Pipeline Safety: Cost Recovery for Siting Reviews for LNG Facilities, 67040-67056 [2024-18138]

Agencies

• Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 160 (Monday, August 19, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67040-67056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-18138]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 190

[Docket No. PHMSA-2022-0118]
RIN 2137-AF61


Pipeline Safety: Cost Recovery for Siting Reviews for LNG 
Facilities

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[[Page 67041]]

(PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: PHMSA is proposing a new fee for cost recovery for siting 
reviews of liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility project applications 
where the design and construction costs total $2.5 billion or more. 
This proposed rule is necessary to implement section 103 of the 
Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 
2020 (PIPES Act of 2020), and to help provide adequate resources for 
siting reviews to promote the public safety and environmental 
protection objectives of the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS). This 
proposed rule also revises current regulations authorizing PHMSA's cost 
recovery for design safety reviews of gas, hazardous liquid, and carbon 
dioxide pipeline facilities to improve the clarity of the regulations 
and reduce unnecessary administrative burdens.

DATES: Individuals interested in submitting written comments on this 
NPRM must do so by October 18, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Comments should reference Docket No. PHMSA-2022-0118 and may 
be submitted in any of the following ways:
     E-Gov Web: https://www.regulations.gov. This site allows 
the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice issued by 
any agency. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management System: U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: DOT Docket Management System: West Building 
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9:00 
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.
     Fax: 202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Include the agency name and identify Docket No. 
PHMSA-2022-0118 at the beginning of your comments. Note that all 
comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided. If you 
submit your comments by mail, submit two copies. If you wish to receive 
confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, include a self-
addressed stamped postcard.
    Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both 
customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the 
Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public 
disclosure. If your comments in response to this NPRM contain 
commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as 
private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or 
responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the 
submitted comments as CBI. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) 190.343, you may ask PHMSA to provide confidential treatment to 
the information you give to the agency by taking the following steps: 
(1) mark each page of the original document submission containing CBI 
as ``Confidential;'' (2) send PHMSA a copy of the original document 
with the CBI deleted along with the original, unaltered document; and 
(3) explain why the information you are submitting is CBI. Submissions 
containing CBI should be sent to Alyssa Imam, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 
SE, DOT: PHMSA-PHP-30, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Any comment PHMSA 
receives that is not explicitly designated as CBI will be placed in the 
public docket.

Privacy Act Statement

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the 
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these 
comments, without edit, including any personal information the 
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system 
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: To access the docket, which contains background documents 
and any comments that PHMSA has received, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the 
docket. Alternatively, you may review the documents in person at DOT's 
Docket Management Office at the address listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alyssa Imam by telephone at 202-738-
4203 or via email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary
II. Background and Justification
III. Proposed Amendments
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

I. Summary

    This proposed rulemaking would implement a mandate in the PIPES Act 
of 2020 (Pub. L. 116-260, Division R) to amend the pipeline safety 
regulations (49 CFR parts 190-199) to prescribe a fee assessment 
methodology for PHMSA to recover its costs in performing 49 CFR part 
193, subpart B, siting reviews of applications for new or expanded LNG 
facilities with project design and construction costs totaling $2.5 
billion or more. PHMSA expects that the cost recovery mechanisms 
proposed in this NPRM will help ensure that PHMSA maintains adequate 
resources to perform those siting reviews without diverting its limited 
resources from other critical dimensions of its regulatory oversight of 
jurisdictional gas (including LNG), hazardous liquid, and carbon 
dioxide pipeline facilities, while ensuring the costs associated with 
the review are borne by the project applicant rather than by all 
pipeline operators through the expenditure of operator user fees. The 
proposed rule would also revise current regulations authorizing PHMSA's 
cost recovery for design safety reviews of gas, hazardous liquid, and 
carbon dioxide pipeline facilities to improve the clarity of the 
regulations and reduce unnecessary administrative burdens.

II. Background and Justification

    PHMSA conducts both a facility design safety review and siting 
review of LNG facilities under part 193. PHMSA conducts facility design 
safety reviews in connection with applications to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (FERC) or state regulators (as applicable) to 
construct, expand, or operate gas (including LNG) and hazardous liquid 
(as well as carbon dioxide \1\) pipeline facilities; those reviews 
include reviews of application materials and inspections verifying 
construction in accordance with the application and pipeline safety 
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PHMSA in a parallel rulemaking (under RIN2137-AF64) will 
consider expanding the carbon dioxide pipelines subject to PHMSA 
regulation--and by extension, the pipelines subject to cost recovery 
under part 190 for PHMSA's design safety reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job 
Creation Act of 2011 (2011 Act, Pub. L. 112-90), PHMSA did not recover 
costs incurred for conducting facility design safety reviews for LNG 
facilities or any other pipelines. Section 13 of the 2011 Act, 49 
U.S.C. 60117(o), authorized PHMSA to recover costs for facility design 
safety reviews if the project application either involved design and 
construction costs totaling at least $2.5 billion, or involved new or 
novel technologies, designs (such as LNG facilities, whose design, 
construction, and employed technology will often materially change from 
one project to the next), or new materials. While the 2011 Act allowed 
PHMSA to

[[Page 67042]]

recover fees for its costs incurred in performing facility design 
safety reviews, the 2011 Act did not allow PHMSA to expend any 
collected fees absent specific appropriation by Congress.
    In 2017, PHMSA exercised the authority granted in section 13(a) of 
the 2011 Act by prescribing a fee structure and assessment methodology 
based on the costs of providing design safety reviews of applications 
for gas (including LNG) or hazardous liquid (including carbon dioxide) 
pipeline facilities.\2\ In that final rule, PHMSA amended the pipeline 
safety regulations at part 190, subpart E, to prescribe a fee structure 
and assessment methodology for recovering costs associated with design 
safety reviews of applications for new projects for gas, hazardous 
liquid, LNG, and carbon dioxide pipeline facilities (each with design 
and construction costs totaling at least $2.5 billion, or that contain 
new and novel technologies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ PHMSA, ``Final Rule--Pipeline Safety: Operator 
Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, 
and Other Pipeline Safety Changes,'' 82 FR 7972 (Jan. 23, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PHMSA is also responsible for the review of LNG facility siting; 
that review is an input to FERC's evaluation of applications for 
authorization to construct and operate a new LNG facility (or an 
expansion of an existing LNG facility). During the LNG facility siting 
review, PHMSA assesses the siting packages prepared by the applicants 
for new or expanded LNG facility projects for compliance with siting 
regulations at part 193, subpart B.
    PHMSA had historically not been authorized by statute to assess 
fees recovering its costs associated with those reviews.\3\ However, in 
section 103 of the PIPES Act of 2020, Congress added a new statutory 
mandate at 49 U.S.C. 60303 allowing PHMSA to collect fees directly from 
operators of LNG facilities to recover the necessary expenses PHMSA 
incurs to perform subpart B siting reviews in connection with 
applications for new or expanded, large ($2.5 billion or more project 
design and construction cost). But Congress did not make that new 
statutory authority self-executing; rather, in 49 U.S.C. 60303(b)(1), 
Congress directed PHMSA to ``prescribe procedures'' for collection of 
those fees. And although Congress omitted from the statutory language 
at 49 U.S.C. 60303 explicit authorization to use fees collected from 
operators without subsequent congressional appropriations, in the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 (2023 Act, Pub. L. 117-328), 
Congress appropriated $400,000 to the Liquefied Natural Gas Siting 
Account for use of any monies collected from cost recovery for LNG 
facility subpart B siting reviews.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ PHMSA notes that for a period of time it worked around this 
legislative gap by entering into a Memorandum of Understanding and 
related Interagency Agreement with FERC by which FERC reimbursed 
PHMSA for the latter's part 193, subpart B, siting reviews. 
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/news/64706/ferc-phmsa-mou.pdf. The 
Interagency Agreement was extended several times before expiring in 
September 2022.
    \4\ Absent action by Congress, the funds appropriated by the 
2023 Act will expire at the end of FY2025 (Oct. 1, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, PHMSA proposes in this NPRM to implement the section 103 
mandate in the PIPES Act of 2020 by amending its existing cost recovery 
regulations at part 190, subpart E, to establish procedures for 
assessment and recovery of its necessary expenses in performing part 
193, subpart B, siting reviews for applications for large ($2.5 billion 
or more) projects for new or expanded LNG facilities. PHMSA understands 
that codification of those procedures within its regulations is a 
prerequisite for PHMSA accessing funds appropriated by Congress for 
such reviews in the 2023 Act and any future appropriations legislation. 
Cost recovery of LNG facility siting reviews also ensures the 
beneficiaries of those reviews (some of whom may not pay PHMSA any user 
fees pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60301) bear the costs, rather than other 
pipeline operators via their own annual user fee obligations. PHMSA 
also notes that its access to funds recovering the costs of its part 
193, subpart B, siting reviews is critically important given the 
increasing strain placed on its limited resources by such reviews. Many 
of the same PHMSA personnel performing part 193, subpart B, siting 
reviews are also responsible for other regulatory oversight activities 
(e.g., design safety reviews, inspections, enforcement, and guidance 
and regulation development) related to LNG facilities and other 
jurisdictional pipeline facilities. This challenge has become 
increasingly pressing in recent years, as PHMSA has performed part 193, 
subpart B, siting reviews in connection with dozens of new or expanded 
LNG facilities of different sizes and project costs. OPS reports that 
among those facilities, large projects (in particular, those projects 
with design and construction costs of $2.5 billion or more) have proven 
the most challenging. OPS estimates that PHMSA engineers and support 
personnel have historically spent an aggregate of around 550 person-
hours--roughly equivalent to a quarter of the total working hours a 
single PHMSA engineer works in a year--on each part 193, subpart B, 
siting review conducted for those projects.\5\ Lastly, the demands on 
PHMSA personnel resources in performing LNG facility siting reviews 
comes at the same moment as PHMSA's jurisdictional responsibilities 
have increased. PHMSA has recently expanded the scope of pipeline 
facilities for which it provides regulatory oversight to include Type C 
gas gathering pipelines, and in a forthcoming rulemaking consider 
expanding the scope of its part 195 regulations to address increased 
interest in expansion of pipeline infrastructure supporting carbon 
capture, use, and sequestration applications.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ PHMSA also notes that many of the large LNG facility 
projects in fact involve two part 193, subpart B, siting reviews, 
each consisting of nearly identical work efforts--one in advance of 
issuance of a FERC certificate authorizing construction and 
operation of a facility, and another in response to material changes 
in the design of the facility during the construction phase.
    \6\ PHMSA, ``Final Rule--Safety of Gas Gathering Pipelines: 
Extension of Reporting Requirements, Regulation of Large, High-
Pressure Lines, and Other Related Amendments,'' 86 FR 63266 (Nov. 
15, 2021); see also n.1 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Amendments

