Proposed Rule2026-08080

Pipeline Safety: Integration of Innovative Remote Sensing Technologies for Right-of-Way Patrols on Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines

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
April 24, 2026

Issuing agencies

Transportation DepartmentPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Abstract

PHMSA proposes to clarify that right-of-way patrol requirements are technology neutral, and that operators can use remote sensing technologies, such as unmanned aerial systems and satellites, for complying with gas transmission, hazardous liquid, and carbon dioxide pipeline rights-of-way patrolling requirements.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 79 (Friday, April 24, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 79 (Friday, April 24, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22107-22111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-08080]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 192 and 195

[Docket No. PHMSA-2025-0118]
RIN 2137-AF79


Pipeline Safety: Integration of Innovative Remote Sensing 
Technologies for Right-of-Way Patrols on Gas and Hazardous Liquid 
Pipelines

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA proposes to clarify that right-of-way patrol 
requirements are technology neutral, and that operators can use remote 
sensing technologies, such as unmanned aerial systems and satellites, 
for complying with gas transmission, hazardous liquid, and carbon 
dioxide pipeline rights-of-way patrolling requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 23, 2026.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Docket Number 
PHMSA-2025-0118 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#681b0911040d1a46180904090a1a010b09280c071c460f071e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="502331293c35227e20313c31322239333110343f247e373f26">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Discussion

    PHMSA requires operators to perform periodic patrols of gas 
transmission and hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipeline rights-
of-way (ROW). 49 CFR 192.705 requires operators to patrol gas 
transmission pipelines between one and four times each calendar year, 
depending on the class location of the pipeline and whether the 
pipeline is located at a highway or railroad crossing. Similarly, 49 
CFR 195.412 requires hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipeline 
operators to inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to each 
pipeline ROW at least 26 times each year.
    Sections 192.705 and 195.412 both specify that patrols or 
inspections may include walking, driving, flying, or other appropriate 
means of traversing the ROW. During these inspections, an operator 
patrols the ROW to identify indications of leaks or threats to pipeline 
integrity, such as construction, excavation activity, and earth 
movement. Though these are primarily visual inspections, PHMSA is aware 
of operators who integrate additional sensing technologies, such as 
thermal imaging or light detection and ranging

[[Page 22108]]

