PHMSA Sends LNG Amendments NPRM to OMB

Yesterday, OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) announced that it had received a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) from DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) on “Pipeline Safety: Amendments to Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities”. An advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) was published on May 5th, 2025. 

According to the 2026 Unified Agenda entry for this rulemaking: 

“This rulemaking would update incorporated industry standards and revise all subparts of part 193 as needed. These updates to part 193 would address the risks associated with today's liquefied natural gas facilities, including permanent, small scale liquefied natural gas pipeline facilities as required by section 27 of the PIPES Act of 2016. These updates would also address section 110 of the PIPES Act of 2020 regarding operating and maintenance standards.” 

OMB Approves PHMSA LNG Facilities ANPRM

Yesterday the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs announced that it had approved an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on “Pipeline Safety: Amendments to Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities”. The ANPRM was sent to OIRA on April 15^th, 2025.

According to the Fall 2024 Unified Agenda entry for this rulemaking:

“This rulemaking would update incorporated industry standards and revise all subparts of part 193 as needed. These updates to part 193 would address the risks associated with today's liquefied natural gas facilities, including permanent, small scale liquefied natural gas pipeline facilities as required by section 27 of the PIPES Act of 2016. These updates would also address section 110 of the PIPES Act of 2020 regarding operating and maintenance standards.”

Please note that that summary was written under the Biden Administration, and the new Administration has had almost four months to put their stamp on this rulemaking. Part of that effort may be the reason for the disconnect between the ‘prerule’ status of this rulemaking in OIRA’s announcement and the ‘proposed rule stage’ listed in the most recent Unified Agenda entry. We will know which it is when the rule makes it to the Federal Register in the next week or so.

Review - HR 7556 Introduced – LNG Oversight Coordination

Last month Rep Webber (R,TX) introduced HR 7556, the LNG Coordination Act of 2024. The bill would require the DOT to establish the Liquefied Natural Gas Regulatory Safety Working Group (LNGRSWG). The Working Group would “clarify the authority of covered agencies in the authorizing and oversight of LNG facilities, other than peak shaving facilities, and improve coordination of the authority of such agencies”. No new funding is authorized by this legislation.

Moving Forward

Both Webber and his sole cosponsor {Rep Fletcher (D,TX)} are members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee to which this bill was assigned for secondary consideration. Neither are members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to which the bill was assigned for primary consideration. This means that while there may be sufficient influence to see the bill considered in the E&C Committee, there is probably not sufficient influence in the T&I Committee. The bills generally do not move to the floor of the House without the acquiescence of the committee assigned primary consideration.

There will be some opposition to this bill from environmentalists who would object to just about anything that makes it easier to expand petrochemical operations. While that opposition would have almost no affect in committee considerations, it could make it difficult to have the bill considered under suspension of the rules where a supermajority is necessary for passage. Without an influential cosponsor on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee there is no way that this bill would move to the floor for consideration.

Commentary

There are two major actors missing in the Working Group membership. The EPA has some oversight responsibilities for LNG facilities through its RMP program and various chemical release regulations. Admittedly this is not as big an influence on LNG facility operations as the other members of the Working Group, but adding the EPA would alleviate some potential concerns of more mainstream environmentalists. DHS is the other agency that should be on the Working Group list, even though security is not mentioned anywhere in the bill. DHS has direct impact on LNG facilities through the TSA (pipeline security issues), CISA (the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards, if/when it is reinstated), and the Coast Guard (through MTSA facilities oversight and LNG shipping regulations).

 

For more details about the provisions of this bill, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/hr-7556-introduced - subscription required.

Bills Introduced – 3-5-24

Yesterday, with both the House and Senate in session, there were 67 bills introduced. One of those bills may receive additional attention in this blog:

HR 7556 To establish a working group to coordinate regulatory oversight of liquefied natural gas facilities, and for other purposes. Weber, Randy K. [Rep.-R-TX-14]

I suspect that this bill is designed to overcome the recent Administration ‘pause’ in licensing exports of LNG. If that is the sole purpose of this bill, I will not be covering it here. I will cover it if there are substantial changes to the way that LNG facilities are regulated.

Mention in Passing

There are two bills that were introduced in the House yesterday that I would like to mention in passing:

HR 7528 Comment Integrity and Management Act of 2024 Higgins, Clay [Rep.-R-LA-3]  (Text available)

HR 7540 To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide protections for nonviolent political protesters, and for other purposes. Greene, Marjorie Taylor [Rep.-R-GA-14]

HR 7528 is an attempt to deal with the issue of mass comments on new federal regulations and regulation changes. As I have noted on a number of occasions agencies are not required to weigh the number of comments they receive, just respond to issues raised. This bill would make it easier for agencies to ‘consider’ mass comments, by not having to read each one. Subsection (c) addresses a newer and essentially separate issue of computer (AI) generated comments, requiring a report by GAO to congress on the issue. This is an topic that needs some serious consideration. I suspect that this particular bill will not receive the attention it deserves.