    The existing regulations in 49 CFR part 190, subpart E, prescribe a 
fee structure and assessment methodology for recovering costs from 
design safety reviews of applications to FERC for new or expanded gas, 
LNG, hazardous liquid, and carbon dioxide pipeline facility projects 
with either project design and construction costs totaling at least 
$2.5 billion, or that contain new or novel technologies and designs. 
PHMSA proposes to revise part 190, subpart E, to also prescribe a fee 
structure and assessment methodology for recovering costs associated 
with its 49 CFR part 193, subpart B, siting reviews of applications for 
new or expanded LNG facility projects with design and construction 
costs totaling at least $2.5 billion. This proposal will execute 
PHMSA's authority granted in section 103 of the PIPES Act of 2020; 
PHMSA expects the commercial, public safety, and environmental benefits 
of this NPRM's proposed regulatory amendments described herein will 
outweigh any associated costs and support PHMSA's proposed rule 
compared to alternatives.
    PHMSA's proposed regulatory amendments are expected to improve 
public safety and reduce threats to the environment by ensuring that 
PHMSA has adequate funding to perform high-quality part 193, subpart B, 
LNG facility siting reviews without diverting resources from other 
critical regulatory

[[Page 67043]]

oversight functions over jurisdictional gas (including LNG), hazardous 
liquid, and carbon dioxide pipeline facilities. The proposed amendments 
also ensure that the costs of performing siting reviews are borne by 
the project applicants rather than through annual user fees paid by all 
pipeline facility operators. PHMSA also expects its proposed amendments 
would be technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and 
practicable for affected entities seeking FERC authorization for large 
($2.5 billion or more) LNG facility project applications. PHMSA's 
proposed requirement that applicants provide notice and supporting 
documentation to PHMSA in parallel with submission of their certificate 
application to FERC is an incremental addition on existing FERC 
procedural requirements. And although PHMSA's proposed fees for LNG 
facility part 193, subpart B, siting reviews would be a new line item 
cost for such applicants, PHMSA's projections for those fees for each 
review (found in section V.B below) would be trivial (roughly 0.0024 
percent) compared to the $2.5 billion minimum design and construction 
costs of pertinent project applications. Further, PHMSA has designed 
its proposed approach to imposing fees in a way that maximizes 
regulatory certainty for affected entities. Specifically, PHMSA is 
proposing each part 193, subpart B, siting review fee to consist of (1) 
an up-front fee for estimated costs calculated from historical 
personnel costs involved in performing siting reviews for LNG facility 
project applications with design and construction costs of $2.5 billion 
or more; and (2) a true-up payment to PHMSA at conclusion of that 
review should PHMSA's costs exceed the fee paid up-front based on 
PHMSA's estimated historical personnel costs. PHMSA's timely access to 
adequate financial resources to perform part 193, subpart B, siting 
reviews as those reviews initiate also benefits project applicants by 
facilitating timely completion of such reviews, while ensuring that 
PHMSA complies with the applicable legal requirements under 
appropriations law and 49 U.S.C. 60303. Viewed against those 
considerations and the compliance costs estimated in section V.A of 
this NPRM, PHMSA expects its proposed amendments will be a cost-
effective approach to achieving the commercial, public safety, and 
environmental benefits discussed herein. Lastly, PHMSA believes that 
its proposed compliance timelines--based on an effective date of the 
proposed requirement of 120 days after publication of a final rule in 
this proceeding (which would be in addition to the time since issuance 
of this NPRM)--would provide affected project applicants ample time to 
manage any related compliance costs.

A. Expand the Scope of and Criteria for Cost Recovery To Include LNG 
Facility Siting Reviews (Sec. Sec.  190.401 and 190.403)

    Section 190.401 describes the scope of the part 190, subpart E, 
cost recovery requirements, which currently do not allow for cost 
recovery for part 193, subpart B, siting reviews for LNG facility 
project applications. PHMSA proposes to amend the scope of its cost 
recovery regulation at Sec.  190.401 to add a new paragraph (b) 
extending that provision's scope to include siting reviews for large 
($2.5 billion or more design and construction costs) LNG facility 
project applications, and require the applicant proposing a project to 
pay fees for the costs incurred by PHMSA relating to such reviews. This 
amendment would execute the mandate in section 103 of the PIPES Act of 
2020 that PHMSA collect costs incurred for performing those LNG 
facility siting reviews of applications for new or expanded LNG 
facility projects with project design and construction costs totaling 
at least $2.5 billion. This change would also clarify that cost 
recovery for those LNG facility siting reviews must meet the criteria 
for applicability specified in Sec.  190.403. PHMSA also proposes a 
clerical amendment to existing language listing pipeline facilities 
subject to cost recovery to better align the existing text of Sec.  
190.401 (relocated within a new paragraph (a)) with the applicability 
requirements in Sec.  190.403.
    Section 190.403 specifies which applications \7\ for pipeline 
facility projects are subject to cost recovery requirements. PHMSA has 
reviewed the current regulatory language in paragraph (a) of that 
provision and has concluded that much of that language is expansive 
enough that it does not need amendment to allow for cost recovery of 
PHMSA's part 193, subpart B, siting reviews. The language in paragraph 
(a) refers broadly to ``applications'' for ``projects'' without 
explicitly limiting those projects in terms of the type of review 
(e.g., those governing design safety reviews or LNG facility siting 
reviews) PHMSA conducts. Paragraph (a) also employs a monetary 
threshold for each project application subject to PHMSA cost recovery 
(project design and construction costs of least $2.5 billion) that is 
identical to the threshold identified in the statutory authorization 
for part 193, subpart B, siting review cost recovery in section 103 of 
the PIPES Act of 2020. However, because PHMSA understands that 
applications to FERC for LNG facilities do not always contain estimated 
design and construction costs for those facilities,\8\ PHMSA proposes 
amendment of existing paragraph (a)(ii) to provide for forwarding to 
PHMSA of a good faith estimate of design and construction costs for 
those projects that do not include such estimated costs in their FERC 
application. PHMSA has also revised and relocated within a new 
paragraph (a)(1)(iii) other language within existing paragraph 
(a)(1)(ii) describing the cost elements informing development of such 
good faith estimates. PHMSA also proposes a conforming revision to 
paragraph (c) clarifying that the estimated costs of design and 
construction of a pipeline facility is among the ``related materials'' 
applicants should submit to PHMSA pursuant to Sec.  190.403.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ PHMSA does not expect that entities engaging in mandatory or 
discretionary pre-filing processes with FERC or those other 
authorities need to notify PHMSA until formal submission of their 
project application.
    \8\ PHMSA also understands that applicants for FERC certificates 
for LNG facility projects will often submit with their application 
for the LNG facility an application for the gas supply pipeline 
connecting the LNG facility to the interstate gas transmission 
system. Because PHMSA understands its $2.5 billion monetary 
threshold applies only to the design and construction costs for the 
LNG facility itself (and not its natural gas supply pipeline), PHMSA 
expects that applicants will distinguish between the costs of those 
facilities when submitting notifications to PHMSA as proposed in 
this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (b) of Sec.  190.403 also currently contains language 
codifying in regulation the statutory language at 49 U.S.C. 
60117(o)(1)(A) barring PHMSA from ``double-dipping'' to recover costs 
for the same design/construction reviews via both its cost recovery 
authority pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60117(o) and its authority to impose 
user fees pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60301. Specifically, paragraph (b) 
states that ``[t]he Associate Administrator may not collect design 
safety review fees under this section [implementing 49 U.S.C. 60117(o)] 
and 49 U.S.C. 60301 for the same design safety review.'' The PIPES Act 
of 2020 codified at 49 U.S.C. 60303(a)(2) an analogous prohibition 
preventing PHMSA from ``double-dipping'' to recover costs associated 
with its part 193, subpart B, siting reviews for LNG facilities 
pursuant to both 49 U.S.C. 60303 and either of its 49 U.S.C. 60117(o) 
design/construction cost recovery authority or its 49 U.S.C.

[[Page 67044]]

60301 user fee authority.\9\ PHMSA therefore proposes to amend Sec.  
190.403(b) to incorporate that new statutory prohibition into 
regulation. PHMSA has also made clerical amendments to the existing 
Sec.  190.403(b) to accommodate the addition of that new statutory 
prohibition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Should an applicant for an LNG facility project voluntarily 
request PHMSA consider design and construction elements within 
PHMSA's part 193, subpart B, siting review, PHMSA reserves 
discretion to recover costs for review of those elements during one 
or both of its part 193, subparts B (siting) or C and D (design & 
construction) safety reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, PHMSA's proposal would make changes in Sec.  190.403 to 
identify materials it reviews when performing a part 193, subpart B, 
LNG facility siting review. Specifically, PHMSA proposes a new 
paragraph (d)--modeled on existing paragraph (c) identifying materials 
PHMSA reviews in connection with its design safety reviews for gas 
(including LNG), hazardous liquid, and carbon dioxide pipelines--for 
part 193, subpart B, LNG facility siting reviews. From those materials, 
the Associate Administrator shall develop and provide, as soon as 
practicable after notification of an application pursuant to Sec.  
190.405, an estimated cost for performing that review. PHMSA has chosen 
this approach for cost recovery for LNG facility siting reviews to 
ensure it has adequate resources in place to perform such reviews on 
initiation, thereby avoiding the need for protracted negotiation of a 
Master Agreement as provided by existing part 190, subpart E, cost 
recovery for design safety reviews.

B. Expand Notification Requirements To Include Applications for LNG 
Facility Projects With Design and Construction Costs Totaling or 
Exceeding $2.5 Billion (Sec.  190.405)

    Section 190.405 requires the applicant for any new pipeline 
facility project in which PHMSA will conduct a design safety review to 
notify PHMSA and provide with that notification specific materials that 
(including the design specifications and construction plans and 
procedures) PHMSA will typically examine during such reviews. Section 
190.405 also identifies a 90-day target for PHMSA to provide the 
applicant its written feedback on those materials.
    PHMSA now proposes a handful of amendments of Sec.  190.405 for 
improved cost recovery procedural mechanics and to accommodate 
extension of that provision's notification requirements to part 193, 
subpart B, siting reviews for LNG facility project applications. 
Specifically, PHMSA proposes redesignating the existing text in Sec.  
190.405 as a new paragraph (a), and amending that language to 
explicitly address part 193, subpart B, LNG facility siting reviews. 
Consistent with its proposed expansion of the Sec.  193.405 
notification requirement, PHMSA also proposes adding examples of 
additional siting-related activities (e.g., site preparation) that are 
important milestones related to siting of an LNG facility within the 
list of existing design/construction-focused activities triggering the 
Sec.  193.405 documentation requirement. PHMSA also proposes a new 
paragraph (b) stating that it reserves discretion to delay initiation 
of its part 193, subpart B, LNG facility siting reviews until receipt 
of payment in full of the estimated review costs provided for a project 
application pursuant to proposed Sec.  190.403(d).
    PHMSA also proposes a new paragraph (c) stating explicitly that LNG 
facility project applicants seeking part 193, subpart B, LNG facility 
siting reviews must provide PHMSA timely notification of both material 
changes to an application (i.e., changes to project applications 
resulting in significant changes to the materials submitted to PHMSA 
pursuant to Sec.  190.405(a)) and any change in the estimated design 
and construction costs for the project (e.g., as a result of those 
changes to the design and construction of the facilities, or increased 
labor, material, or financing costs) that would result in the project 
meeting or exceeding the monetary threshold in Sec.  190.403(a)(1).\10\ 
LNG facilities are time, capital, labor, and material-intensive 
projects--changes in the cost of one or more of those factors may 
result in design and construction costs rising significantly between 
submission of a FERC application and completion of construction. 
PHMSA's proposed change would ensure that PHMSA will be able to recover 
its costs in conducting part 193, subpart B, LNG facility siting 
reviews as project costs increase above the $2.5 billion monetary 
threshold for cost recovery. Similarly, design changes during the 
construction phase of an LNG facility project (i.e., after issuance of 
the FERC certificate) may materially affect assumptions supporting the 
analysis within PHMSA's part 193, subpart B, siting review, 
necessitating PHMSA perform that review again. Notification of those 
design changes will facilitate PHMSA's recovery of its costs in 
performing any additional part 193, subpart B, siting reviews required 
by material changes to facility design during construction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ PHMSA expects that cost recovery for part 193, subpart B, 
siting reviews proposed herein will attach to any notification--
whether an initial notification per proposed paragraph (a), or a 
later notification per proposed paragraph (c)--submitted to PHMSA 
after the effective date of a final rule in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Conform Amendments to Master Agreement Requirements for Facility 
Design Safety Reviews (Sec.  190.407)

    Section 190.407 describes the content of Master Agreements entered 
into between PHMSA and applicants for those projects the Associate 
Administrator has determined recovery of PHMSA's costs in performing 
facility design safety reviews is necessary. PHMSA proposes clarifying 
revisions to the prefatory language of this provision to reflect the 
expansion of part 190, subpart E, cost recovery procedures to allow for 
cost recovery for part 193, subpart B, LNG facility siting reviews.

D. Expand Fee Structure To Include LNG Siting Reviews (Sec.  190.409)

    Section 190.409 describes the cost recovery fee structure for 
design reviews of gas (including LNG), hazardous liquid, and carbon 
dioxide pipeline facilities with overall design and construction costs 
totaling at least $2.5 billion, or that contain new or novel 
technologies and designs. PHMSA proposes adding LNG siting reviews to 
Sec.  190.409 with no change to the species of qualifying costs 
identified in this provision. PHMSA proposes revising the introductory 
text to codify that the basis of the fees that PHMSA will charge is to 
recover the costs for LNG facility siting reviews.
    Applicable to all facilities, PHMSA is also proposing to remove the 
definition of ``necessary for'' in Sec.  190.409. In the context of the 
fee structure, Sec.  190.409 currently states that the costs will be 
based only on costs ``necessary for'' conducting the facility design 
safety review. Section 190.409 goes on to state that ``necessary for'' 
means ``that but for the facility design safety review, the costs would 
not have been incurred and that the costs cover only those activities 
and items without which the facility design safety review cannot be 
completed.'' PHMSA is proposing to remove this definition from this 
section to improve the readability of Sec.  190.409, and to avoid 
confusion regarding what is or is not a cost that would not have been 
incurred ``but for'' a design safety or LNG facility siting review. 
PHMSA notes that some of the same PHMSA personnel may continue to 
perform regulatory oversight of compliance with pipeline safety 
regulations before and after reviews subject to part 190, subpart E, 
cost recovery are completed such that attribution of personnel costs 
exclusively to that review will prove impracticable in practice. That 
said,

[[Page 67045]]

PHMSA notes that other existing or proposed procedural mechanics in 
part 190, subpart E, will serve the same purpose as the deleted 
reference to ``necessary'' costs by addressing the double-dipping 
concern that had motivated introduction of that language in Sec.  
190.409. First, the language at Sec.  190.409(b) would codify in 
regulation the statutory prohibitions against double-dipping at 49 
U.S.C. 60117(o)(1)(A) and 49 U.S.C. 60303(a)(2). Second, the 
negotiation of Master Agreements (to include audit rights) for design 
safety reviews pursuant to Sec.  190.407(a)(3) would provide 
opportunities for applicants to ensure PHMSA's cost recovery is focused 
on its bona fide costs in performing those reviews. Third, and lastly, 
PHMSA has designed the fee structure for LNG facility siting reviews 
proposed herein based on historical personnel costs in performing those 
reviews.

E. Modify Billing and Payment Procedures To Require Payment Upon 
Receipt (Sec.  190.411)

    Section 190.411 describes the procedural mechanics for billing and 
payment of facility design safety reviews for which the Associate 
Administrator has determined that cost recovery is necessary. PHMSA 
proposes several amendments to this provision to introduce procedures 
specific to billing and payment of fees for PHMSA's costs in performing 
part 193, subpart B, LNG facility siting reviews. First, PHMSA proposes 
to redesignate the current prefatory text governing billing and payment 
of fees for design safety reviews as a new paragraph (a); current 
paragraphs (a) through (d) will be redesignated as paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (4).
    Second, PHMSA proposes redesignating as a new paragraph (c) current 
language at paragraph (e) asserting its discretion to exercise 
regulatory oversight notwithstanding any receipt of fees for recovery 
of its costs for facility design safety reviews. PHMSA also proposes 
amendments to newly designated paragraph (c) for clarity, and to 
reflect the proposed amendment of part 190, subpart E, cost recovery 
procedures to include cost recovery for LNG facility siting reviews.
    Third, PHMSA proposes a new paragraph (b) establishing billing and 
payment procedures for each part 193, subpart B, LNG facility siting 
review. Specifically, before initiation of each review, PHMSA will 
provide applicants a bill for its estimated costs and will not begin 
its review until payment of the fee for those estimated costs.\11\ The 
up-front fee for PHMSA's estimated costs has been calculated as $65,000 
for calendar year 2024. That value is derived from the personnel costs 
associated with historical work efforts (measured in hours and set 
forth in the table below) by PHMSA personnel involved in performing 
siting reviews for LNG facility project applications with design and 
construction costs of $2.5 billion or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As explained in sections II and III.B above, over the 
course of its lifecycle from initial application to completion of 
construction, an LNG facility project may require PHMSA to perform 
more than one part 193, subpart B, siting review. Therefore, PHMSA 
notes that each time it has to perform this review (largely 
identical in terms of work effort), it will impose a separate up-
front fee pursuant to Sec.  190.411(b).

         Table 1--Hours Associated With Historical Work Efforts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Estimated number
                                                            of hours
                                                        contributing to
                Title                     Pay grade    complete part 193
                                                       siting review for
                                                          $2.5 billion
                                                            project
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deputy Associate Administrator.......             SES                  5
Director.............................           GS-15                 10
Supervisory General Engineer.........           GS-14                 68
General Engineer (Lead)..............           GS-14                420
General Engineer (Support)...........            GS-9                 40
Technical Writer.....................            GS-9                  1
Attorney Advisor Manager.............           GS-15                  1
Staff Attorney Advisor...............           GS-14                  8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PHMSA then multiplied those historical work efforts by hourly rates 
derived from annual salaries for Senior Executive Service (SES) and 
General Schedule (GS) employees in the Baltimore/Washington area (the 
location of PHMSA's headquarters) published within salary tables on the 
Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) website.\12\ PHMSA used these 
calculated wages to estimate total personnel costs, including 
miscellaneous benefits (e.g., FICA, FERS contribution, health 
insurance, etc.) not accounted for in OPM salary tables.\13\ PHMSA's 
up-front fee for its estimated costs billed to project applicants will 
automatically change in future calendar years to reflect OPM's 
adjustments to those salary tables.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ OPM, ``Salaries and Wages--2024,'' https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/ (last visited Mar. 
4, 2024). PHMSA further notes that in using those salary tables it 
has--to yield more conservative numbers regarding the compliance 
costs for this rulemaking--employed in its calculations salaries 
corresponding to (1) the fifth step for each grade on the GS scale, 
and (2) the high end of the range for SES salaries.
    \13\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, Press Release No. USDL-23-2567, 
``Employer Costs for Employee Compensation'' (Dec. 15, 2023), 
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf (noting that non-
salary employee compensation for state and local government 
employees--which PHMSA believes is a reasonable proxy for federal 
government employee compensation--makes up 38 percent of total 
compensation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the conclusion of each part 193, subpart B, LNG facility siting 
review--but before it issues a finding on compliance--PHMSA will 
calculate the difference between the fee paid for estimated costs and 
its actual costs for those costs identified in Sec.  190.409, and then 
bill the applicant for the balance. PHMSA also proposes that it would 
be able to withhold its finding of compliance with part 193, subpart B, 
requirements until the applicant has paid any outstanding fees. PHMSA 
does not contemplate that an applicant would be entitled to refund of 
fees for LNG facility siting reviews paid pursuant to part 190, subpart 
E, should PHMSA's actual costs either not meet the up-front fee for 
estimated costs, or the applicant withdraws or amends an

[[Page 67046]]

application for its project such that it no longer meets the monetary 
threshold at Sec.  190.403(a).
    PHMSA expects the two-stage approach proposed in the new paragraph 
(b) will ensure it has timely access to funds needed to verify 
compliance with part 193, subpart B, LNG facility siting requirements. 
PHMSA notes that those reviews are inputs to decision-making by another 
agency (FERC); by avoiding potentially protracted negotiation of a 
Master Agreement as contemplated by current part 190, subpart E, 
procedures, PHMSA can ensure that, at the initiation of its review, it 
will have adequate resources to begin and complete those reviews 
without introducing significant delay in FERC's review of certificate 
applications for LNG facility projects. And should those estimated 
costs ultimately prove lower than PHMSA's actual costs, PHMSA proposes 
a ``true-up'' mechanism employed at the conclusion of each review to 
ensure that PHMSA is made whole, thereby reducing the risk of diversion 
of its limited personnel resources from other jurisdictional oversight 
activities. Additionally, PHMSA's proposal to condition its issuance of 
a determination regarding compliance with part 193, subpart B, LNG 
facility siting review upon receipt of any outstanding fees would avoid 
scenarios whereby an applicant delays or avoids payment either because 
they are unhappy with PHMSA's determination or because they have 
already obtained the benefit of that determination within FERC's 
certificate review.

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis

Subpart E Title

    PHMSA proposes to amend the heading of part 190, subpart E to read, 
``Cost Recovery for Design Reviews and LNG Siting Reviews.'' This 
proposal would clarify that LNG siting reviews are included in the cost 
recovery requirements in 49 CFR part 190, subpart E.

Section 190.401--Scope

    This section describes PHMSA review activities for which the 
provisions at part 190, subpart E, allow cost recovery. Currently, such 
cost recovery is limited to recovery of costs associated with PHMSA's 
design safety review of applications for certain projects involving new 
or expanded, large gas (including LNG), hazardous liquid, or carbon 
dioxide pipeline facilities. PHMSA proposes to amend this section by 
redesignating the current regulatory text as paragraph (a); adding a 
new paragraph (b) to codify that PHMSA will recover its costs in 
conducting LNG facility siting reviews under part 193, subpart B; and 
making a clerical revision within paragraph (a) to better align Sec.  
190.401 with Sec.  190.403 applicability requirements.