sensors, to identify leaks, earth movement, the condition of water 
crossings, and other safety risks when conducting ROW patrols.
    On July 1, 2025, PHMSA published a direct final rule (DFR) 
codifying past guidance that operators could use unmanned aircraft 
systems (UAS, commonly known as drones) and satellite surveillance to 
satisfy patrol requirements in Sec. Sec.  192.705 and 195.412, provided 
such methods and technologies could provide current information and 
imaging quality comparable to traditional aerial patrols (90 FR 28105 
(July 1, 2025)). PHMSA received seven comments in response to the DFR.
    The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) and 
Orbital Advisors supported the DFR amendments.<SUP>1 2</SUP> The 
American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Association supported the 
DFR but recommended further revisions to allow operators delay patrols 
due to unfavorable weather conditions, to allow operators use imaging 
platforms other than satellites, to clarify that ``observation'' is for 
ROW surface conditions, and to define the date of inspection for 
imagery-based patrols as the date that the imagery was acquired.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ INGAA, ``Comment on Pipeline Safety: Integration of 
Innovative Remote Sensing Technologies for Right-of-Way Patrols on 
Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines'' (Sept. 2, 2025), <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/PHMSA-2025-0118-0006">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/PHMSA-2025-0118-0006</a>.
    \2\ Weaver, ``Comment on Pipeline Safety: Integration of 
Innovative Remote Sensing Technologies for Right-of-Way Patrols on 
Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines'' (Sept. 2, 2025), <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/PHMSA-2025-0118-0005">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/PHMSA-2025-0118-0005</a>.
    \3\ American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Association, 
``Comment on Pipeline Safety: Integration of Innovative Remote 
Sensing Technologies for Right-of-Way Patrols on Gas and Hazardous 
Liquid Pipelines'' (Sept. 3, 2025), <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/PHMSA-2025-0118-0007">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/PHMSA-2025-0118-0007</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    KCSI Aerial Patrol provided similar comments, with concern that the 
DFR language only used the term ``imaging'' in relation to satellite 
technology, implying that PHMSA would require visual inspection rather 
than aerial photography for patrols operators performed via aircraft. 
KCSI Air Patrol also commented that PHMSA should explicitly require 
that alternative patrol methods provide current information imaging 
quality comparable to traditional aerial patrols consistent with the 
position in the letters of interpretation cited in the DFR.\4\ An 
anonymous commenter similarly suggested a need to define performance 
requirements but recommended more prescriptive examples of conditions a 
patrol must be able to observe.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ KCSI Aerial Patrol, ``Comment on Pipeline Safety: 
Integration of Innovative Remote Sensing Technologies for Right-of-
Way Patrols on Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines'' (Sept. 2, 2025), 
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/PHMSA-2025-0118-0004">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/PHMSA-2025-0118-0004</a>.
    \5\ Anonymous, ``Comment on Pipeline Safety: Integration of 
Innovative Remote Sensing Technologies for Right-of-Way Patrols on 
Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines'' (Aug. 25, 2025), <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/PHMSA-2025-0118-00043">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/PHMSA-2025-0118-00043</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Pipeline Safety Trust (PST) opposed the DFR on procedural 
grounds and requested more explanation and opportunity to comment on 
changes to the ``other appropriate means'' standard in Sec.  
192.705(c). PST also noted concerns about the performance of satellite-
based technologies discussed in other rulemaking proceedings in a gas 
pipeline leak detection context that seemed inconsistent with PHMSA 
enforcement guidance for visual patrols.\6\ Citing the receipt of 
adverse comments, on October 2, 2025, PHMSA published a notice 
withdrawing the DFR in accordance with the requirements in 49 CFR 
190.339 (90 FR 47626).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ PST, ``Comment on Pipeline Safety: Integration of Innovative 
Remote Sensing Technologies for Right-of-Way Patrols on Gas and 
Hazardous Liquid Pipelines'' at 2 (August 21, 2025), <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/PHMSA-2025-0118-0002">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/PHMSA-2025-0118-0002</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this NPRM, PHMSA is reproposing the DFR amendments with certain 
revisions. First, the revised proposal allows observation or imaging 
via any of the listed patrol methods, avoiding the implication that 
only satellite patrols may be based on imaging rather than visual 
observation. In response to comments received from PST, PHMSA proposes 
to retain the term ``appropriate'' rather than ``suitable'' in 
Sec. Sec.  192.705(c) and 195.412(a), with additional language to 
accommodate differences in imagery-based patrol methods. Though the 
term ``suitable'' appears in the letters of interpretation cited in the 
DFR, PHMSA intends to codify guidance that UAS and satellite imagery 
are acceptable patrol methods if they meet existing patrol quality 
expectations. PHMSA is not proposing other changes to patrol 
performance standards as recommended in certain comments.
    Consistent with the letters of interpretation cited in the DFR, 
PHMSA includes the term ``current'' in this proposal to strengthen 
patrol requirements when operators use aerial or satellite imaging 
methods. As noted in PST's comment, visual inspections provide instant 
information on current conditions. Imaging should provide the same 
information (e.g., be promptly analyzed after the imagery is captured) 
to ensure such methods are equivalent to traditional patrol methods. 
PHMSA uses the term ``observe'' rather than ``traverse'' in the 
proposal in response to certain comments on the DFR. Operators observe 
the ROW when performing pipeline patrols, and satellites do not 
necessarily traverse the ROW when operators use them for pipeline 
patrols.
    The performance of satellite-based patrol methods depends on the 
capability of the satellite and the probable threats being evaluated. 
Patrols are not primarily a leak-detection tool, which is addressed by 
separate requirements at Sec. Sec.  192.706 and 192.723. Though most 
satellites may not be able to detect small gas leaks, high-resolution 
camera systems and other sensors can detect other threats, such as 
hazardous liquid leaks, earth movement, and construction or excavation 
activity that traditional surveys intend to address. Lower-resolution 
tools may not be suitable for detecting such threats, and aerial or 
satellite technology may not be suitable for all possible threats. 
Ultimately, the operator is responsible for selecting the type and 
performance of tools necessary to observe probable risks on the 
pipeline ROW. PHMSA appreciates public comments on the cost and 
performance of satellite-based ROW monitoring technologies.
    PHMSA is not proposing any revisions to the patrol frequencies or 
deadlines. PHMSA welcomes comments on the potential benefits of 
clarifying that the patrol deadlines apply to the date that patrol data 
is collected, the date it is analyzed, or both. PHMSA also prepared a 
risk assessment (preliminary regulatory impact analysis) in developing 
the NPRM to address the comments received in response to the DFR.
    Commenting Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-
2025-0118 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 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

[[Page 22109]]

<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 CFR 
190.343, you may ask PHMSA to provide confidential treatment to 
information you give to the agency by taking the following steps: (1) 
mark each page of the original document submission containing CBI as 
``Confidential;'' (2) send PHMSA, along with the original document, a 
second copy of the original document with the CBI deleted; and (3) 
explain why the information that you are submitting is CBI. Submissions 
containing CBI should be sent to Sayler Palabrica, Office of Pipeline 
Safety Standards and Rulemaking Division, Pipeline and Hazardous 
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 2nd Floor, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, or by email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#493a2830252c3b67392825282b3b202a28092d263d672e263f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1b687a62777e69356b7a777a796972787a5b7f746f357c746d">[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. Statutory Requirement and Executive Order 12866

