Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Repair Criteria for Hazardous Liquid and Gas Transmission Pipelines

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a draft Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on May 20, 2025. PHMSA is soliciting feedback on opportunities to improve cost-effectiveness of repair requirements for gas transmission and hazardous liquids/carbon dioxide pipelines. PHMSA also wants to account for more recent advancements in best practices and pipeline safety technology and seek feedback on using a risk-based approach for determining inspection intervals for in-service hazardous liquid breakout tanks.

Repair requirements in Part 195 have not been updated since the Integrity Management changes in 2000. Repair requirements in Part 192 were addressed as part of the Mega Rule, however some were invalidated in the court case brought against PHMSA by INGAA. PHMSA is considering changes to repair requirements.

PHMSA also wants to address multiple executive orders (including Unleashing Prosperity through Deregulation, Unleashing American Energy, and Declaring a National Energy Emergency). Therefore, they are soliciting stakeholder feedback on:

• The topics under discussion listed below

• Potential amendments to its parts 192 and 195 repair criteria, remediation timelines, and IM requirements

• The appropriateness of those amendments for different types of gas transmission pipelines and hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipelines

• The incremental compliance costs and benefits anticipated from those amendments

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

Topics Under Discussion

PHMSA is soliciting feedback on the following questions under the following subject areas. Comments can be submitted through instructions found on the Federal Register.

General:

1. Do the anomaly repair criteria, remediation timelines, and IM regulations for gas transmission pipelines and hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines strike an appropriate balance between safety benefits and compliance costs?

2. Do anomaly repair criteria, remediation timelines, and IM regulations for gas transmission pipelines and hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines accommodate innovative technologies and methods for the discovery, evaluation, and remediation of anomalies?

3. Should PHMSA consider amending any particular provisions in its IM regulations for gas transmission pipelines and hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines to strike a more appropriate balance between safety benefits and compliance costs?

4. Is it appropriate for repair timelines to begin on the date of “discovery” of anomalies on gas transmission and hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines?

5. Are there any PHMSA interpretations addressing its anomaly repair criteria, remediation timelines, and IM regulations for gas transmission and hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipelines impose unjustified compliance costs for different categories of pipeline facilities?

6. Are there substantive differences in the characteristics of and among the different categories of gas transmission and hazardous liquid or carbon pipelines justifying distinguishable anomaly repair and IM requirements?

7. What types of temporary and permanent repair methods do operators of gas transmission, hazardous liquid, and carbon dioxide pipelines use to comply with PHMSA’s anomaly repair criteria, remediation timelines, and IM requirements? What percentage of repairs are completed using each type of repair method and for which types of anomalies? Do operators employ consensus industry standards or recommended practices when determining the appropriate repair method for different types of anomalies or categories of gas and hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipelines? What is the average cost of each of those repair methods as applied to different types of anomalies or categories of gas transmission, hazardous liquid, or carbon dioxide pipelines?

8. What proportion of small businesses, small organizations, or small government jurisdictions (as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act), operate different categories of gas, hazardous liquid, and carbon dioxide pipelines subject to PHMSA anomaly repair criteria, remediation timelines, and IM requirements?

9. Do the annual, incident, and safety-related condition reports required by parts 191 and 195 regulations require the submission of remediation-related information with limited or no safety value for particular categories of gas transmission, hazardous liquid, and carbon dioxide pipelines?

10. Should PHMSA amend its regulations governing prioritization of anomaly remediation on gas transmission and hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines  to prioritize public safety and protection against risks to life and property above other important policy objectives within the scope of its regulatory authority?

Repair Criteria and Remediation Timelines for Part 195-Regulated Hazardous Liquid or Carbon Dioxide Pipelines:

1. How do operators of different categories of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipelines approach the discovery, evaluation, and remediation of anomalies on non-HCA segments in complying with repair requirements at 49 CFR 195.401? Which elements, if any, do operators apply from the IM response criteria and remediation timelines at 49 CFR 195.452(h) for anomalies discovered on non-HCA segments?

2. Are there alternatives or supplements to the anomaly repair criteria and remediation timelines that should be incorporated into PHMSA’s IM regulations?

3. What methods do operators use to evaluate anomalies when material properties of a pipeline segment are unknown?

4. Should PHMSA consider adopting predicted failure pressure-based criteria for evaluating anomalies on hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines under part 195?

5. Are repair criteria and remediation timelines for hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines appropriate for metal loss anomalies on a longitudinal seam for HCA and non-HCA segments?

6. Are repair criteria and remediation timelines for hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines appropriate for dents and mechanical damage anomalies on HCA and non-HCA segments?

7. Are repair criteria and remediation timelines for hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines appropriate for dents with metal loss or other interacting integrity threats on HCA and non-HCA segments?

Repair Criteria and Remediation Timelines for Part 192-Regulated Gas Transmission Pipelines:

1. Are the regulatory requirements under 49 CFR 192.712(c) governing performance of ECAs for dents and mechanical damage anomalies on gas transmission lines appropriate?

2. Should ECA methodologies or elements thereof within consensus industry standards and recommended practices (e.g., API RP 1183) inform the ECA requirements in 49 CFR 192.712?

3. What were the incremental, per-unit costs and benefits associated with establishing an ECA program and subsequently conducting each ECA? Were there any cost savings associated with deferred remediation due to the ECA?

4. Are part 192 repair criteria, remediation timelines, and IM requirements for gas transmission pipelines appropriate for dents with metal loss or other interacting integrity threats?

5. Are the re-assessment frequencies for anomalies on gas transmission pipelines that have been evaluated using an ECA appropriate?

In-Service Part 195-Regulated Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Breakout Tanks:

1. How should part 195 regulations address the assessment of and remediation of anomalies on in-service breakout tanks? Would incorporating the risk-based inspection interval provided for in consensus industry standards (e.g., the fifth edition of API Std 653) within PHMSA regulations be appropriate for some or all breakout tanks?

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 Elemental Compliance's 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.