Monitoring Government: PHMSA modernizes class location rules

Citing advancements in technology and safety practices, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) published a new rule aimed at modernizing class location regulations for gas transmission lines. The rule will allow natural gas transmission operators to use integrity management (IM) practices as an alternative to traditional pressure reductions or pipeline replacements.

IM management requires operators to identify locations along their pipelines where a leak or failure could affect “high consequence areas,” namely locales and areas where a release could have the most significant adverse consequences. The IM alternative allows operators to confirm or restore the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of certain eligible pipeline segments without replacing pipe or reducing operating pressure, according to a January 15 publication by the National Law Review.

IM is “a superior risk management tool for segments of pipe requiring the highest level of care and acknowledges the technological advancements in in-line inspection (ILI tools),” according to a blog by Ashlin Bollacker, director of pipeline safety for the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA). “ILI technologies can detect and size anomalies with precision and comprehensive IM programs systematically identify, assess, and remediate threats before they become an incident.”

PHMSA said its rulemaking is expected to save more than US$461 million per year and reduce maintenance-related emissions by 1.3 billion cubic feet per year. The final rule becomes effective March 16, 2026.

“Demand for American energy is growing, and today’s actions will reduce the cost of transporting it to consumers while prioritizing safety,” said PHMSA Administrator Paul Roberti.

The rule comes into play when operators manage population growth around their pipelines, according to the INGAA blog.

Pipeline class location safety requirements are determined by the surrounding population density, as measured by the number of dwellings near a pipeline. Class 1 refers to any location within 220 yards of the pipeline that contains 10 or fewer dwellings; Class 2 refers to any location within 220 yards of the pipeline that contains more than 10 and fewer than 46 dwellings; and Class 3 refers to any location within 220 yards of the pipeline that contains 46 or more dwellings.

These classifications determine how pipelines must be designed, operated and tested, according to INGAA. Class location changes when an area’s population grows and develops.

“Historically, class location changes triggered requirements for pipeline operators to reduce operating pressure, purge gas and retest the pipeline at higher pressures, or replace pipes to meet stricter standards associated with higher class locations,” wrote INGAA’s Ashlin Bollacker.

The IM alternative can help operators avoid such costly requirements.

The IM alternative is available only to eligible Class 3 segments that were originally located in areas designated as Class 1 or Class 2 based on population density, according to the National Law Review. The IM alternative contains requirements that must be completed by no later than March 16, 2028, or within 24 months of the date of the class location change, whichever is later.

For operators to qualify for the IM alternative, the rule requires baseline integrity assessments within 24 months using in-line inspection tools that detect metal loss, mechanical damage, and cracking, according to INGAA. The rule also mandates enhanced operational measures: monthly right-of-way patrols, quarterly leak surveys, close-interval cathodic protection surveys every seven years, annual class location studies and installation of test stations and line-of-sight markers.

The final rule “is the culmination of more than twenty years of data collection, technological advances, and education by the pipeline industry,” Bollacker wrote. “The agency’s work to finalize this rule spanned administrations and required consistent engagement with a variety of stakeholders, including Congress, the public, and advocacy groups.”

Brian Ford

About the author: Brian Ford is editor in chief for Industrial Info Resources, which provides up-to-date project information on a wide range of industries across the globe. He has worked as a reporter and editor for newspapers and other publications since 1979.