    The Federal Pipeline Safety Laws (49 U.S.C. 60102(b)) require that 
PHMSA prepare a risk assessment that identifies the costs and benefits 
associated with a proposed regulatory change. E.O. 12866, Regulatory 
Planning and Review, as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B (``Policies 
and Procedures for Rulemaking'') and DOT Order 2100.7 (``Ensuring 
Reliance upon Sound Economic Analysis in Department of Transportation 
Policies, Programs, and Activities''), requires agencies to regulate in 
the ``most cost-effective manner,'' to make a ``reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,'' and 
to develop regulations that ``impose the least burden on society.'' In 
arriving at those conclusions, E.O. 12866 requires that agencies should 
consider ``both quantifiable measures . . . and qualitative measures of 
costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify'' and ``maximize net 
benefits . . . unless a statute requires another regulatory approach.'' 
E.O. 12866 also requires that ``agencies should assess all costs and 
benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the 
alternative of not regulating.'' DOT Order 2100.6B directs that PHMSA 
and other Operating Administrations must generally choose the ``least 
costly regulatory alternative that achieves the relevant objectives'' 
unless required by law or compelling safety need. DOT Order 2100.6B 
also specifies that regulations should generally ``not be issued unless 
their benefits are expected to exceed their costs'' 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, 
as well as the requirements in 49 U.S.C. 60102(b) and preliminarily 
determined that this proposed rule will result in cost savings by 
reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for gas, 
hazardous liquid, and carbon dioxide pipeline facility operators by 
clarifying that cost-effective remote sensing technologies are 
acceptable methods for performing patrols. The accompanying Preliminary 
Regulatory Impact Analysis provides detailed cost assessments of the 
various patrol options that facility operators could potentially use. 
PHMSA estimates that the changes in the proposed rule will result in 
annualized cost savings of $26.2 million. PHMSA expects these cost 
savings may also result in reduced costs for the public to whom 
pipeline operators generally transfer a portion of their compliance 
costs. PHMSA has also preliminarily determined that the proposed rule 
will not have any adverse safety and environmental effects since 
operators are required to select patrol options that meet or exceed the 
performance standard for patrol requirements.

C. Executive Orders 14192 and 14219

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

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

    The President has declared in E.O. 14156, Declaring a National 
Energy Emergency, a National emergency to address America's inadequate 
energy development production, transportation, refining, and generation 
capacity. Similarly, E.O. 14154, Unleashing American Energy, asserts a 
Federal policy to unleash American energy by ensuing access to abundant 
supplies of reliable, affordable energy from (inter alia) the removal 
of ``undue burden[s]'' on the identification, development, or use of 
domestic energy resources such as PHMSA-jurisdictional gases and 
hazardous liquids. PHMSA preliminarily finds this proposed rule is 
consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The proposed rule 
will give affected pipeline operators relief by clarifying that cost-
effective remote sensing technologies are acceptable ways for operators 
to perform patrols. PHMSA therefore expects the regulatory amendments 
in this proposed rule will in turn increase national pipeline 
transportation capacity and improve pipeline operators' ability to 
provide

[[Page 22110]]

abundant, reliable, affordable natural gas, petroleum, petroleum 
products, other hazardous liquids, and carbon dioxide in response to 
residential, commercial, and industrial demand.
    However, this proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' 
under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly 
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use, which requires Federal 
agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any ``significant 
energy action.'' Because this proposed rule is not a significant action 
under E.O. 12866, it will not have a significant adverse effect on 
supply, distribution, or energy use; OIRA has therefore not designated 
this proposed rule as a significant energy action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    PHMSA analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in E.O. 13132, Federalism, and the Presidential 
Memorandum (``Preemption'') published in the Federal Register on May 
22, 2009. E.O. 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that may have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government.''
    Though the proposed rule may (when finalized) operate to preempt 
some State requirements, it would not impose any regulation that has 
substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the 
National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Section 
60104(c) of the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State 
safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under the Federal Pipeline 
Safety Laws, States that have submitted a current certification under 
section 60105(a) can augment Federal pipeline safety requirements for 
intrastate pipelines regulated by PHMSA but may not approve safety 
requirements less stringent than those required by Federal law. A State 
may also regulate an intrastate pipeline facility that PHMSA does not 
regulate. The preemptive effect of the regulatory amendments in this 
proposed rule is limited to the minimum level necessary to achieve the 
objectives of the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws. Therefore, the 
consultation and funding requirements of E.O. 13132 do not apply.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
Federal agencies to conduct an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) for a proposed rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking 
unless the agency head certifies that the rulemaking will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
E.O. 13272, Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency 
Rulemaking, obliges agencies to establish procedures promoting 
compliance with the RFA. DOT posts its implementing guidance on a 
dedicated web page.\7\ PHMSA developed this proposed rule in accordance 
with E.O. 13272 and DOT implementing guidance to ensure compliance with 
the RFA. PHMSA expects the proposed rule to reduce regulatory burdens 
by codifying existing guidance that operators are permitted to use 
remote sensing technologies for their right-of-way patrols. Further, 
the changes proposed here are not expected to impose additional burdens 
on any operator. Therefore, PHMSA certifies the proposed rule (if 
finalized) will not have a significant impact on a substantial number 
of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ DOT, Rulemaking Requirements Concerning Small Entities, 
<a href="https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/rulemaking-requirements-concerning-small-entities">https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/rulemaking-requirements-concerning-small-entities</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 ($203 million in 
2024 dollars) in any given year, the agency must prepare, amongst other 
things, a written statement that qualitatively and quantitatively 
assesses the costs and benefits of the Federal mandate.
    This proposed rule does not impose unfunded mandates under UMRA. 
PHMSA does not expect the proposed rule will result in costs of $100 
million or more (in 1996 dollars) per year for either State, local, or 
Tribal governments, or to the private sector.

H. National Environmental Policy Act

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.) requires that Federal agencies assess and consider the impact of 
major Federal actions on the human and natural environment.
    PHMSA analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with NEPA and 
issues this draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) because it 
has preliminarily determined that the rulemaking will not adversely 
affect safety and therefore will not significantly affect the quality 
of the human and natural environment. The public is invited to comment 
on the impact of the proposed action.

I. Executive Order 13175

    PHMSA analyzed this proposed rule according to the principles and 
criteria in E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments, and DOT Order 5301.1A (``Department of 
Transportation Tribal Consultation Policies and Procedures''). E.O. 
13175 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input from 
Tribal government representatives in the development of rules that 
significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities by imposing 
``substantial direct compliance costs'' or ``substantial direct 
effects'' on such communities or the relationship or distribution of 
power between the Federal Government and Tribes.
    PHMSA assessed the impact of the proposed rule and determined that 
it will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities or 
Indian Tribal governments. The rulemaking's regulatory amendments have 
a broad, national scope; therefore, this proposed rule will not 
significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities, much less impose 
substantial compliance costs on Native American Tribal governments or 
mandate Tribal action. For these reasons, PHMSA has concluded that the 
funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 and DOT Order 
5301.1A do not apply.

J. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and its 
implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d) requires that PHMSA provide 
interested members of the public and affected agencies with an 
opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping 
requests. This rulemaking will not create, amend, or rescind any 
existing information collections.

K. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis

    E.O. 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, 
requires agencies to consider whether the impacts associated with 
significant

[[Page 22111]]

variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are 
unnecessary or may impair the ability of American business to export 
and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving 
health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, 
international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are 
at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the 
absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can 
also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in 
regulatory requirements.
    Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as 
amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), 
prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging 
in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 
commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements, 
Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international 
standards, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic 
objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude 
imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires 
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that 
they be the basis for U.S. standards.
    PHMSA engages with international standards setting bodies to 
protect the safety of the American public. PHMSA has assessed the 
effects of the proposed rule and has determined that its proposed 
regulatory amendments will not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign 
trade.

L. Cybersecurity and Executive Order 14028

    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 proposed rule and 
has determined that its proposed regulatory amendments would not 
materially affect the cybersecurity risk profile for pipeline 
facilities.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 192

    Natural gas, Pipeline safety.

49 CFR Part 195

    Pipeline safety.

    In consideration of the foregoing, PHMSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
parts 192 and 195 as follows:

PART 192--TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY PIPELINE: 
MINIMUM FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for 49 CFR part 192 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 185(w)(3), 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60101 et seq., 
and 49 CFR 1.97.


0
2. Revise Sec.  192.705(c) to read as follows:


Sec.  192.705  Transmission lines: Patrolling.

* * * * *
    (c) Methods of patrolling include observation or imaging from 
walking, driving, flying via manned or unmanned aerial systems, 
satellite, or appropriate means for observing current surface 
conditions in the right-of-way.

PART 195--TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS LIQUIDS BY PIPELINE

0
3. The authority citation for part 195 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
4. Revise Sec.  195.412(a) to read as follows:


Sec.  195.412  Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under 
navigable waters.

    (a) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at 
least 26 times each calendar year, inspect the surface conditions on or 
adjacent to each pipeline right-of-way. Methods of inspection include 
observation or imaging from walking, driving, flying via manned or 
unmanned aerial systems, satellite, or appropriate means for observing 
current surface conditions in the right-of-way.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 22, 2026, under the authority 
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Paul J. Roberti,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2026-08080 Filed 4-23-26; 8:45 am]
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 April 24, 2026.

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.