Section 190.403--Applicability

    This section describes criteria (including a $2.5 billion project 
monetary threshold) for project applications of gas (including LNG), 
hazardous liquid, or carbon dioxide pipeline facilities in which PHMSA 
may recover its review costs as contemplated by Sec.  190.401. PHMSA 
proposes to amend the language in existing paragraph (a)(ii) to provide 
for application of part 190, subpart E, cost recovery monetary 
threshold requirements to LNG facility projects whose FERC applications 
may not contain an estimate of project design and construction costs. 
PHMSA also proposes to relocate within a new paragraph (a)(1)(iii) 
existing text at Sec.  190.403(a)(1)(ii) describing the cost elements 
informing development of such good faith estimates. PHMSA also proposes 
to introduce a new Sec.  190.403(b) mirroring a statutory prohibition 
in the PIPES Act of 2020 barring PHMSA from collecting fees under 
multiple statutory authorities (and their implementing regulations) for 
the same LNG facility siting review. PHMSA also proposes a conforming 
revision to paragraph (c) clarifying that the estimated costs of design 
and construction of a pipeline facility are among the ``related 
materials'' applicants should submit to PHMSA pursuant to Sec.  
190.403. Lastly, PHMSA proposes to introduce a new paragraph (d) 
identifying application materials PHMSA will review in connection with 
its part 193, subpart B, LNG facility siting reviews.

Section 190.405--Notification

    This section identifies notification and documentation submission 
requirements for applicants for large ($2.5 billion or more design and 
construction costs) projects on gas, LNG, hazardous liquid, and carbon 
dioxide pipelines facilities. PHMSA proposes to modify Sec.  190.405 by 
redesignating the existing text as a new paragraph (a), and amending 
that text to accommodate expanded application of those notification 
requirements to LNG facility siting reviews under part 193, subpart B. 
PHMSA also proposes to introduce a new paragraph (b) reserving 
discretion to delay review of submitted materials for LNG facility 
siting reviews until payment in full of the fee of the estimated costs 
for such review. Lastly, PHMSA proposes a new paragraph (c) requiring 
applicants for new or expanded LNG facility projects to notify PHMSA of 
any material changes to documentation submitted to PHMSA pursuant to 
Sec.  195.405, or changes to estimated project design and construction 
costs that would cause the project to exceed the monetary threshold in 
Sec.  195.403(a).

Section 190.407--Master Agreement

    Section 190.407 describes the content of Master Agreements entered 
into between PHMSA and applicants for those projects the Associate 
Administrator has determined recovery of PHMSA's costs in performing 
facility design safety reviews is necessary. PHMSA proposes clarifying 
revisions to the prefatory language of this provisions to distinguish 
between procedures for cost recovery in connection with design safety 
reviews (which will involve applicants entering into Master Agreements 
for such cost recovery) and part 193, subpart B, LNG facility siting 
reviews (which will not require applicants to enter into Master 
Agreements for such cost recovery).

Section 190.409--Fee Structure

    PHMSA proposes revising the introductory text to codify the basis 
of the fees PHMSA will charge to recover the costs for LNG siting 
reviews. PHMSA also proposes removing the definition of ``necessary 
for'' and all uses of ``necessary for'' in this section, as this 
language has not served to clarify the regulations as PHMSA intended.

Section 190.411--Procedures for Billing and Payment of Fee

    Section 190.411 describes procedures for billing and payment of 
fees for cost recovery of PHMSA's design safety reviews. PHMSA proposes 
a series of amendments to this provision to accommodate procedural 
mechanisms for cost recovery of part 193, subpart B, LNG facility 
siting reviews.

[[Page 67047]]

    First, PHMSA proposes to redesignate the current prefatory text 
governing fees for cost recovery in connection with facility design 
safety reviews as a new paragraph (a); existing paragraphs (a)-(d) will 
then be redesignated as paragraphs (1)-(4) within the new paragraph 
(a).
    Second, PHMSA proposes introduction of a new paragraph (b) 
establishing the procedural mechanism for billing and payment of fees 
for estimated costs for each LNG facility siting review before PHMSA 
initiates each review, as well as subsequent adjustment of those fees 
based on PHMSA's actual costs in performing each review. PHMSA proposes 
those up-front fees for its estimated costs will be derived from the 
personnel costs associated with historical work efforts by PHMSA 
personnel involved in performing siting reviews for LNG facility 
project applications with design and construction costs of $2.5 billion 
or more, and will automatically change in future calendar years to 
reflect changes in the salaries of pertinent employees memorialized on 
OPM's website. PHMSA also proposes that, before issuance of a finding 
of compliance with its part 193, subpart B, requirements, it will bill 
the project applicant for any difference in the actual costs incurred 
by PHMSA and the up-front fee for its estimated costs; issuance of 
PHMSA's compliance determination will be contingent on an applicant's 
payment of any outstanding fees as a result of that adjustment process.
    Third, and lastly, PHMSA proposes redesignating and clarifying the 
disclaimer at existing paragraph (e) regarding PHMSA's discretion to 
exercise its authorities under law to protect public safety and the 
environment as a new paragraph (c).

V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rule

    This proposed rule is published under the authority of the 
Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) delegated to the PHMSA 
Administrator pursuant to 49 CFR 1.97. Among the statutory authorities 
delegated to PHMSA are those set forth in the federal pipeline safety 
statutes (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.). Section 60102 authorizes the 
Secretary to issue regulations governing the design, installation, 
inspection, emergency plans and procedures, testing, construction, 
extension, operation, replacement, and maintenance of pipeline 
facilities. Section 60117(o) directs the Secretary to prescribe 
procedures for fees recovering PHMSA's costs in performing design 
safety reviews for jurisdictional pipeline facilities. Lastly, section 
103 of the PIPES Act of 2020 (codified at 49 U.S.C. 60303) requires the 
Secretary to establish procedures for recovering PHMSA's costs in 
performing LNG facility siting reviews pursuant to 49 CFR part 193, 
subpart B.

B. Executive Order 12866 and 14094; DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures

    Executive Order 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review''), as 
amended by Executive Order 14094 (``Modernizing Regulatory Review''), 
requires that agencies ``assess all costs and benefits of available 
regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating.'' 
\14\ Agencies should consider quantifiable measures and qualitative 
measures of costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify. Further, 
Executive Order 12866 requires that agencies select those regulatory 
approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, 
environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; 
distributive impacts; and equity), unless a statute requires another 
regulatory approach. Similarly, DOT Order 2100.6A (``Rulemaking and 
Guidance Procedures'') requires that regulations issued by PHMSA and 
other DOT Operating Administrations consider an assessment of the 
potential benefits, costs, and other important impacts of the proposed 
action, and should quantify (to the extent practicable) the benefits, 
costs, and any significant distributional impacts, including any 
environmental impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Executive Order 12866 is available at 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 
1993); Executive Order 14094 is available at 88 FR 21879 (Apr. 6, 
2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Executive Order 12866 (as amended by Executive Order 14094) and DOT 
Order 2100.6A require that PHMSA submit ``significant regulatory 
actions'' to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. NPRM 
is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive 
Order 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and, therefore, was 
not reviewed by OMB; nor is this NPRM considered a significant 
rulemaking under DOT Order 2100.6A.
    Executive Order 12866 (as amended) and DOT Order 2100.6A also 
require PHMSA to provide a meaningful opportunity for public 
participation, which reinforces requirements for notice and comment in 
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.). In accord 
with the requirement, PHMSA seeks public comment on the proposals in 
the NPRM (including preliminary cost and cost savings analyses 
pertaining to those proposals, as well as discussions of the public 
safety, environmental, and equity benefits), as well as any information 
that could assist in evaluating the benefits and costs of PHMSA's NPRM.
    Consistent with Executive Order 12866 (as amended by Executive 
Order 14094) and DOT Order 2100.6A, PHMSA has assessed the benefits and 
costs of the proposed rule as well as reasonable alternatives. As 
discussed in section II above, this rulemaking implements a mandate by 
Congress in section 103 of the PIPES Act of 2020 for the establishment 
of procedures for recovery of PHMSA's costs in performing part 193, 
subpart B, design reviews of large ($2.5 billion or more design and 
construction costs) LNG facility project applications to FERC. PHMSA 
expects the proposed rule could result in unquantified public safety 
and environmental benefits by preventing the potential diversion of 
PHMSA's limited resources from the Agency's other pipeline safety 
regulatory oversight responsibilities to cover costs associated with 
PHMSA's LNG facility siting reviews for those projects. However, 
because it is not clear which activities would go unfunded due to the 
costs of conducting LNG facility siting reviews, PHMSA is unable to 
quantify those benefits with a meaningful degree of certainty.
    PHMSA acknowledges that its proposed new fees providing cost 
recovery for its part 193, subpart B, LNG facility siting reviews will 
impose a new line item cost on affected applicants seeking FERC 
authorization to construct and operate certain LNG facilities. Pursuant 
to an August 2018 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between FERC and 
PHMSA, FERC agreed to reimburse PHMSA for direct costs that PHMSA 
incurred performing LNG facility siting reviews that are considered in 
FERC's authorization certificate application process. FERC and PHMSA 
subsequently entered into an interagency agreement whereby FERC 
reimbursed PHMSA for time spent by PHMSA staff to complete siting 
reviews for LNG facilities. The funds FERC used for those 
reimbursements were not passed along as a cost to applicants. The fees 
proposed herein will, therefore, be a new cost for affected applicants.
    Since the August 2018 FERC/PHMSA MOU, PHMSA has on average 
completed seven siting reviews for LNG facility applications of any 
size per year, with a typical breakdown of labor required from PHMSA 
employees for large facilities (design and construction

[[Page 67048]]

costs of $2.5 billion or more) as laid out in the table below.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ From September 2018 through October 2022, PHMSA performed 
siting reviews on a total of 38 active projects of any size.

                                      Table 2--Typical Labor Required From PHMSA Employees for Large LNG Facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Estimated number of hours
                                                                                                contributing to complete     Hourly rate (assuming 2024
                             Title                                    Pay grade + step         part 193 siting review from    WDC, step 5 for each pay
                                                                                                beginning to end for $2.5              scale)
                                                                                                     billion project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deputy Associate Administrator................................                           SES                             5                          $107
Director......................................................                         GS-15                            10                            89
Supervisory General Engineer..................................                         GS-14                            68                            76
General Engineer (Lead).......................................                         GS-14                           420                            76
General Engineer (Support)....................................                          GS-9                            40                            37
Technical Writer..............................................                          GS-9                             1                            37
Attorney Advisor Manager......................................                         GS-15                             1                            89
Staff Attorney Advisor........................................                         GS-14                             8                            76
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total base salary of personnel for each review: $41,000.............................................................................................
    Aggregate personnel costs for each review (assuming non-salary benefits make up 38% of employee compensation): \16\ $65,000.........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Hourly rates based on step 5 for each GS level (per OPM's 2024 WDC pay scale) and 2024 maximum SES pay level. See https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/.
\16\ PHMSA uses BLS estimates for state and local government employee compensation as a proxy for federal government employee compensation (obtained
  from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf, last accessed March 15, 2024). Wages are estimated to make up 62 percent of employee compensation,
  with non-wage benefits making up the remaining 38 percent. Equivalently, non-wage benefits are valued at approximately 61 percent of wages (1/0.62 =
  1.61).

