AGENCY:

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule makes an inflationary adjustment to the monetary threshold for farmers to be eligible for an exception from security plan and in-depth security training requirements.

DATES:

This final rule is effective September 3, 2026.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jose Cajar, Standards and Rulemaking Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-8553, jose.cajar@dot.gov.

I. PHMSA Action

A. What action is PHMSA taking in this final rule?

PHMSA is making an inflationary adjustment to the monetary threshold for farmers to be eligible for the exception from the security plan requirements in 49 CFR 172.800(c). Specifically, farmers with less than $825,000 in 2025 dollars annually in gross receipts will be excepted from security plan requirements in 49 CFR part 172, subpart I. Farmers who are exempt from the security plan requirements in 49 CFR 172.800(c) are also exempt from the in-depth security training requirements for hazardous materials employees in 49 CFR 172.704(a)(5). Indexing to 2025 dollars will ensure that the threshold automatically accounts for future inflationary changes.

B. Does this action apply to me?

Effective 30 days after publication of this final rule, farmers with less than $825,000 in 2025 dollars annually in gross receipts from the sale of agricultural commodities are not subject to the security plan requirements in 49 CFR 172.800(c). PHMSA notes that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) inadvertently styled the effect of the proposed revision as limited to an exception from the in-depth security training requirements.^[1] This final rule clarifies that the actual scope of the rulemaking pertains to both the exception in 49 CFR 172.800(c) for security plan requirements and the in-depth training requirements associated with a security plan found at 49 CFR 172.704(a)(5).

C. Why is PHMSA taking this action?

PHMSA is taking this action based on positive commenter feedback and to advance the goals expressed in Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 ( Regulatory Planning and Review ).^[2] E.O. 12866 requires agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” Raising the threshold for eligibility for relief from the security plan ($500,000 in 2005 to $825,000 in 2025 dollars) will provide relief to small farmers that have been unnecessarily burdened by this provision not being adjusted for inflation over time. As outlined in the final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), PHMSA estimates this change would result in annualized cost savings of $5.7 million. A copy of the final RIA is available for review in the rulemaking docket. PHMSA does not expect the change to have any adverse impact on safety as it simply makes an inflationary adjustment to the exception from the security plan and in-depth security training requirements for small farmers.

II. Summary of Comments Received in Response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

PHMSA published an NPRM, cited as HM-268J, to gather feedback on revising the Hazardous Materials Regulations to raise the monetary threshold for farmers to be required to have a security plan.^[3] Please refer to the NPRM for background and discussion of the proposed change. PHMSA received one comment from the Dangerous Goods Advisory Council in support of the proposal. PHMSA did not receive any negative comments in response to the NPRM. Therefore, PHMSA is revising 49 CFR 172.800(c) to except farmers who generate less than $825,000 in 2025 dollars annually in gross receipts from the sale of agricultural commodities or products from the security plan requirements in 49 CFR part 172, subpart I.

( printed page 49330)

III. Regulatory Analysis and Notices

A. Legal Authority

This final rule is published under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation as set forth in the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Laws (49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) and delegated to the PHMSA Administrator pursuant to 49 CFR 1.97.

B. Executive Order 12866; Regulatory Planning and Review

E.O. 12866 ( Regulatory Planning and Review), as implemented by 49 CFR part 5, subpart B, requires agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” ^[4] In arriving at those conclusions, E.O. 12866 requires that agencies should consider “both quantifiable measures . . . and qualitative measures of costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify” and “maximize net benefits . . . unless a statute requires another regulatory approach.” E.O. 12866 also requires that “agencies should assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating.” Pursuant to 49 CFR part 5, subpart B, PHMSA and other Operating Administrations must generally choose the “least costly regulatory alternative that achieves the relevant objectives” unless required by law or compelling safety need. In addition, 49 CFR part 5, subpart B also specifies that regulations should generally “not be issued unless their benefits are expected to exceed their costs.”

E.O. 12866 and 49 CFR part 5, subpart B also require that PHMSA submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action pursuant to E.O. 12866 and has not been designated as a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.).

PHMSA has complied with the requirements in E.O. 12866 as implemented by 49 CFR part 5, subpart B and determined that this final rule will result in an estimated annualized cost savings of $5.7 million by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for small farmers whose income threshold exceeds $500,000 by increasing the exception threshold to $825,000. In addition, farmers who no longer meet the new threshold of $825,000 in 2025 dollars would also no longer need to provide in-depth security awareness training to their employees on the implementation of the security plan. As outlined in the final RIA, PHMSA estimates that this change would result in annualized cost savings of $5.7 million (2024 dollars) at three percent and seven percent discount rates. A copy of the final RIA is available for review in the rulemaking docket.

