules that significantly or 
uniquely affect Tribal communities by imposing ``substantial direct 
compliance costs'' or ``substantial direct effects'' on such 
communities or the relationship or distribution of power between the 
Federal Government and Tribes.
    PHMSA assessed the impact of the NPRM and preliminarily determined 
that it will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities or 
Indian Tribal governments. The rulemaking's proposed regulatory 
amendments have a broad, national scope; therefore, it 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 preliminarily 
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

[[Page 28593]]

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 NPRM and has preliminarily determined that its proposed 
regulatory amendments would not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign 
trade.

L. Cybersecurity and Executive Order 14028

    E.O. 14028 (``Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity''; 86 FR 26633 
(May 17, 2021)) directed the Federal government to improve its efforts 
to identify, deter, and respond to ``persistent and increasingly 
sophisticated malicious cyber campaigns.'' PHMSA has considered the 
effects of the NPRM rule and has determined that its proposed 
regulatory amendments would not materially affect the cybersecurity 
risk profile for pipeline facilities.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 190

    Pipeline Safety.

    For the reasons set forth above, PHMSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
part 190 as follows:

PART 190--TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY PIPELINE: 
MINIMUM FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for 49 CFR part 190 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(b); 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.

0
2. Amend Sec.  190.341 by revising the second sentence of paragraph 
(d)(2) to read as follows,


Sec.  190.341  Special Permit

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * * The Associate Administrator may only impose conditions 
that are directly and substantially related to the relevant standard or 
regulation being waived in the order granting the application. * * *
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 26, 2025, under the authority 
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Benjamin D. Kochman,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2025-12132 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.