HR-9338-119
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 41 - 8.
Sponsored by Randy Weber (R-TX)
What it does
This bill would reauthorize federal pipeline safety programs through fiscal year 2031, authorizing approximately $180.8 million per year for gas and hazardous liquid pipeline oversight, plus $30 million per year from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. It would create a new voluntary, confidential information-sharing system (VIS) for the pipeline industry to share safety data without that data being used in enforcement or litigation. The bill would also strengthen excavation damage prevention standards, raise civil penalty caps from $200,000 to $341,200 per violation (and from $2 million to $3.412 million per series of violations), and require formal hearings for enforcement actions where proposed penalties or compliance costs exceed $125,000.
Who benefits
Pipeline operators who gain a confidential forum to share safety data without litigation risk, and who gain formal hearing rights in high-stakes enforcement actions. Communities and residents near pipelines who may benefit from improved safety practices and reduced accident risk. State governments that receive federal grants for excavation damage prevention programs. Construction and excavation companies that would receive clearer "dig safe" notification standards. Workers in the pipeline industry who may benefit from improved safety culture. Researchers and academic institutions that would gain access to aggregated, de-identified pipeline safety data. Pipeline safety advocacy groups that receive seats on the VIS governing board.
Who is hurt
Plaintiffs in pipeline accident litigation who would be unable to obtain VIS-submitted data through discovery, potentially limiting their evidence in civil suits. Environmental and public interest groups who may find that confidentiality protections reduce transparency around pipeline safety incidents. Journalists and FOIA requesters who would be blocked from accessing VIS data held by federal agencies. Pipeline operators who face higher maximum civil penalties — up to $3.412 million per series of violations. State and local governments that may face new administrative burdens to adopt standardized excavation notification "leading practices." Homeowners and municipalities currently exempt from one-call notification requirements who would face new restrictions on those exemptions.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the voluntary information-sharing system directly addresses a well-documented barrier to pipeline safety improvement: operators currently withhold near-miss and incident data for fear it will be used against them in litigation or enforcement, leaving the industry unable to learn systematically from close calls. They contend that analogous confidentiality protections in aviation (the Aviation Safety Action Program) produced measurable safety gains, and that the bill's 70% increase in civil penalty caps — from $200,000 to $341,200 per violation — simultaneously strengthens deterrence. Supporters also argue that standardizing excavation notification practices across states closes a patchwork of exemptions responsible for a significant share of pipeline damage incidents each year.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that shielding VIS-submitted data from civil discovery and FOIA creates a legal safe harbor that could allow pipeline operators to document known safety risks internally while insulating themselves from accountability to injured communities. They contend that the formal hearing threshold of $125,000 — triggered for both penalties and compliance costs — may slow enforcement timelines and give well-resourced operators procedural tools to delay corrective action. Critics also argue that the bill's "leading practices" for state excavation programs are framed as requirements tied to federal grant eligibility, effectively pressuring states to adopt federal standards in an area traditionally governed by state law, raising Tenth Amendment anti-commandeering concerns.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to regulate pipeline safety rests on the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), as interstate pipelines are quintessential instruments of interstate commerce under Wickard v. Filburn (1942). The bill's grant conditions on states for excavation programs could face Tenth Amendment scrutiny, though the Supreme Court has generally upheld conditional federal spending as permissible so long as conditions are clearly stated and not coercive. Post-Loper Bright (2024), any agency rules implementing the VIS or excavation standards would face independent judicial review rather than deference, meaning the clarity of the bill's statutory language becomes more legally significant.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (DOT/PHMSA) gains new administrative authority to establish and oversee the VIS and publish excavation protocols, but is checked by mandatory GAO oversight reports, annual congressional reporting requirements, an 18-month deadline on special permit reviews, and a multi-stakeholder governing board that requires a two-thirds-plus-one supermajority for decisions.
Historical precedent
The Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP), established by the FAA in the 1990s, created a similar confidential voluntary safety reporting system for the aviation industry with analogous protections against use of submitted data in enforcement — and is frequently cited as the model for this bill's VIS structure.