PHMSA Voluntary Information Sharing Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 7, 2025
Bottom line
This bill creates a new, confidential, voluntary information-sharing system to enhance pipeline safety through collaborative data analysis and shared lessons learned, while protecting participants from punitive use of shared nonpublic data.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the Secretary of Transportation to establish a confidential and nonpunitive voluntary information-sharing system (VIS) under the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) within one year. The VIS is designed to collect, evaluate, and quantify pipeline safety data and information, and to share de-identified remediation measures and lessons learned across the pipeline industry. It creates a multi-stakeholder Governing Board, a Program Manager, a Third-Party Data Manager, and Issue Analysis Teams to manage and analyze the data, aiming to improve safety for various pipeline facilities.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that a confidential, nonpunitive information-sharing system is crucial for improving pipeline safety by fostering a culture of open communication about incidents, near misses, and best practices. They contend that operators are more likely to share sensitive safety data if they are assured it won't be used against them in enforcement actions or litigation, leading to a more comprehensive understanding of risks and more effective preventative measures across the industry. This proactive approach can identify systemic issues before they lead to major accidents.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that while information sharing is valuable, the extensive confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions could inadvertently shield operators from accountability for safety lapses. They may contend that exempting shared data from FOIA requests and discovery in litigation could hinder public oversight and make it more difficult for victims of pipeline incidents to seek justice, potentially prioritizing industry comfort over full transparency and public safety. Some might also question the effectiveness of a purely voluntary system if participation is not widespread.
The bill is relatively concise for its scope, allowing an informed reader to grasp its core mechanisms and implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2, amending 49 U.S.C. 60144(b)
Establishment of the Voluntary Information-Sharing System (VIS)
This provision mandates the Secretary of Transportation to establish a confidential and nonpunitive voluntary information-sharing system within one year. The system is designed to gather, evaluate, and quantify pipeline safety data and information, and to share recommended remediation measures and lessons learned across the pipeline industry to improve safety for various types of pipelines and facilities, including gas transmission, gas distribution, liquefied natural gas, underground natural gas storage, and hazardous liquid pipelines.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a dedicated, structured system for voluntary data sharing is essential because it addresses the current reluctance of operators to share sensitive safety information due to fear of regulatory or legal repercussions. This system creates a safe space for learning from collective experience.
Critics contend
Critics might express concern that a voluntary system might not achieve universal participation, potentially leaving gaps in the data and limiting its overall effectiveness in identifying systemic risks.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between encouraging voluntary participation through non-punitive measures and ensuring comprehensive data collection if participation remains optional.
Section 2, amending 49 U.S.C. 60144(c), (d), (e), (f), (g)
VIS Governance Structure
The bill establishes a 15-member Governing Board with balanced representation from federal/state governments, industry, and public safety advocacy groups to oversee the VIS. It also creates a Program Manager (the PHMSA Administrator) for day-to-day operations, a Third-Party Data Manager for data protection and analysis, and Issue Analysis Teams composed of technical experts to analyze specific safety topics. This structure ensures broad stakeholder input and independent data handling.
Section 2, amending 49 U.S.C. 60144(j), (k), (l)
Confidentiality and Exclusion from Legal Proceedings
This provision establishes strict confidentiality for nonpublic pipeline safety data submitted to the VIS, exempting it from disclosure under other laws, including the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). It also explicitly excludes this nonpublic information from use as evidence in any federal, state, local, tribal, or private litigation or enforcement actions against operators, with specific limitations for criminal violations, data unrelated to the VIS purpose, or information already required to be reported to regulators.
Decisions and approvals of the Governing Board shall be made by a supermajority consisting of not fewer than 2/3 of the total members AND 1 additional member. For a 15-member board, this means at least 11 members must agree.
Section 2, amending 49 U.S.C. 60144(d)(6)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for establishing governance rules, but the specific threshold (2/3 + 1) is a critical detail that could significantly impact the board's operational efficiency and ability to make decisions. It's not necessarily evasive but requires careful reading.
Case for: Proponents would argue that a high supermajority requirement ensures broad consensus on critical decisions, preventing any single faction from dominating the board and ensuring that major actions reflect the collective agreement of diverse stakeholders. This builds trust and legitimacy for the VIS.
Case against: Critics might argue that such a high threshold could lead to frequent stalemates, making it difficult for the Governing Board to act decisively or to approve the dissemination of important safety findings, especially if there are entrenched disagreements among the diverse member groups. This could slow down or hinder the VIS's effectiveness.
Estimated impact: Could significantly influence the speed and scope of the VIS's operations, potentially leading to slower decision-making or a focus on only the most universally agreeable safety recommendations.
The Secretary may collect an additional $5,000,000 under section 60301 for each of fiscal years 2024 through 2027 to establish, implement, and manage the VIS.
Section 2, amending 49 U.S.C. 60144(p)(2)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative practice for funding mechanisms, often placed at the end of a bill. It's not evasive, but the specific amount and its "additional" nature might be missed.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this dedicated, albeit limited, funding mechanism ensures the VIS has the necessary resources to get off the ground and operate effectively during its initial years, without relying solely on uncertain public-private partnerships. It demonstrates a commitment to establishing the system.
Case against: Critics might argue that adding to existing fees, even for a safety initiative, could be seen as an additional burden on the industry, which ultimately could be passed on to consumers. Some might also question if $5 million per year is sufficient for a comprehensive national system, or if it's a placeholder that will inevitably require more significant funding later.
Estimated impact: Provides up to $20 million in direct federal funding over four fiscal years (2024-2027) for the VIS, supplementing other potential sustainable funding sources.