Rep Greene is well known for her support of the poor folks who have been caught up in the grossly misunderstood peaceful demonstration on Capital Hill on January 6^th (and I typed that with a straight face), and I suspect that this bill is simply another effort to encode that support. But one would have to be careful on how such legislation is worded as it could end up protecting those nasty antifa demonstrators that have disrupted so much of the country (SIGH).

The Dog Did Not Bark

Pardon the Sherlock Holmes reference. I was expecting to see the introduction of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, that I discussed on Monday. It was not. This is not a good sign, as it probably means that some changes are being made to the agreed upon language. Late date changes to bills like this frequently derail the admittedly backroom deals that would allow such bills to pass. And it may be too late to recraft such a deal and have a bill ready that could be passed by Friday. This could also upset the already more difficult discussions on the minibus for the other six spending bills that are continuing.

PHMSA Announces LNG R&D Meeting – 11-15-22

Today, the DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) published a meeting notice in the Federal Register (87 FR 64539-64540) for a virtual 2-day meeting on “Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Research and Development (R&D) Public Meeting and Forum”. The meeting will be held on November 15^th, and 16^th. The PHMSA LNG research program will address LNG facility safety issues.

The agenda includes:

• LNG facility design and construction, including process, piping, and control system design; process hazard analysis; vapor handling; structural members; and construction testing requirements,

• LNG facility siting, including passive and active protection and potential safety gaps in 49 CFR 193 and industry technical standards,

• LNG facility fire protection system design, including firewater system design, fire and gas detection technology, emergency shutdown systems, and hazard controls, and

• LNG operation and maintenance, including plans and procedures (best practices), safe work practices, human factors, incident investigation and reporting, reporting requirements, inspection and testing, maintenance and repairs—including fugitive and vented methane emissions mitigation, corrosion protection, and personnel protection.

Public participation in the meeting is being solicited. Personnel wishing to participate need to sign up on the meeting web site by November 9^th, 2022. Personnel wishing to sign up to participate in a work group discussion on day 2 of the meeting need to do so by November 7^th.

NTCSAC Meeting to Look at LNG Load Limits Tasking

The Coast Guard published a meeting notice in today’s Federal Register (86 FR 56967-56968) concerning a teleconference on November 2^nd, 2021 for the National Chemical Transportation Safety Advisory Committee. The meeting will include the CG presentation of a new tasking for the Committee to look at: “LNG Carrier Loading Limits and Formation of Isolated Vapor Pockets.”

Additional information on the meeting and the new tasking will be on the NTCSAC web site by October 26^th. NOTE: there appears to be some problems with the NTCSAC web site and all of the other Federal Advisory Committee web sites this morning; hopefully it will be corrected by October 26^th.

The meeting is open to the public and there will be a time set aside for public comments during the teleconference. For information on joining the teleconference or submitting public comments, contact Lieutenant Ethan T. Beard, telephone 202-372-1419, fax 202-372-8382 or Ethan.T.Beard@uscg.mil.

HR 7616 Reported in House – FY 2021 THUD Spending

Last week the House Appropriations Committee completed crafting and reporting on HR 7616, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2021. The bill does not contain any specific cybersecurity or chemical transportation-safety requirements, but both areas are addressed in the Committee Report.

Cybersecurity

On page 74 the Report addresses Committee cybersecurity concerns about Amtrak train control systems and a 2019 Amtrak OIG report on those security issues. The Committee “directs Amtrak to comply with the OIG recommendations to improve the cyber security and resiliency of Amtrak’s train control systems” and to prepare a report for Congress on their actions.

On page 83 the Committee directs the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) to work with DOT and CISA “to ensure that the agency is complying with best practices for the procurement of Industrial Control Systems.” Additionally WMATA is directed to” to include analysis of Internet of Things (IoT) and unknown and unauthorized devices in its cybersecurity plan.”

Chemical Transportation Safety

The report covers a number of issues related to liquified natural gas (LNG) transportation and handling. On pages 93 thru 94 there is an entire section related to LNG by rail transportation. The Committee requires a number of reports from the PHMSA about safety issues related to LNG by rail. The section closes out with the statement:

“Further, the Committee notes that the INVEST in America Act [HR 2; passed by the House and not likely to be taken up by the Senate] requires the Department to rescind any special permit or approval for the transportation of LNG by rail tank cars and places a stay on any regulation authorizing the transportation of LNG by rail tank cars until the Department completes a thorough evaluation of the safety, security, and environmental risks of transporting LNG by rail.”

