PHMSA Solicits Feedback on Regulatory Reform of Pipeline Safety Regulations

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) asking for stakeholder feedback on Pipeline Safety Regulations (PSR) that unduly burden the identification, development, and use of domestic energy resources, including natural gas, crude oil, refined petroleum products, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, and other gases and hazardous liquids. Comments are due August 4, 2025.

Key Takeaways

• What Happened? To execute the Trump administration’s focus on increasing domestic energy resources and reducing regulation, PHMSA is requesting stakeholder feedback on potential PSR reforms, including any letters of interpretation, guidance documents, or other agency materials. The goal is to eliminate undue burdens on domestic energy resources and to improve government efficiency.
• Who’s Impacted? Owners and operators of pipeline facilities transporting natural gas, crude oil, refined petroleum products, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, or other fuel gases and hazardous liquids subject to PHMSA PSR regulations. Affected facilities may also include underground natural gas storage (UNGS) and liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure.
• Next Steps? Comments are due by August 4, 2025. Comments will help PHMSA address unnecessary or unduly burdensome regulations.

PHMSA Regulatory Reform

PHMSA’s ANPRM furthers the Trump administration’s focus on domestic energy production. PHMSA asks commenters to identify overly burdensome regulations and guidance. Current PHMSA regulations include reporting and notice obligations and extensive testing, design, and operation and maintenance requirements. PHMSA is particularly focused on regulations and guidance that limit technological innovations or that carry oversized compliance burdens for comparatively small safety benefits.

Submitted feedback should identify the nature and magnitude of the burdens, including the regulated entities, as well as the compliance costs and implementation challenges. Comments may also suggest potential amendments, including recissions, the anticipated change in compliance costs, and the technical feasibility, reasonableness, cost-effectiveness, and practicability of the proposed amendments. PHMSA specifically requests comments on burdens associated with PHMSA fees, potential categorical exclusions to reduce burdens under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and potential industry standards that PHMSA could adopt.

As seen with similar requests for information from other departments advancing President Trump’s domestic energy agenda, this ANPRM could lead to significant regulatory reforms.

Conclusion

PHMSA’s ANPRM is a key step to remove barriers to American energy production. Stakeholders should strongly consider acting on this unique opportunity.