RegulusPipeline research91 FR 48305
Passage 1[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 146 (Friday, July 31, 2026)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 48305-48306] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2026-15569] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration [Docket No. PHMSA-2026-1519] RIN 2137-AG23 Pipeline Safety: Electronic Retention of Part 194 Response Plans ACTION: Direct final rule (DFR); confirmation of effective date. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). SUMMARY: PHMSA is confirming the effective date for a DFR titled ``Pipeline Safety: Electronic Retention of Part 194 Response Plans,'' which published in the Federal Register on April 24, 2026. The DFR amended oil spill response plan requirements to clarify that operators may maintain the plans electronically. DATES: The effective date of the DFR is August 3, 2026. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brooks Tate, General Engineer, by phone at 202-281-5413 or by email at [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 24, 2026, PHMSA published a DFR (91 FR 22036) amending part 194 requirements for oil spill response plans to clarify that operators may maintain them electronically. Section 194.111 requires that a copy of the response plan be maintained at the operator's headquarters and at other locations where response activities may be conducted. The DFR amended Sec. 194.111(a) to clarify that operators may maintain the response plan on an electronic device readily accessible at those locations. The Pipeline Safety Trust (PST) commented emphasizing the importance of having the response plan accessible and agreeing that electronic availability could improve access. PST also questioned whether the DFR could result in a lack of access if internet connectivity is limited.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ PST, Comments, Docket ID PHMSA-2026-1519-0002 (June 23, 2026) (``Pipeline Safety Trust agrees that having spill response plans electronically available is a net benefit to improving operator access to these plans''). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------#
Passage 2PHMSA believes that PST's concern regarding accessibility was addressed through the language of the DFR itself, which requires ``electronic storage'' not contingent on internet connectivity. This may require downloading a copy or taking other measures to ensure the response plan is stored and available on the portable device regardless of internet connection. While PST is concerned that electronic devices are susceptible to ``fire, explosion, rupture, or power outage,'' PHMSA notes that the paper record alternative would be equally, if not more, at risk of destruction under similar circumstances. PST's concern that electronic devices are vulnerable to a cybersecurity incident that could impact internet access has also been addressed. In addition to requiring ``electronic storage,'' the DFR requires the device be ``secured,'' which further obligates the operator to ensure the portable device is protected from such external threats. In this way, secured electronic devices can be more durable than paper records. PST commented that the DFR required notice and comment as a change that could impact safety. PHMSA disagrees that the DFR represents a substantive change that could have such an effect. Section 194.111(a) does not specify the manner or format in which the response plan should be maintained. As stated in the DFR, PHMSA is merely ``expressly permitting'' maintenance in a form the agency understands already to be allowed, while imposing additional guardrails.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ See PST, Comments, Docket ID PHMSA-2026-1519-0002, at 2 (asserting that the DFR was a ``change in content, not form''). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------#
Passage 3PHMSA does not agree that PST's comment satisfies the adversity standard in Sec. 190.339(c). Section 190.339(c) states, in relevant part, that ``an adverse comment is one which explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including a challenge to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change.'' Section 190.339(c) further states that ``[c]omments that are frivolous or insubstantial will not be considered adverse under this procedure.'' The DFR addressed PST's concerns, and PST has not otherwise shown how the DFR is inappropriate, ineffective, or unacceptable. PHMSA issued the DFR under the procedures set forth at 49 CFR 190.339. In accordance with those procedures, PHMSA stated in the DFR that, if no adverse comments were received, the DFR would become effective on August 3, 2026. PHMSA did not receive any comments that warranted withdrawal of the DFR; therefore, this rule will become effective as scheduled. Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.97. Keith J. Coyle, Chief Counsel. [FR Doc. 2026-15569 Filed 7-30-26; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-P#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.