On page 96 the Report addresses safety issues at LNG facilities (also regulated by PHMSA). It notes that the Committee “supports PHMSA’s efforts to hire 5 inspectors and engineers to help address the potential risks associated with LNG facilities.” It also expresses concerns about delays in the rulemaking efforts to update 49 CFR 193.

In two different areas the Report addresses the safe transportation of ‘energy products’. On pages 94 thru 95 addresses safety issues related to the transportation of crude oil by rail and includes a requirement for a congressional briefing “on the findings and recommendations of the Crude Oil Characterization Research Study [link added].” DOE and DOT have already sent their required report, the Report to Congress on the Crude Oil Characterization Study, to Congress.

The second area where the Report addresses ‘energy products is in pages 96 thru 97 where ‘energy products training’ is covered. It closes the short discussion by noting:

“As PHMSA’s responsibilities for the safe movement of LNG expands, the Committee directs PHMSA to enhance its training curriculum for local emergency responders to account for LNG facilities and the transportation of LNG in rail tank cars.”

Moving Forward

HR 7616 will be included in the second spending minibus, HR 7617. The House Rules Committee will meet on Tuesday to formulate the rule for consideration of this much longer and more controversial spending bill.

LNG and CFATS

According to Google, I have been getting a number of hits on this blog from people looking for information on liquified natural gas (LNG) and the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program. The question seems to be: are LNG facilities covered under the CFATS program? As with all things CFATS, the answer is a complicated ‘yes, but…’.

LNG and Appendix A

Liquified Natural Gas is listed as a DHS chemical of interest (COI) in Appendix A to 6 CFR 27 as ‘methane’. It has a release flammables security risk; a screening threshold quantity of 10,000-lbs; and a minimum concentration of 1%. There is no specific listing for the cryogenic form, but Appendix A does not distinguish between the physical states of the listed chemicals.

The term ‘LNG’ is found in the preamble to the final rule for Appendix A in two places. First in the list of abbreviations used in the publication. The more definitive use is found in the discussion of ‘peak shaving facilities. The preamble makes it clear that those facilities are covered under the CFATS program.

Clearly, facilities that have an on-site inventory of 10,000-lbs of LNG have a responsibility to complete a Top Screen report to DHS. Except, here is where it gets complicated, for facilities that are covered under the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) program. Facilities that are covered under that program are exempted from coverage under the CFATS program. Historically, most large LNG liquefaction facilities have been associated with shipping LNG overseas and have been located at dedicated port facilities. The security at those facilities is regulated by the Coast Guard under the MTSA program.

LNG and Top Screens

It used to be that LNG facilities submitting a Top Screen had to complete a number of Top Screen questions that dealt with topics peculiar to LNG facilities; topics like ‘thermal radiation zones’ and ‘exclusion zones’. With the advent of CSAT 2.0 those questions have disappeared. This was part of change in the way that the CFATS program dealt with risk assessment. Instead of having individual facilities do many of the calculations that went into the risk assessment process, ISCD now internalizes those calculations.

This change in the Top Screen was reflected in the removal of six frequently asked questions (FAQs) related to LNG topics on the CFATS Knowledge Center. The following FAQs were removed before the CSAT 2.0 Top Screen went live in 2016:

• FAQ 184 August 23, 2007; UPDATED November 18, 2013 Question: What is a thermal radiation zone?

• FAQ 340 August 23, 2007; UPDATED January 13, 2014 Question: Where can I find guidance for LNG storage facility questions?

• FAQ 1331 January 8, 2008; UPDATED January 13, 2014 Question: How do I enter the LNG Storage Capacity?

• FAQ 1337 January 8, 2008; UPDATED January 13, 2014 Question: How do I enter the LNG Exclusion Details?

• FAQ 1444 June 11, 2010 Question: What information do I have to fill out?

• FAQ 1571 July 1, 2009 Question: What is an Exclusion Zone?

There is no mention of the term ‘LNG’ in any of the current FAQs.

Associated Chemicals

Liquefaction facilities may also have other chemicals on site that they would be required to report under the CFATS program if the facility is not covered under the MTSA program. If the facility treats ‘sour gas’ (natural gas containing H₂S), the amines used in the separation process may be COI listed in Appendix A and H₂S is certainly a listed COI. Some of the ‘heavy hydrocarbons’ removed from the natural gas stream (and stored on site) may also be listed. As long as the inventory of these COI is above the screening threshold amount for that chemical listed in Appendix A, those chemicals will also be required to be reported on the facility Top Screen.

Conclusion

Facilities that are not covered by the MTSA program that store 10,000 or more pounds of LNG on site are required to complete a Top Screen submission to DHS reporting that inventory amount and the amount of any other DHS COI stored on site above the screening threshold quantity. The DHS Infrastructure Security Compliance Division will then conduct a risk assessment of the facility and determine whether or not the facility will be listed as a high-risk facility covered under the CFATS program. Covered facilities will be required to complete a security vulnerability assessment and submit a site security plan to ISCD for approval.

