Review – HR 7338 Introduced – RSAC Codification

Earlier this month Rep Sykes (D,OH) introduced HR 7338, the Railroad Safety and Accountability Act. The bill would codify the establishment and operation of the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) which was established by DOT’s Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in 1996. It would amend 49 USC by adding a new §20122, Railroad Safety Advisory Committee. The bill would authorize “such funds as would be necessary” from the Highway Trust Fund for the operations of the RSAC.

The RSAC was effectively terminated in August of 2025 as part of the Administration’s efforts to recraft advisory committees to reflect their policy agendas. In January 2026, the FRA announced the reestablishment of the Charter for the RSAC in the Federal Register. There are not yet any members appointed to the ‘new’ RSAC.

Moving Forward

Sykes is a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to which this bill is assigned for consideration. This means that there could be sufficient influence to see this bill considered in Committee. While the provisions of this bill would appear to be relatively uncontroversial, I suspect that there may be some Administration push-back because of a perceived criticism of how they mistreated the previous RSAC. Still, I expect that this bill would receive some level of bipartisan support were it to be considered, but I am not confident that it would be sufficient to allow the bill to be considered by the full House under the suspension of the rules process.

Commentary

Advisory committees like RSAC provide regulatory agencies with an invaluable tool to help them develop workable regulatory schemes to deal with a wide variety of safety and security issues. The varied backgrounds and agendas of the members provide the parent agency with a variety of perspectives that are not available in-house. This helps those agencies avoid unanticipated problems with the publish and comment process of regulatory development.

 

For more information on the provisions of this bill, including additional commentary on Congress utilizing the expertise of advisory committees, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - - subscription required.

CSB Publishes Volume 4 of Their Incident Reports Series – 2-18-26

Yesterday the Chemical Safety Board (CSB) announced the publication of the fourth volume of their Incident Reports Series. This volume provides 13 investigation summaries of incidents reported since 2020. The investigations were not conducted by the CSB, but rather by the affected companies. Volume 1 (26 incidents) was published in January, 2025, Volume 2 (25 incidents) in March 2025, and Volume 3 (30 incidents) in July 2025.

While these investigation reports are not up to the technical standards of the CSB, they still provide valuable insights into how accidental releases occur in the chemical industry. Readers are going to have to deduce and apply the lessons learned as there are no recommendations from the Board at the end of these reports.

That these companies are willing to publicly share their accident investigation results with the public through the auspices of the CSB positively reflect on the chemical safety investigations and outreach efforts of the Board. The idea that unrelated entities can learn from the mistakes of others in the realm of chemical safety is the largest legacy of this underfunded agency. It is heartening to see that Congress remains willing and able to continue to fund the CSB even in the face of the anti-government agenda of the current administration.

Administrative Note: Volume 4 is not yet listed on the CSB’s Incident Reporting Rule Submission Information and Data page where the other three volumes are reported. I expect that this administrative oversight will be corrected in the near future.

NRC Sends Foreign Ownership Direct Final Rule to OMB

Yesterday the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) announced that it had received a direct final rule from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on “Exceptions from Foreign Ownership, Control, or Domination [NRC-2024-0218]”. This rulemaking is supporting the requirements of §301 of the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act of 2024 (Division B of PL 118-67, 138 STAT. 1465).

The Spring 2025 Unified Agenda entry for this rulemaking notes:

“This rulemaking would amend the NRC’s regulations to comply with Section 301 of the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act of 2024, which has designated certain exclusions from the foreign ownership, control, or domination provision set forth in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. This rulemaking would affect applicants and licensees of commercial nuclear power reactor or non-power production or utilization facilities that are owned, controlled, or dominated by a foreign entity.”

I am not expanding coverage of this blog to include the NRC; really, I am not. This rulemaking just caught my interest. I do not expect that there will be any detailed coverage of this rule here, but I will almost certainly mention its publication in the Federal Register in the appropriate Short Take post.

Review – EPA Publishes Hazardous Substance Facility Response Plans ANPRM

Today the EPA published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (91 FR 7415-7420) on: “Clean Water Act Hazardous Substance Facility Response Plans; Amendment Reconsideration”. This rulemaking seeks feedback on potential amendments to address implementation challenges and clarify requirements from the 2024 final rule.