    PHMSA calculates the cost of an average siting review to include 
approximately $41,000 in wages, and an additional $14,000 in non-wage 
benefits, for an average per siting review cost of $65,000.\17\ PHMSA 
projects that, notwithstanding continued demand for LNG worldwide, the 
volume of its review of applications for new, large LNG facility 
projects of the sort that would be subject to the fees proposed herein 
will decrease going forward, given reduced interest in building new LNG 
facilities due to large-scale LNG export terminals that have already 
been built or authorized, and a wave of recently announced LNG export 
projects in other exporting countries.\18\ PHMSA has therefore 
conservatively estimated that (1) the current average of seven reviews 
for facilities of any size per year would reduce to six over the next 
three years, then to five, and finally four per year over the remaining 
years within a 10-year forecast period; and (2) those reviews would be 
for large ($2.5 billion or more design and construction costs) projects 
that would be subject to the cost recovery requirements proposed 
herein. Similarly, PHMSA expects that its own personnel costs in 
conducting part 193, subpart B, siting reviews for those facilities 
will be at or near its historical estimated average of $65,000 per 
review throughout the analysis period as that value accounts for a 
range of LNG facility projects--some well in excess of, and some closer 
to, the $2.5 billion monetary threshold PHMSA proposes in this 
NPRM.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ PHMSA uses BLS estimates for state and local government 
employee compensation as a proxy for federal government employee 
compensation (obtained from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf, last accessed March 15, 2024). Wages are estimated to make 
up 62 percent of employee compensation, with non-wage benefits 
making up the remaining 38 percent. Equivalently, non-wage benefits 
are valued at approximately 61 percent of wages (1/0.62 = 1.61).
    \18\ See, e.g., Reuters, ``IEA Says ``Unprecedented'' Supply 
Surge Could Lead to LNG Glut from 2025'' (Oct. 24, 2023), https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/iea-says-unprecedented-supply-surge-could-lead-lng-glut-2025-2023-10-24/, and Reuters, ``Qatar's 
LNG Bigger LNG Expansion Could Squeeze Out United States, other LNG 
Rivals'' (Feb. 27, 2024), https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/qatars-new-lng-expansion-plans-squeeze-out-us-other-rivals-2024-02-27/. PHMSA notes this projection is consistent with the relatively 
few U.S. LNG export terminals currently before, or anticipated by, 
FERC's website. See supra note 18.
    \19\ PHMSA acknowledges that it is also proposing miscellaneous 
clerical revisions to various existing provisions of part 190, 
subpart E (governing design safety reviews of jurisdictional 
pipeline facilities), but expects those amendments will entail only 
de minimis compliance costs for affected project applicants. PHMSA 
has also, for the purpose of this analysis, not estimated other, 
variable costs identified at Sec.  190.409 that it would recover 
pursuant to this rulemaking because PHMSA's personnel costs are the 
largest component (by far) of PHMSA's total costs in performing part 
193, subpart B, siting reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the reduced frequency of the required siting reviews and 
assuming the current average cost to remain static over the 10-year 
forecast period, the rule would result in an additional burden of 
approximately $3.71 million over 10 years, as described in Table 3.
    This is discounted to $3.43 million using a two percent rate, and 
the annualized cost is $381,899. Although these costs associated with 
directly itemized and billed LNG facility siting reviews are not 
substantial relative to the total project costs ($2.5 billion or 
greater), these costs in this proposed rulemaking will create a new 
cost for affected applicants.

                                 Table 3--Total and Annualized Costs of the NPRM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of siting
                Year                       reviews        Cost per review      Total costs         NPV at 2%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................                  7            $65,000           $455,000           $455,000
2...................................                  7             65,000            455,000            446,627
3...................................                  7             65,000            455,000            437,332
4...................................                  6             65,000            390,000            367,506
5...................................                  6             65,000            390,000            360,300
6...................................                  6             65,000            390,000            353,235

[[Page 67049]]

 
7...................................                  5             65,000            325,000            288,591
8...................................                  5             65,000            325,000            282,932
9...................................                  4             65,000            260,000            221,908
10..................................                  4             65,000            260,000            217,556
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................                 57  .................          3,705,000          3,430,437
    Annualized Cost.................  .................  .................  .................            381,899
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a sensitivity analysis, alternative costs assuming a constant 
demand for siting reviews per year are presented below in Table 4, as 
opposed to the moderately decreased demand presented in Table 3 above.

                      Table 4--Sensitivity Analysis: Total and Annualized Costs of the NPRM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of siting
                Year                       reviews        Cost per review      Total costs         NPV at 2%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................                  7            $65,000           $455,000           $455,000
2...................................                  7             65,000            455,000            446,078
3...................................                  7             65,000            455,000            437,332
4...................................                  7             65,000            455,000            428,757
5...................................                  7             65,000            455,000            420,350
6...................................                  7             65,000            455,000            412,108
7...................................                  7             65,000            455,000            404,027
8...................................                  7             65,000            455,000            396,105
9...................................                  7             65,000            455,000            388,338
10..................................                  7             65,000            455,000            380,724
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................                 70  .................          4,550,000          4,168,818
    Annualized Cost.................  .................  .................  .................            464,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under this scenario, the nominal cost over 10 years increases from 
$3.71 million to $4.55 million--discounted to $4.17 million at two 
percent--from the original $3.43 million. The annualized cost estimate 
increases from $381,899 to $464,100 under this alternative scenario.
    In both of these scenarios, the total cost to industry over the 
next 10 years would be less than $5 million. For comparison, PHMSA 
takes the value of a statistical life to be $12.5 million,\20\ meaning 
that prevention of even one fatality by avoiding diversion of limited 
PHMSA personnel resources from other regulatory oversight 
responsibilities over the next 10 years would cause the benefits of 
this rule to exceed the costs twice over. Similarly, when ranking 
injuries on the 6-Point Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS), a MAIS 
5 ``critical'' injury is valued at approximately $7.4 million,\21\ so 
preventing even one ``critical'' injury over the next 10 years would 
cause the benefits of this rule to exceed the costs. While PHMSA is not 
able to estimate the benefits of this rule due to uncertainty about 
which projects would go unfunded in its absence, it believes the 
benefits of the rule would exceed the costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Departmental Guidance on Valuation of a Statistical Life in 
Economic Analysis [verbar] US Department of Transportation.
    \21\ DOT, ``Treatment of the Value of Preventing Fatalities and 
Injuries in Preparing Economic Analyses'' (Mar. 2021), https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2021-03/DOT%20VSL%20Guidance%20-%202021%20Update.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the anticipated benefits of the rulemaking, as 
discussed in section II above, PHMSA (absent a statutory change to 
increase the funds appropriated to the Liquefied Natural Gas Siting 
Account) would not be able to spend any collected fees for LNG facility 
siting reviews in excess of $400,000 appropriated by Congress in the 
2023 Act. However, PHMSA has been mandated to recover costs associated 
with LNG facility siting reviews, even if it does not yet have approval 
to spend the collected funds in excess of the $400,000 appropriated by 
the 2023 Act. Thus, the potential safety benefits of this rule may not 
be fully realized until PHMSA is authorized by Congress to spend the 
fees it collects as they are received, or unless in future legislation 
Congress appropriates funds commensurate with fees collected pursuant 
to this rulemaking.
    Lastly, PHMSA has considered and rejected alternatives to the fee 
recovery procedures proposed in this NPRM. PHMSA notes that it lacks 
discretion to avoid establishing fees for cost recovery as proposed 
herein given that this rulemaking responds to a congressional mandate 
in section 103 of the PIPES Act of 2020 to establish such procedures. 
PHMSA also submits that other, alternative approaches for calculating 
and assessing such fees (e.g., employing the negotiated Master 
Agreement approach used for pipeline facility design review cost 
recovery; assessing actual costs on completion of its LNG facility 
siting review; etc.) could involve considerable delay before PHMSA 
receives fees, thereby increasing the risk that PHMSA's limited 
resources would be diverted from other critical regulatory oversight 
functions. In contrast, PHMSA expects its approach proposed in this 
NPRM appropriately balances its and projects applicants' interests. An 
applicant's payment of fees at initiation of each part 193, subpart B, 
LNG facility siting review will ensure the Agency has timely access to 
funds needed to perform that review without diversion of PHMSA's 
limited resources from other regulatory oversight activities. Moreover, 
PHMSA's proposed ``true-up'' mechanism at the conclusion of that review 
ensures it will be made whole by each applicant for any actual costs 
incurred conducting a siting

[[Page 67050]]

review for that applicant's LNG facility project. Lastly, the flat, up-
front estimated fee PHMSA proposes to use for its estimated costs in 
performing each LNG facility siting review provides certainty for 
applicants in projecting costs associated with their FERC applications.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Flexibility Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 
generally requires federal agencies to prepare an initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis (IRFA) for a proposed rule subject to notice-and-
comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 
604(a)).\22\ Executive Order 13272 (``Proper Consideration of Small 
Entities in Agency Rulemaking'') \23\ obliges agencies to establish 
procedures promoting compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act; 
DOT's implementing guidance is available on its website.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Agencies are not required to conduct an IRFA if the head of 
the agency certifies that the proposed rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 
U.S.C. 605.
    \23\ 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002).
    \24\ DOT, ``Rulemaking Requirements Concerning Small Entities'', 
https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/rulemaking-requirements-concerning-small-entities (last updated May 18. 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This NPRM was developed in accordance with Executive Order 13272 
and DOT guidance to ensure compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act and provide appropriate consideration of the potential impacts of 
the rulemaking on small entities. The proposed fee structure and 
assessment methodology will be assessed only on large-scale new 
applications for LNG facility construction or expansion projects with 
design and construction costs totaling or exceeding $2.5 billion. Since 
the fee structure will be assessed only on large-scale new projects, 
PHMSA does not expect small entities to be capable of investing in 
projects of this size, and thus does not expect the rule will have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    PHMSA analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (``Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'') \25\ and DOT Order 
5301.1A (``Department of Transportation Tribal Consultation Policy and 
Procedures''). Executive Order 13175 requires agencies to ensure 
meaningful and timely input from tribal government representatives in 
developing rules that significantly or uniquely affect tribal 
communities by imposing ``substantial direct compliance costs'' or 
``substantial direct effects'' on such communities, or the relationship 
and distribution of power between the Federal Government and tribes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PHMSA assessed the impact of the proposed rule and does not expect 
it will significantly or uniquely affect tribal communities or Native 
American tribal governments. The proposed rule's regulatory amendments 
are facially neutral and will have broad, national scope. PHMSA, 
therefore, does not expect this rule to significantly or uniquely 
affect tribal communities, much less impose substantial compliance 
costs on Native American tribal governments or mandate tribal action. 
Therefore, PHMSA concludes that the funding and consultation 
requirements of Executive Order 13175 and DOT Order 5301.1A do not 
apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d), PHMSA is required to provide 
interested members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity 
to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests.
    PHMSA proposes requiring LNG facility operators submitting 
applications for large ($2.5 billion or more) new or expansion projects 
at their facilities to notify PHMSA officials of those applications; 
thereafter, affected entities would need to pay PHMSA fees for PHMSA's 
costs in performing siting reviews pursuant to part 193, subpart B. 
PHMSA also proposes clarifying revisions to longstanding procedures at 
part 190, subpart E, for operator notification and assessment of fees 
for recovery of its costs in performing design safety reviews of 
jurisdictional pipeline facilities. PHMSA plans to create a new 
information collection process to cover these notification requirements 
for affected facility operators. PHMSA will request a new Control 
Number from OMB for this information collection. PHMSA will submit 
these information collection requests to OMB for approval based on the 
proposed requirements in this rule. The information collection is 
contained in the pipeline safety regulations, 49 CFR parts 190-199. The 
following information is provided for each information collection: (1) 
title of the information collection; (2) OMB control number; (3) 
current expiration date; (4) type of request; (5) abstract of the 
information collection activity; (6) description of affected public; 
(7) estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden; and 
(8) frequency of collection. The information collection burden is 
estimated as follows:
    1. Title: Notifications for Siting and Design Reviews.
    OMB Control Number: Will request from OMB.
    Current Expiration Date: TBD.
    Abstract: This mandatory information collection covers the burden 
for pipeline facility owners and/or operators to notify PHMSA, 
according to 49 CFR 190.405, and provide design specifications, 
construction plans and procedures, project schedule, and related 
materials of their prospective project. Pipeline facility owners and 
operators must also notify PHMSA when costs associated with the design 
and construction of new facilities for which PHMSA conducts siting 
reviews exceed $2.5 billion.
    Affected Public: Jurisdictional pipeline facility operators 
applying for authorization to construct and operate new or expanded 
facilities for which PHMSA conducts facility design safety reviews; 
pipeline facility owners and operators with new facilities with design 
and construction costs exceeding $2.5 billion for which PHMSA conducts 
siting reviews.
    Annual Reporting Burden:
    Total Annual Responses: 14.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 14 hours.
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
    Requests for a copy of this information collection should be 
directed to Angela Hill, Office of Pipeline Safety (PHP-30), Pipeline 
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 2nd Floor, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, 202-366-4595.
    Comments are invited on:
    (a) The need for the proposed collection of information for the 
proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether 
the information will have practical utility;
    (b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
revised collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected;
    (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic,