C. Executive Orders 14192 and 14219

PHMSA has determined that this final rule is an E.O. 14192 ( Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation ) deregulatory action.^[5] PHMSA estimates this final rule would generate annualized cost savings of $5.7 million (2024 dollars) at three percent and seven percent discount rates. This final rule does not implicate any of the factors identified in section 2(a) of E.O. 14219 indicative of a regulation that is “unlawful . . . [or] that undermine[s] the national interest.” ^[6]

D. Energy-Related Executive Orders 13211, 14154, and 14156

PHMSA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 14156 ( Declaring a National Energy Emergency) and E.O. 14154 ( Unleashing American Energy ).^[7] The President has declared a national emergency to address America's inadequate energy development production, transportation, refining, and generation capacity and asserted a Federal policy to unleash American energy by ensuring access to abundant supplies of reliable, affordable energy from (inter alia) the removal of “undue burden[s]” on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources. PHMSA finds this final rule to be consistent with E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154 because it will not hinder or unduly burden the transportation or production of energy or energy-related products.

In addition, this final rule is not a “significant energy action” under E.O. 13211 ( Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use ), which requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.” ^[8] Because this final rule is not a significant action under E.O. 12866, it will not have a significant adverse effect on supply, distribution, or energy use; accordingly, OIRA has not designated this final rule as a significant energy action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

PHMSA analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132 ( Federalism) and the Presidential Memorandum ( Preemption) published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2009.^[9] E.O. 13132 requires agencies to assure 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.” The Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Laws contain an express preemption provision at 49 U.S.C. 5125(b) that preempts State, local, and tribal requirements on certain covered subjects, unless the non-Federal requirements are “substantively the same” as the Federal requirements, including the following:

(1) The designation, description, and classification of hazardous material;

(2) The packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and placarding of hazardous material;

(3) The preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents related to hazardous material and requirements related to the number, contents, and placement of those documents;

(4) The written notification, recording, and reporting of the unintentional release in transportation of hazardous material; and

(5) The design, manufacture, fabrication, inspection, marking, maintenance, recondition, repair, or testing of a packaging or container represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in transporting hazardous material in commerce.

This final rule addresses items covered in Paragraph 2 above and will preempt State, local, and Tribal requirements not meeting the “substantively the same” standard. Though the final rule may operate to preempt some State requirements, it will not impose any regulation that has ( printed page 49331) 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. The preemptive effect of the regulatory amendments in this final rule is limited to the minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Laws. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of E.O. 13132 do not apply.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule that has been subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking under the APA unless the agency head certifies that the changes in the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. E.O. 13272 ( Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking ) obliges agencies to establish procedures promoting compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.^[10] DOT posts information on a dedicated web page to help small businesses understand and navigate Federal regulatory processes.^[11] PHMSA developed this final rule in accordance with E.O. 13272 and DOT implementing guidance to ensure compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The final rule is expected to reduce burdens on farmers. PHMSA does not expect the final rule to impact safety as it simply makes an inflationary adjustment to the exception from the security plan and in-depth security training requirements for small farmers. Because the final rule is expected to reduce burdens, PHMSA certifies the final rule does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA, 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 proposed 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, among other things, a written statement that qualitatively and quantitatively assesses the costs and benefits of the Federal mandate.

This final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under UMRA because it does not result in costs of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) per year for either State, local, or Tribal governments, or to the private sector.

H. National Environmental Policy Act

PHMSA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Under Section 9 of DOT Order 5610.1D, PHMSA may apply a categorical exclusion (CE) established in another Operating Administration's procedures. PHMSA followed the requirements outlined in DOT Order 5610.1D to apply the Federal Highway Administration's CE to this deregulatory action. PHMSA has determined no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). PHMSA's Categorical Exclusion Determination memo for this action is available on PHMSA's website.^[12]

I. Executive Order 13175

PHMSA analyzed this final rule according to the principles and criteria in E.O. 13175 ( Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) and DOT Order 5301.1A ( Department of Transportation Tribal Consultation Policies and Procedures ).^[13] Executive Order 13175 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input from Tribal government representatives in the development of rules that significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities by imposing “substantial direct compliance costs” or “substantial direct effects” on such communities or the relationship or distribution of power between the Federal Government and Tribes.

PHMSA assessed the impact of the final rule and determined that it will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities or Indian Tribal governments. The rulemaking's regulatory amendments have a broad, national scope; therefore, this final rule will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities, much less impose substantial compliance costs on Tribal governments or mandate Tribal action. For these reasons, PHMSA has concluded that the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 and DOT Order 5301.1A do not apply.

J. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d) requires that PHMSA provide interested members of the public and affected agencies with an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This rulemaking will not create, amend, or rescind any existing information collections.

K. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis

E.O. 13609 ( Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation ) 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.^[14] 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.

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 be the basis for U.S. standards.

PHMSA engages with international standards setting bodies to protect the safety of the American public. PHMSA has assessed the effects of the final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade. ( printed page 49332)

L. Cybersecurity and Executive Order 14028

E.O. 14028 ( Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity ) directed the Federal Government to improve its efforts to identify, to deter, and to respond to “persistent and increasingly sophisticated malicious cyber campaigns.” ^[15] PHMSA has considered the effects of the final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments would not materially affect the cybersecurity risk profile for affected entities.

M. Privacy Act Statement

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its rulemaking process better. 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 https://www.dot.gov/​privacy. DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000, or on DOT's website at https://www.dot.gov/​privacy.

In consideration of the foregoing, PHMSA amends 49 CFR Chapter I as follows: