Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Mandatory Regulatory Reviews To Unleash American Energy and Improve Government Efficiency

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on June 4, 2025 to solicit feedback on opportunities to improve regulatory efficiency in the Pipeline Safety Regulations (PSR; 49 CFR Parts 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, and 199). In response to recent Executive Orders (E.O. 14154, Unleashing American Energy; E.O. 14156, Declaring a National Energy Emergency; and E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity through Deregulation), PHMSA is requesting recommendations on whether to repeal or amend requirements of the PSR. Therefore, they are soliciting stakeholder feedback on:

• Identification of regulatory provisions, implementing guidance, and interpretations that could impose an undue burden on identification, development, and use of domestic energy resources, or that are examples of government inefficiency insofar as they impose outsized compliance burdens for comparatively small safety benefits or limit technological innovation

• The nature and magnitude of those burdens, including identification of the regulated entities

• Potential amendments or sections to repeal

• Compliance costs and benefits, including pros and cons (i.e., safety and environmental harms) anticipated from proposed amendments

• The technical feasibility, reasonableness, cost-effectiveness, and practicability of those potential amendments.

• Adopting a PHMSA procedural requirement mandating periodic (i.e., 3 or 5 years) regulatory reviews of the provisions in the PSR

Questions for Consideration

1. Should PHMSA consider incorporating within its PSR an explicit requirement to conduct retrospective regulatory reviews at specified intervals to eliminate undue burdens and improve government efficiency?

2. Can PHMSA eliminate undue burdens or improve government efficiency by taking any actions with respect to its oversight of State authorities or involvement with other Federal agencies?

3. What number of small businesses, small organizations, or small government jurisdictions, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 6010 et seq.) and its implementing regulations, operate different categories of PHMSA-jurisdictional gas, hazardous liquid, and carbon dioxide pipeline facilities? Are there any existing PSR requirements that disproportionately impact small businesses or other small entities in the sector?

4. Do PHMSA’s regulations, implementing guidance, or practices governing special permits (49 CFR 190.341) impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders?

5. Do PHMSA’s compliance practices with respect to the National Environmental Policy Act place an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Are there any categorical exclusions that PHMSA should adopt?

6. Do annual user fees (49 U.S.C. 60301 et seq.) and charges (e.g., cost recovery pipeline facility design and construction reviews pursuant to 49 CFR part 190, subpart E) imposed by PHMSA place an undue burden on affected stakeholders?

7. Are there any interpretations (§ 190.11), approvals (§ 190.9), or special permits (§ 190.341) that should be incorporated into the PSR to eliminate undue burdens or improve government efficiency? Should PHMSA adopt a procedure in the PSR to facilitate the incorporation of similar actions in the future?

PHMSA plans to hold a public meeting in the near future to supplement or to clarify the materials received in response to this ANPRM. Follow our LinkedIn page to be notified when this public meeting information is made available.

Contact — Elemental Compliance with questions and keep your pipeline safety programs up to speed with the changing regulatory requirements. Also consider signing up for our Regulatory Compliance Newsletter on our website where we provide real time updates on PHMSA and state pipeline safety activities at https://www.elementalcompliance.com/about.