[[Page 67051]]

mechanical, or other technological collection techniques; and
    (e) Ways the collection of this information is beneficial or not 
beneficial to public safety.
    Send comments directly to the Office of Management and Budget, 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Desk Officer for 
the Department of Transportation, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 
20503. Comments should be submitted on or prior to October 18, 2024.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) requires 
agencies to assess the effects of federal regulatory actions on state, 
local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. For any NPRM or 
final rule that includes a federal mandate that may result in the 
expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate 
of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) in any given year, the agency 
must prepare, amongst other things, a written statement that 
qualitatively and quantitatively assesses the costs and benefits of the 
federal mandate. The proposed rule pertains to operators reimbursing 
PHMSA for the cost of conducting siting reviews of LNG facility project 
applications where the design and construction costs total $2.5 billion 
or more. It only involves such applicants and PHMSA, and does not 
involve or pertain to state, local, and tribal governments. Further, as 
discussed in section V.B above, PHMSA does not anticipate the proposed 
rule will impose enforceable duties on state, local, and tribal 
governments or on the private sector of $100 million or more (adjusted 
annually for inflation) in any one year. Therefore, the requirement to 
prepare a statement pursuant to UMRA does not apply.

G. National Environmental Policy Act and Environmental Justice

    The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended 
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),\26\ requires federal agencies to consider the 
environmental impacts of their actions in the decision-making process. 
NEPA requires federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of 
proposed federal actions prior to making decisions and involve the 
public in the decision-making process. Agencies must prepare an 
environmental assessment (EA) for a proposed action for which a 
categorical exclusion is not applicable, and is either unlikely to have 
significant effects or when significance of the action is unknown. In 
accordance with these requirements, an EA must briefly discuss the need 
for the action; the alternatives considered; the environmental impacts 
of the proposed action and alternatives; and a listing of the agencies 
and persons consulted (40 CFR 1508.9(b)). If, after reviewing public 
comments in response to the draft EA (DEA), an agency determines that a 
proposed rule will not have a significant impact on the human or 
natural environment, it can conclude the NEPA analysis with a finding 
of no significant impact (FONSI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Also at 40 CFR parts 1501 to 1508.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Purpose and Need
    The purpose of the proposed rule is to amend existing cost recovery 
regulations at part 190, subpart E, to establish procedures for 
assessment and recovery of its necessary expenses in performing 49 CFR 
part 193, subpart B, siting reviews of applications for new or expanded 
liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities with project design and 
constructions costs totaling at least $2.5 billion, as mandated by the 
PIPES Act of 2020 (Pub. L. 116-260). The codification of these 
procedures within regulations is a prerequisite for PHMSA accessing 
funds appropriated by Congress for such reviews in the 2023 Act and any 
future appropriations legislation. The proposed rule is needed as 
PHMSA's access to funds recovering the costs of its part 193, subpart 
B, siting reviews is critically important given the increasing strain 
placed on its limited resources by such reviews. Many of the same PHMSA 
personnel performing part 193, subpart B, siting reviews are also 
responsible for other regulatory oversight activities (e.g., design 
safety reviews, inspections, enforcement, guidance and regulation 
development, etc.) related to LNG facilities and other jurisdictional 
pipeline facilities. This need has become increasingly pressing in 
recent years, as PHMSA has had to perform a large number of part 193, 
subpart B, siting reviews.
2. Alternatives Considered
    No Action Alternative:
    The no action alternative would be to not make any changes to the 
current regulatory requirements. Existing regulations in 49 CFR part 
190, subpart E, prescribe a fee structure and assessment methodology 
for recovering costs from design safety reviews of applications to FERC 
for new or expanded gas, LNG, hazardous liquid, and carbon dioxide 
pipeline facility projects consisting of new or expanded LNG facilities 
with project design and construction costs totaling at least $2.5 
billion. In this case, PHMSA would not collect fees directly from 
operators of LNG facilities to recover the necessary expenses incurred 
during part 193, subpart B, reviews. Additionally, the statutory 
mandate that Congress added in section 103 of the PIPES Act of 2020 
would not be fulfilled.
    Proposed Action Alternative (Proposed Rule):
    This alternative implements the mandate in the PIPES Act of 2020 to 
amend the pipeline safety regulations (49 CFR parts 190-199) to 
prescribe a fee assessment methodology for PHMSA to recover its costs 
in performing 49 CFR 193, subpart B, siting reviews of applications for 
new or expanded LNG facilities with project design and constructions 
costs totaling at least $2.5 billion. PHMSA is proposing an up-front 
fee for estimated costs, derived from the personnel costs associated 
with historical work effort by PHMSA personnel involved in performing 
siting reviews for LNG facility project applications with design and 
construction costs of $2.5 billion or more, coupled with ``true-up'' 
payments to PHMSA at conclusion of that review should PHMSA's costs 
exceed the fee paid up-front based on PHMSA's estimated costs. The 
proposed amendments are summarized below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Section                         Subject                          Proposed changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 190, Subpart E..................  Title..................  Revise heading to: ``Cost Recovery for Design
                                                                 Reviews and LNG Siting Reviews.''
190.401..............................  Scope..................  Redesignate the current regulatory text as
                                                                 paragraph (a), and add a new paragraph (b) to
                                                                 codify that PHMSA can recover its costs in
                                                                 conducting LNG facility siting reviews under
                                                                 part 193, subpart B.

[[Page 67052]]

 
190.403..............................  Applicability..........  Introduce a new Sec.   190.403(b) mirroring a
                                                                 statutory prohibition in the PIPES Act of 2020
                                                                 barring PHMSA from collecting fees under
                                                                 multiple statutory authorities and their
                                                                 implementing regulations for the same LNG
                                                                 facility siting reviews.
                                                                Add a new paragraph (d) identifying application
                                                                 materials PHMSA will typically review in
                                                                 connection with its part 193, subpart B, LNG
                                                                 facility siting reviews.
190.405..............................  Notification...........  Redesignate existing text of Sec.   190.405 as a
                                                                 new paragraph (a), and amend text to
                                                                 accommodate expanded application of those
                                                                 notification requirements to LNG facility
                                                                 siting reviews under part 193, subpart B.
                                                                Add new paragraph (b) reserving discretion to
                                                                 delay review of submitted materials for LNG
                                                                 facility siting reviews until payment in full
                                                                 of the fee of the estimated costs for such
                                                                 review.
                                                                Add new paragraph (c) requiring LNG facility
                                                                 applicants submit notification of any material
                                                                 changes to documentation submitted to PHMSA
                                                                 pursuant to Sec.   190.405.
190.407..............................  Master Agreement.......  Clarify revisions to the prefatory language of
                                                                 these provisions to distinguish between
                                                                 procedures for cost recovery in connection with
                                                                 design safety reviews (which will involve
                                                                 applicants entering into Master Agreements for
                                                                 such cost recovery), and part 193, subpart B,
                                                                 LNG facility siting reviews (which will not
                                                                 require applicants to enter into Master
                                                                 Agreements for such cost recovery).
190.409..............................  Fee Structure..........  Revise introductory text to codify the basis of
                                                                 the fees PHMSA will charge to recover the costs
                                                                 for LNG siting reviews.
                                                                Remove definitions of ``necessary for'' and all
                                                                 uses of the phrase since it has not clarified
                                                                 regulations as PHMSA intended.
190.411..............................  Procedures for Billing   Redesignate current prefatory text governing
                                        and Payment of Fees.     fees for a cost recovery in connection with
                                                                 facility design safety reviews as a new
                                                                 paragraph (a). Existing paragraphs (a)-(d) will
                                                                 then be redesignated as paragraphs (1)-(4)
                                                                 within new paragraph (a).
                                                                Introduce a new paragraph (b) establishing the
                                                                 procedural machinery for billing and payment of
                                                                 fees for estimated costs for its LNG facility
                                                                 siting reviews before PHMSA initiates those
                                                                 reviews, as well as subsequent adjustment of
                                                                 those fees based on PHMSA's actual costs for
                                                                 that review.
                                                                Redesignate and clarify the disclaimer at
                                                                 existing paragraph (e) regarding PHMSA's
                                                                 discretion to exercise its authorities under
                                                                 law to protect public safety and the
                                                                 environment as a new paragraph (c).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Affected Environment
    Because the proposed rule only describes modifications to the cost 
recovery process, there would be no effect on environmental resources. 
Therefore, the affected environment does not include any environmental 
resources and only includes the existing regulatory framework related 
to cost recovery regulations at part 190, subpart E.
    Existing regulations in 49 CFR part 190, subpart E, prescribe a fee 
structure and assessment methodology for recovering costs from design 
safety reviews of applications to FERC for new or expanded gas, LNG, 
hazardous liquid, and carbon dioxide pipeline facility projects 
consisting of new or expanded LNG facilities with project design and 
construction costs totaling at least $2.5 billion.
    PHMSA is also currently responsible for the review of LNG facility 
siting; that review is an input to FERC's evaluation of applications 
for authorization to construct and operate a new LNG facility (or an 
expansion of an existing LNG facility). During the LNG facility siting 
review, PHMSA assesses the siting packages prepared by the applicants 
for new or expanded LNG facility projects for compliance with siting 
regulations at part 193, subpart B.
4. Environmental Impacts of Alternatives
    No Action Alternative:
    The No Action Alternative would have no new impact on the natural 
or human environment as the status quo would remain in place. PHMSA 
would continue to recover costs from design safety reviews of 
applications for new or expanded gas, LNG, hazardous liquid, and carbon 
dioxide pipeline facility projects consisting of new or expanded LNG 
facilities with project design and construction costs totaling at least 
$2.5 billion. PHMSA would not collect fees directly from operators of 
LNG facilities to recover the necessary expenses incurred during part 
193, subpart B, reviews, and the current and ever-increasing strain 
placed on PHMSA's limited resources by such reviews would not be 
alleviated.
    The No Action Alternative does not include any activities, such as 
ground disturbing activities, building or landscape alterations, 
construction or installation of any new aboveground components, or the 
introduction of visual, auditory, or atmospheric elements. Therefore, 
the proposed rule would not adversely affect, either temporarily or 
permanently, historic resources and/or cultural resources, ecological 
resources, wetlands and waterways, or farmland.
    Proposed Action Alternative (Proposed Rule):
    PHMSA recognizes the difficulty in quantifying any environmental 
impact of prescribing a fee assessment methodology for PHMSA to recover 
its costs in performing 49 CFR 193, subpart B, siting reviews of 
applications for new or expanded LNG facilities with project design and 
constructions costs totaling at least $2.5 billion. The Proposed Action 
Alternative would have no adverse impact on the natural or human 
environment because the changes proposed would not adversely impact the 
process of the part 193, subpart B, reviews, nor would it affect the 
siting, construction, operations, or other management practices of LNG 
facilities. The proposed rule would only affect the cost recovery 
process itself.
    That said, PHMSA notes that its access to funds recovering the 
costs of its part 193, subpart B, siting reviews is critically 
important given the increasing strain placed on its limited resources 
by such reviews. Part 193, subpart B, covers siting requirements of LNG 
facilities--including thermal radiation protection, flammable vapor-gas 
dispersion protection, and wind forces--to ensure LNG facilities 
operate at approved national safety standards. By directly recovering 
costs, PHMSA could relieve some of the strain on its limited personnel 
resources, allowing