Background Information

The preamble to this ANPRM provides a detailed discussion about the provisions of the 2024 rulemaking. It then goes on to discuss the implementation issues that have arisen since that final rule was put into place. These include issues related to facility applicability and program implementation.

Public Comments

The EPA is soliciting public comments on this ANPRM. Comments may be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal (www.Regulations.gov; Docket # EPA-HQ-OLEM-2025-1707). Comments should be submitted by March 20^th, 2026.

 

For more information about this proposed rulemaking, including a look at the questions the EPA is providing for consideration, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/epa-publishes-hazardous-substance - subscription required.

NRC Sends Modernizing Security for Nuclear Materials NPRM to OMB

Yesterday the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) announced that it had received a notice of proposed rulemaking from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on “Modernizing Requirements Relating to Physical Protection of Category 1 and Category 2 Quantities of Radioactive Material [NRC-2025-1238]”. This rulemaking was not listed in the Spring 2025 Unified Agenda.

The rulemaking would appear to be targeting amendments to 10 USC Part 37, Physical protection of category 1 and category 2 quantities of radioactive material. This Part was included as one of the recent regulatory revisions published on December 3^rd, 2025, where the NRC placed portions of regulations under a new sunset provision (in this case sunsetting on January 8^th, 2027), so this rulemaking should also serve as the first 5 year extension of that sunset.

According to an NRC memo on FY 2026 regulatory priorities:

“This initiative aims to modernize the NRC's regulations by removing unnecessary requirements relating to physical protection and security of category 1 and category 2 quantities of radioactive material, while maintaining safety and security. The NRC anticipates the proposed rule to be published in March 2026.”

According to that memo, the listed regulatory efforts (including this rulemaking) are being proposed in response to EO 14300, Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It also notes that the proposed rulemakings “are deregulatory and are expected to result in cost savings to both NRC and Industry stakeholders”.

This rulemaking is generally outside of the scope of this blog, but it deserves mention as it deals with chemical security in the most extreme case.

Review – 4 Advisories Published – 2-17-26

Today CISA published four control system security advisories for products from Honeywell, GE Vernova, Delta Electronics, and Siemens.

Advisories

Honeywell Advisory - This advisory describes a missing authentication for critical function vulnerability in the Honeywell CCTV Products.

GE Advisory - This advisory describes two vulnerabilities in the Vernova Enervista UR Setup tool.

Delta Advisory - This advisory describes a stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability in the Delta ASDA-Soft configuration software.

NOTE: I briefly discussed this vulnerability on February 7^th, 2026.

Siemens Advisory - This advisory that describes six vulnerabilities in their Simcenter Femap and Nastran products.

NOTE: I briefly discussed these vulnerabilities on February 14^th, 2026.

 

For more information on these advisories, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/4-advisories-published-2-17-26 - subscription required.

Review – HR 7257 Introduced – State Energy Plans

Last month Rep Latta (R,OH) introduced HR 7257, the Securing Community Upgrades for a Resilient (SECURE) Grid Act. The bill would amend 42 USC 6326 to require States to include local distribution systems in their State Energy Security Plans described in that section. No new funding is authorized by this legislation.

The bill is similar to HR 9083 that was introduced by Latta in July 2024. No action was taken on that bill in the 118^th Congress. While similar in intent, HR 7257 is a substantial rewrite. Some of the changes of interest include:

Modifying the proposed definition of the term ‘local distribution systems’ by increasing the maximum voltage from 35 kilovolts to 100 kilovolts,

Removing the proposed language being added to (b)(2)(B) referencing “energy supply disruptions resulting from increased demand on the electric grid, deteriorating assets [emphasis added], and physical and cybersecurity threats”, and

Removing from the proposed language revision in (b)(3) reference to “risks and liabilities posed by human error or mismanagement”.

Moving Forward

Latta and his two cosponsors are members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee to which this bill was assigned for consideration. This means that there could be sufficient influence to see this bill considered in Committee. I see nothing in this bill that would engender any organized opposition. I suspect that there will be some level of bipartisan support for this bill in Committee. Whether that support would be sufficient to see the bill considered in the Full House under the suspension of the rules remains to be seen.

 

For more information on the provisions of this bill, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/hr-7257-introduced-state-energy-plans - subscription required.