Review - S 5360 Introduced – Utility Cybersecurity Grants

Back in August, Sen McCormick (R,PA) introduced S 5360, the Rural and Municipal Utility Cybersecurity Act. The bill would rewrite 42 USC 18723, the Rural and municipal utility advanced cybersecurity grant and technical assistance program, to update and reauthorize that program. The existing $250 million annual authorization for the program would be extended through 2030. 

This bill is practically the same at HR 7266, that was introduced in January 2026 by Rep Miller-Meeks (R,IA), the bill was marked up by the Subcommittee on Energy of the House Energy and Commerce Committee in February; a minor amendment was adopted by a voice vote and the bill was favorably recommended to the full Committee by a voice vote. The bill was taken up by the full Committee on March 5th, 2026, and passed by a vote of 49 to 0. The full House considered HR 7266 on June 29th, under the suspension of the rules process. The bill was passed by a voice vote. No action has been taken on the bill in the Senate. 

Moving Forward  

While the Senate is free to consider both bills, it is unlikely to take up either under regular order as it is just too time consuming, and the bills are just not politically important enough, especially considering the limited time available after next month’s elections are over. Given the broad bipartisan support that HR 7266 saw in the House and the support S 5360 saw in Committee, either of these bills could possibly be successfully passed using the Senate’s unanimous consent process. 

For more information on the provisions of this bill, including the differences between it and HR 7266, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/s-5360-introduced-utility-cybersecurity - subscription required. 

CSB Complains About Polymer Company’s Failure to Act on Recommendations

Yesterday, the CSB released a commentary on the failure of Yenkin-Majestic/OPC Polymers to implement -- or even substantively respond to – any of the five safety recommendations issued by the CSB stemming from the agency’s investigation of the fatal April 2021 explosion and fire at the company’s Columbus, Ohio resin plant. 

The incident occurred in March of 2021 and resulted in one fatality, and eight personnel transported to local hospitals for treatment as well as over $90 million in damages. The CSB published their report on the incident in December 2023. That report listed seven recommendations made by the Board to help prevent future occurrences of this type of incident. Four of those recommendations were assigned to Yenkin-Majestic. In September of last year, the CSB updated the status of each of those recommendations to ‘Open – Unacceptable Response/No Response Received’. 

Part of the reason for the lack of response may have been the pending criminal charges that had been filed against the company for violating the negligent endangerment provision of the Clean Air Act for an explosion that killed one employee and injured many more (42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(4)). The company may have felt that responding to the CSB’s recommendations would have been used as an admission of guilt in those proceedings. According to the DOJ, the company pleaded guilty to that charge on September 1st, 2026. 

On August 18th, 2026, the Yenkin-majestic Paint Corporation, was dissolved. Operations of OPC Polymers were transferred to a new, stand-alone entity, OPC Polymers LLC, operating in partnership with Multiquimica Dominicana. One would like to think that responsibility for implementing the recommendations would now fall upon that LLC. 

CFSN Free Subscriptions

Yesterday, over on CFSN Detailed Analysis I published analysis of two bills introduced in the House earlier this month: 

• HR 10673 Introduced – Li-Battery Placards, and 
• HR 10790 Introduced – CSB Board Composition 

I did do shorter, summary versions of both posts here, but there is more information on the provisions of the bill and more commentary available on CFSN. Paid subscribers received their versions by email yesterday. On Tuesday, free subscribers will receive their copies (same version) by email. 

If you become a free subscriber before 10:00 am EDT on Tuesday, you will also receive your email copy of the two posts. 

Review - HR 10673 Introduced – Li-Battery Placards

Earlier this month, Rep Hageman (R,WY) introduced HR 10673, the Battery Safety Placarding Act. The bill would require DOT to update the Hazardous Materials Regulations to require an external placard to be displayed on any freight container, unit load device, transport vehicle, or rail car transporting a certain quantity of lithium-ion batteries. No new funding is authorized. 

According to a press release from Hageman’s office:  

“The lithium-ion battery market has exploded by more than 20 percent since 2024 with nearly every mode of transportation now involved in carrying this $150 billion dollar industry. A series of recent conflagrations across multiple modes of transit, however, have demonstrated the need to reduce safety risks associated with delivering this highly combustible technology nationwide. The danger presented by lithium-ion battery fires are often exacerbated by thermal runaway, wherein a violent chain of chemical reactions lead to extreme temperatures, toxic gas release, and an occasional explosion.” 

Moving Forward  

Hageman is not a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to which this bill was assigned for consideration. This means that there is probably not sufficient influence to see this bill considered by that Committee. I do not see anything in this bill that would engender any organized opposition. I suspect that there would be some level of bipartisan support for this bill if it were considered by the Committee, but I am not sure that it would be sufficient to see the bill considered by the full House under the suspension of the rules process. In any case, it is probably too late in the session for any action to be taken on this bill. 

For more information on the provisions of this bill, including a commentary on the potential for PHMSA action absent legislation, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/hr-10673-introduced-li-battery-placards - subscription required. 

Review - HR 10790 Introduced – CSB Board Composition

Earlier this month, Rep Perez (D,WA) introduced HR 10790, the Chemical Safety Board Accountability Act. The bill amends 42 USC 7412(r)(6)(B) [pg 19] setting forth the requirements for the appointment of Board members for the Chemical Safety Board (CSB), including requiring one Board member with a labor background. It also establishes a deadline for appointing replacement board members. No new funding is authorized. 

Moving Forward  

Perez is not a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee to which this bill was assigned for consideration. This means that there is not likely to be sufficient influence to see the bill considered by that Committee. With the President’s well-known opposition to the Board, I would expect that Republican members of the Committee would not support this bill, particularly the provisions requiring Board Appointments. 

Commentary 

I briefly discussed the problems with requiring Board members with particular, and those comments still stand. 

For more information on the provisions of this bill, including a look at the potential end of the Board on January 15th, 2028, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/hr-10790-introduced-csb-board-composition - subscription required.