[[Page 67053]]

for not only more efficient and high-quality reviews, but also ensuring 
resources would not be diverted from other critical regulatory 
oversight functions that advance the safety of gas, hazardous liquid, 
LNG, and carbon dioxide pipeline facilities. However, because it is not 
clear which activities would go unfunded due to the costs of conducting 
LNG facility siting reviews, PHMSA is unable to quantify those benefits 
with a meaningful degree of certainty.
    The Proposed Action Alternative (proposed rule) would not include 
any activities such as ground disturbing activities; building or 
landscape alterations; construction or installation of any new 
aboveground or belowground components; or the introduction of visual, 
auditory, or atmospheric elements. Therefore, the proposed rule would 
not adversely affect, either temporarily or permanently historic 
resources and/or cultural resources, ecological resources, wetlands and 
waterways, or farmland. Further, because this alternative only includes 
procedures related to cost recovery, this alternative would have no 
direct or indirect effect on greenhouse gas emissions.
    PHMSA's proposed fees for LNG facility part 193, subpart B, siting 
reviews would be a new line-item cost for certain applicants. Given the 
reduced frequency of the required siting reviews and assuming the work 
effort remains static over the 10-year forecast period, the rule would 
result in an additional burden of approximately $3.48 million over 10 
years, as described in Section V.B. of this NPRM. This is discounted to 
$3.22 million using a two percent rate, and the annualized cost is 
$358,589. However, PHMSA's projections for the fees paid by applicants 
for each LNG facility siting review would be trivial (ca. 0.0024 
percent) compared to the minimum design and construction costs for 
pertinent projects. Further, PHMSA has designed its proposed approach 
to imposing fees in a way that maximizes regulatory certainty for 
affected entities. PHMSA's timely access to adequate financial 
resources to perform part 193, subpart B, siting reviews as those 
reviews initiate also benefits project applicants by facilitating 
timely completion of such reviews. PHMSA expects these new costs would 
only be shouldered by a small number of entities. Consistent with the 
threshold identified in 49 U.S.C. 60303, the NPRM proposes fees for 
cost recovery for only very large LNG facility new construction or 
expansion projects--specifically, fees would only be assessed for LNG 
facility siting reviews for project applications with design and 
construction costs totaling or exceeding $2.5 billion. And PHMSA 
expects continued, although decreased, demand for such reviews during 
the analysis period.
5. Environmental Justice
    Executive Order 12898 (``Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' \27\), 
directs federal agencies to take appropriate and necessary steps to 
identify and address disproportionately high and adverse effects of 
federal actions on the health or environment of minority and low-income 
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. 
DOT Order 5610.2C (``U.S. Department of Transportation Actions to 
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations'') establishes departmental procedures for effectuating 
Executive Order 12898 promoting the principles of environmental justice 
through full consideration of environmental justice principles 
throughout planning and decision-making processes in the development of 
programs, policies, and activities--including PHMSA rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Executive Order 14096 (``Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to 
Environmental Justice for All'' \28\) was issued on April 21, 2023. 
Executive Order 14096 on environmental justice does not rescind 
Executive Order 12898, which has been in effect since February 11, 
1994, and is currently implemented through DOT Order 5610.2C. This 
implementation will continue until further guidance is provided 
regarding the implementation of the new Executive Order 14096 on 
environmental justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 88 FR 25251.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through the NEPA process, PHMSA has evaluated this NPRM under DOT 
Order 5610.2C and Executive Order 12898, and has preliminarily 
determined it would not cause disproportionately high and adverse human 
health and environmental effects on minority and low-income 
populations. The proposed rule would not result in any adverse 
environmental or health impact on minority populations and low-income 
populations. As explained in this DEA above, the proposed action would 
not impact the technical requirements associated with the siting 
requirements described at part 193, subpart B. The Proposed Action 
Alternative only affects the cost recovery process, which would result 
in no ground disturbance, building or landscape alterations, or 
construction activities of any kind. Therefore, no impacts to 
environmental justice populations would occur. This preliminary finding 
is consistent with Executive Order 14096 by achieving several goals, 
including continuing to deepen the Biden-Harris Administration's whole 
of government approach to environmental justice and to better protect 
overburdened communities from pollution and environmental harms.
6. Public Involvement
    Public involvement is a key component of the NEPA process. This DEA 
and the proposed rule will be released for public review and comment in 
docket PHMSA-2022-0118. To access the docket, which contains background 
documents and any comments that PHMSA has received, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the 
docket. Alternatively, you may review the documents in person at DOT's 
Docket Management Office at the address listed below.
    E-Gov Web: https://www.regulations.gov. This site allows the public 
to enter comments on any Federal Register notice issued by any agency. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail: Docket Management System: U.S. Department of Transportation, 
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    Hand Delivery: DOT Docket Management System: West Building Ground 
Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9:00 a.m. and 
5:00 p.m. EST, Monday-Friday, except federal holidays.
7. Agencies and Persons Consulted
    No other agencies or persons were consulted during development of 
this Draft Environmental Assessment.
8. List of Preparers and Reviewers
Preparers: Lydia Wang, PHMSA
Reviewers: Sandy Hoover, Volpe Center
9. Proposed Finding of No Significant Impact
    PHMSA is soliciting comments on the environmental and safety 
impacts of the proposed rule and on this DEA. PHMSA will respond to the 
comments received during the comment period and will address comments 
in the final environmental assessment (FEA). If a determination of no 
significant impact is made, PHMSA will prepare a FONSI, which would be 
attached to the FEA

[[Page 67054]]

and would conclude the NEPA process for this rulemaking.

G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    PHMSA has analyzed this NPRM in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism'') \29\ and 
the Presidential Memorandum \30\ titled ``Preemption.'' Executive Order 
13132 requires agencies to ensure meaningful and timely input by state 
and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may 
have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999).
    \30\ 74 FR 24693 (May 22, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States are generally prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 60104(c) from 
regulating the safety of interstate pipelines. States that have 
submitted a current certification under 49 U.S.C. 60105(a) and that 
adopt the minimum federal pipeline safety requirements may regulate 
intrastate pipelines within the state. Those states may also adopt 
additional or more stringent safety standards for intrastate pipelines 
if those standards are compatible with the federal requirements. A 
state may also regulate an intrastate pipeline facility that PHMSA does 
not regulate.
    In this instance, the proposed rule would not impose any regulation 
that has substantial direct effects on the states, the relationship 
between the national government and the states, or the distribution of 
power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 
Therefore, PHMSA has determined that the consultation and funding 
requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

H. Executive Order 13211: Significant Energy Actions

    Executive Order 13211 (``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'') \31\ 
requires federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for 
any ``significant energy action.'' Executive Order 13211 defines a 
``significant energy action'' as any action by an agency (normally 
published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to 
lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation that (1)(i) is a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any 
successor order;, and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse 
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) is 
designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) as a significant energy action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed rule is not anticipated to be a ``significant energy 
action'' under Executive Order 13211. It is not likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy. Further, OIRA has not designated this proposed rule as a 
significant energy action.

I. Privacy Act Statement

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the 
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these 
comments without edit, including any personal information the commenter 
provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of 
records notice (DOT/ALL-14 Federal Docket Management System), which can 
be reviewed at https://www.dot.gov/privacy.

J. Regulation Identifier Number

    A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory 
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and 
Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda). The Regulatory Information 
Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of 
each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be 
used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

K. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis

    Executive Order 13609 (``Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation'') \32\ requires agencies to consider whether the impacts 
associated with significant variations between domestic and 
international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the 
ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In 
meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, 
environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation 
can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that 
are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. 
International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or 
prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 77 FR 26413 (May 4, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as 
amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), 
prohibits federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging 
in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 
commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements, 
federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international 
standards so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic 
objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude 
imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires 
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that 
they serve as the basis for U.S. standards.
    PHMSA participates in the establishment of international standards 
to protect the safety of the American public. PHMSA assessed the 
effects of the proposed rule and determined that it will not cause 
unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade.

L. Cybersecurity and Executive Order 14028

    Executive Order 14028 (``Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity'') 
\33\ directed the Federal Government to improve its efforts to 
identify, deter, and respond to ``persistent and increasingly 
sophisticated malicious cyber campaigns.'' In keeping with these 
policies and directives, PHMSA has assessed the effects of this NPRM to 
determine what impact the proposed regulatory amendments may have on 
cybersecurity risks for LNG facilities, and has preliminarily 
determined that this NPRM will not materially affect the cybersecurity 
risk profile for those facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 86 FR 26633 (May 17, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed rule will establish fee structures and assessment 
methodology for recovering costs associated with siting reviews of 
certain new LNG facility project applications. Those reviews occur in 
the status quo; this rulemaking merely formalizes notification 
practices and establishes procedures for calculation and forwarding of 
(estimated and actual) fees to recover PHMSA's costs in performing 
those reviews. PHMSA envisions that entities paying the fees proposed 
herein will have the option of doing so by either check or the Federal 
Government's centralized fee payment website (https://pay.gov). PHMSA 
does not expect, therefore, that the NPRM's proposed regulatory 
amendments will entail the electronic transfer of sensitive or 
confidential business information of the sort that could materially 
affect applicants' cybersecurity risk profiles.