LNG By Rail Special Permit Comments – 6-23-19

Over the last week there have been eight new comments posted to the docket for the liquified natural gas by rail special permit being proposed by DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA). This week’s comments were all provided by private citizens and all opposed the issuance of the special permit based upon their expressed concerns about the safety of shipping LNG by rail.

When we see early multiple comments from private citizens on a rulemaking docket, it is easy to suggest that there is an organized letter writing campaign involved. Many environmental or chemical safety advocacy groups have employed these types of campaigns in the past. It does not appear that this is a typical organized campaign; there is no commonality of language or phrases and there is no reference to a prepared statement or counter proposal.

PHMSA Publishes LNG by Rail Environmental Assessment

Last week the DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) published a notice in the Federal Register (84 FR 26507-26508) that it was making available a copy of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for a proposed special permit (DOT-SP 20534) for the transportation of liquified natural gas (LNG, or Methane, Refrigerated Liquid, UN 1972) by rail car.

Public Comments

PHMSA is soliciting public comments on both the EIA and the special permit. Comments may be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal (www.Regulations.gov; Docket # PHMSA-2019-0100).

Commentary

Since PHMSA is working on a rulemaking providing for the transport of LNG by rail, it would be reasonable to suppose that the shipping requirements in that regulation would mirror the provisions of the special permit. Watching the comments on this special permit may provide some insight into the problems that PHMSA might face with their pending rulemaking.

LNG Railcar NPRM to OMB

Yesterday the OMB’s Office of Information and  Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) announced that it had received a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) from the DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) regarding the regulation of shipping liquified natural gas, (LNG) by rail.

This rulemaking first showed up on the Unified Agenda in the Spring of 2018, so it looks like this is a Trump administration initiative. According to the latest version of the Agenda:

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is a critical energy resource for the 21st century. Currently, the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) do not contain the necessary provisions to allow for the bulk transport of LNG in rail tank cars. PHMSA, in collaboration with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), believe this is a potential area for industry innovation and support infrastructure development while maintaining a high level of safety. This rulemaking intends to develop a framework for the safe transport of LNG in rail tank cars.

This could take six-months to a year to make it through the OIRA review and into the Federal Register.

OMB Approves CG Change to LNG-LHG ICR

Yesterday the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved a Coast Guard request to extend and revise the information collection request (ICR) for safety and security programs covered under 33 CFR 127  the Waterfront Facilities Handling Liquefied Natural Gas and Liquefied Hazardous Gas. This is fairly routine update supporting a program that has been in place since 1986.

The table below shows the routine changes that have been made in the reporting burden estimates for this program since it came under the control of the Department of Homeland Security.

Approval Date	Responses	Time Burden	Time per Response
3-01-03	463	3272	7.1
4-26-04	524	3540	6.8
6-27-07	3059	2838	0.9
8-20-10	4997	9504	1.9
10-18-13	6258	6425	1.0

The average time per response column is a little misleading since there are a wide variety of responses covered under this program; the most complex (and time consuming) of which is the Waterway Suitability Assessment (33 CFR §127.007). The Coast Guard explained that the sharp reduction in the estimated annual time burden for this ICR, even while the number of estimated annual responses increased by 25%, is due to the decrease in new WSA’s from 7 to 1 per year. The increase in annual responses is due to the increase in recently approved facilities.

CG Publishes LNG-LHG LOR Final Rule

Today the Coast Guard published in the Federal Register (77 FR 70886-70891) a final rule outlining a separate process for reconsideration of  letters of recommendation (LORs) by the Coast Guard concerning the siting of liquefied natural gas (LNG) or liquefied hazardous gas (LHG). The LORs are provided to Federal, State, or local government agencies having jurisdiction for siting, construction, and operation of the facility by the Captain of the Port (COTP) providing the Coast Guard’s assessment of the suitability of the waterway for LNG or LHG marine traffic.

I described the reason for the rule and the process proposed when the NPRM was issued back in December of last year. There were only two comments received concerning the NPRM and both disagreed with the basis of Coast Guard’s proposal of this rule. Those comments from two State agencies in Rhode Island can be found on the Federal eRulemaking Portal (www.Regulations.gov; Docket # USCG-2011-0227). In response the preamble provides additional discussion about why the Coast Guard does not consider the LOR to be either a ‘final agency action’ or a ‘major federal action’.

There was a minor change made to the final rule specifically adding “Indian tribal government” as one of the agencies that has a specific authority to request a reconsideration of a published LOR.

The final rule will be effective on December 28^th, 2012 and will only apply to LOR’s issued after that date.