[[Page 67055]]

M. Severability

    The purpose of this proposed rule is to operate holistically and, 
in concert with existing part 190, subpart E, requirements, provide for 
cost recovery of part 193, subpart B, siting reviews for certain LNG 
facility project applications. However, PHMSA recognizes that certain 
provisions focus on unique topics. Therefore, PHMSA preliminarily finds 
that the various provisions of this proposed rule are severable and 
able to operate functionally if severed from each other. In the event a 
court were to invalidate one or more of the unique provisions of any 
final rule issued in this proceeding, the remaining provisions should 
stand, thus allowing their continued effect. PHMSA seeks comment on 
which portions of this rule should or should not be severable.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 190

    Cost recovery, Liquified natural gas.

    For the reasons provided in the preamble, PHMSA proposes to amend 
49 CFR part 190 as follows:

PART 190--PIPELINE SAFETY ENFORCEMENT AND REGULATORY PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 190 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(b); 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.

0
2. Revise the subpart heading of subpart E to read as follows:

Subpart E--Cost Recovery for Design Reviews and LNG Siting Reviews

0
3. Revise Sec.  190.401 to read as follows:


Sec.  190.401  Scope.

    (a) If PHMSA conducts a facility design and/or construction safety 
review or inspection in connection with a proposal to construct, 
expand, or operate a (gas, hazardous liquid, carbon dioxide, or a 
liquefied natural gas) pipeline facility that meets the applicability 
requirements in Sec.  190.403, PHMSA may require the applicant 
proposing the project to pay the costs incurred by PHMSA relating to 
such review, including the cost of design and construction safety 
reviews or inspections.
    (b) If PHMSA conducts a siting review in connection with a proposal 
to construct, expand, or operate an LNG facility that meets the 
applicability requirements in Sec.  190.403, PHMSA will require the 
applicant proposing the project to pay the costs incurred by PHMSA 
relating to such review, including the cost of LNG facility siting 
reviews or related inspections.
0
4. Amend Sec.  190.403 by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(ii), (b), (c), and 
adding paragraphs a(1)(iii) and (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  190.403  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) A good faith estimate developed by the applicant proposing a 
gas (including LNG), hazardous liquid, or carbon dioxide pipeline 
facility and submitted to the Associate Administrator.
    (iii) The good faith estimates for design and construction costs 
provided for in this section must include all the applicable cost items 
contained in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission application 
referenced in Sec.  190.403(a)(1)(i) for a gas facility. In addition, 
an applicant must take into account all survey, design, material, 
permitting, right-of-way acquisition, construction, testing, 
commissioning, start-up, construction financing, environmental 
protection, inspection, material transportation, sales tax, project 
contingency, and all other applicable costs, including all segments, 
facilities, and multi-year phases of the project;
* * * * *
    (b) The Associate Administrator may collect neither (i) separate 
facility design safety review fees under both this section and 49 
U.S.C. 60301 for the same design safety review, nor (ii) separate LNG 
facility siting review fees under either this section, 49 U.S.C. 
60117(o), or 49 U.S.C. 60301(b) for the same LNG facility siting 
review.
    (c) For facility design safety reviews, the Associate 
Administrator, after receipt of the design specifications, construction 
plans and procedures, project schedule, and related materials 
(including estimated project design and construction costs), determines 
if cost recovery is necessary. The Associate Administrator's 
determination is based on the amount of PHMSA resources needed to 
ensure safety and environmental protection.
    (d) For LNG facility siting reviews, the Associate Administrator, 
after receipt of the design specifications, siting specifications, 
construction plans and procedures, project schedule, and related 
materials (including estimated project design and construction costs), 
shall provide the applicant PHMSA's estimated costs for each review. 
The Associate Administrator's estimate will be based on the amount of 
PHMSA resources needed to ensure safety and environmental protection, 
and will be calculated pursuant to Sec.  190.411(b).
0
5. Revise Sec.  190.405 to read as follows:


Sec.  190.405  Notification.

    (a) For new pipeline facility project application for which PHMSA 
will conduct a facility design safety review or LNG facility siting 
review, the applicant proposing the project must notify PHMSA and 
provide the design specifications, construction plans and procedures, 
siting specifications, project schedule, and related materials 
(including estimated project design and construction costs) as 
applicable, at least 120 days prior to the commencement of any of the 
following activities: Route surveys for construction, material 
manufacturing, offsite facility fabrications, construction equipment 
move-in activities, onsite or offsite fabrications, personnel support 
facility construction, and any offsite or onsite facility construction. 
To the maximum extent practicable, but not later than 90 days after 
receiving such design specifications, construction plans and 
procedures, siting packages, and related materials, PHMSA will provide 
written comments, feedback, and guidance on the project.
    (b) For LNG facility siting reviews, PHMSA review will not commence 
until receipt of payment in full of the estimated costs of each review 
provided by the Associate Administrator as provided in this subpart.
    (c) Applicants for LNG facility projects for which PHMSA is 
performing siting reviews must promptly notify PHMSA of any material 
changes to the application or estimated design and construction costs 
that would cause the project to meet or exceed the monetary threshold 
specified in Sec.  190.403(a). Failure to do so could result in PHMSA 
requiring the operator to resubmit or revise materials provided for 
PHMSA's review.
0
6. Revise Sec.  190.407 to read as follows:


Sec.  190.407  Master Agreement.

    For facility design safety reviews for which the Associate 
Administrator has determined cost recovery is necessary, PHMSA and the 
applicant will enter into an agreement within 60 days after PHMSA 
receives notification from the applicant provided in Sec.  190.405, 
outlining PHMSA's recovery of the costs associated with that review.
    (a) A Master Agreement, at a minimum, includes:
    (1) Itemized list of costs;
    (2) Statement of the scope of work for conducting the facility 
design safety review and an estimated total cost;

[[Page 67056]]

    (3) Description of the method of periodic billing, payment, 
auditing of cost recovery fees, return of any unused fees collected;
    (4) Minimum account balance which the applicant must maintain with 
PHMSA at all times;
    (5) Provisions for reconciling differences between total amount 
billed and the final cost of the design review, including provisions 
for returning any excess payments to the applicant at the conclusion of 
the project;
    (6) Point of contact for both PHMSA and the applicant;
    (7) Provisions for terminating the agreement; and
    (8) A project reimbursement cost schedule based upon the project 
timing and scope.
0
7. Revise and republish Sec.  190.409 to read as follows:


Sec.  190.409  Fee structure.

    The fee charged is based on, as applicable, the direct costs that 
PHMSA incurs in conducting the facility design safety review (including 
construction review and inspections) or LNG facility siting review 
(including field verification and inspections).
    (a) Costs qualifying for cost recovery include, but are not limited 
to--
    (1) Personnel costs;
    (2) Travel, lodging, and subsistence related to the review;
    (3) Vehicle mileage;
    (4) Other direct services, materials, and supplies; and
    (5) Other direct costs as may be specified with advanced notice.
    (b) [Reserved].
0
8. Amend Sec.  190.411 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  190.411  Procedures for billing and payment of fee.

* * * * *
    (a) For Facility Design Safety Reviews:
    (1) PHMSA bills an applicant for estimated design safety review 
fees as specified in the Master Agreement.
    (2) PHMSA bills an applicant for estimated design safety review 
cost recovery fees as specified in the Master Agreement, but the 
applicant will not be billed more frequently than quarterly.
    (A) PHMSA will itemize design safety review bills in sufficient 
detail to allow independent verification of calculations.
    (B) [Reserved]
    (3) PHMSA will monitor the applicant's account balance. Should the 
account balance fall below the required minimum balance specified in 
the Master Agreement, PHMSA may request at any time the applicant 
submit payment within 30 days to maintain the minimum balance.
    (4) PHMSA will provide an updated estimate of costs to the 
applicant on request and when the project is completed.
    (5) Payment of design safety review fees is due within 30 days of 
issuance of a bill for the fees. If payment is not made within 30 days, 
PHMSA may charge an annual rate of interest (as set by the Department 
of Treasury's Statutory Debt Collection Authorities) on any outstanding 
debt, as specified in the Master Agreement.
    (b) For each LNG siting review:
    (1) PHMSA will, as soon as practicable following notification 
pursuant to Sec.  190.405, provide a bill for estimated LNG facility 
siting review costs PHMSA will incur in performing each siting review. 
That estimated cost will be the sum (rounded to the nearest thousand) 
of the products of (i) the hours historically spent by PHMSA Senior 
Executive Service and General Schedule personnel identified in the 
table below in performing those reviews for LNG facility projects 
meeting or exceeding the monetary threshold at Sec.  190.403(a)(1); and 
(ii) the hourly rates of those personnel calculated from the Office of 
Personnel Management Annual Salary Tables for Senior Executive Service 
and General Schedule employees in the Washington/Baltimore/Arlington 
area effective as of the date of the invoice, each adjusted to account 
for non-salary benefits which are estimated to make up 38 percent of 
total personnel costs: \34\

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Title                 Pay grade (step)        Hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deputy Associate Administrator....            SES-Max                  5
Director..........................           GS-15(5)                 10
Supervisory General Engineer......           GS-14(5)                 68
General Engineer (Lead)...........           GS-14(5)                420
General Engineer (Support)........            GS-9(5)                 40
Technical Writer..................            GS-9(5)                  1
Attorney Advisor Manager..........           GS-15(5)                  1
Staff Attorney Advisor............           GS-14(5)                  8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Payment is due upon receipt of the bill for the estimated costs 
specified. PHMSA review will not commence until receipt of payment in 
full.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ PHMSA uses BLS estimates for state and local government 
employee compensation as a proxy for federal government employee 
compensation (obtained from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf, last accessed March 15, 2024). Wages are estimated to make 
up 62 percent of employee compensation, with non-wage benefits 
making up the remaining 38 percent. Equivalently, non-wage benefits 
are valued at approximately 61 percent of wages (1/0.62 = 1.61).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) If actual costs identified in Sec.  190.409 exceed the 
estimated costs paid to PHMSA by the operator pursuant to the above 
paragraph, PHMSA will, at the conclusion of each review (but before 
PHMSA issues a determination regarding compliance with part 193, 
subpart B, siting requirements) notify and provide the applicant an 
itemized bill of the actual costs owed. The operator must pay to PHMSA 
the difference between the estimated costs and actual costs upon 
receipt of the itemized bill of actual costs. PHMSA may withhold its 
determination regarding compliance with part 193, subpart B, siting 
requirements until receipt of such payment.
    (c) Payment of the review fees as provided in this subpart shall 
not obligate or prevent PHMSA from exercising its authority to take 
actions permitted by law to protect public safety and the environment 
in response to its review of materials or inspections conducted within 
its facility design safety or part 193, subpart B, LNG facility siting 
reviews.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 8, 2024, under authority 
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2024-18138 Filed 8-16-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P