Earlier this month, Sen Curtis (R,UT) introduced S 2660, the Modern Risk Detection Act of 2025. This bill would amend 49 USC 60102, which establishes the purpose and general authority for the DOT’s pipeline safety regulations. The legislation would require the adoption of risk based standards in the PSR to the maximum extent practicable. No new funding is authorized.
Definitions
There are no new or revised definitions proposed in this bill. Existing definitions for the Chapter 601 are found in §60101. There is no definition for the term ‘risk based approaches’ provided in that section.
The Amendment
The bill would amend §60102 by adding a new subsection (u):
“(u) Risk-Based approaches.—The Secretary shall ensure that the standards prescribed under this chapter allow for the use, to the maximum extent practicable, of risk-based approaches, concepts, or principles in complying with those standards.”
Section 60102 already contains risk-based language in §60102(b), practicability and safety needs standards. Paragraph (2) requires that, when prescribing standards, the Secretary will consider:
Based on a risk assessment, the reasonably identifiable or estimated benefits expected to result from implementation, or compliance with the standard, and
Based on a risk assessment, the reasonably identifiable or estimated costs expected to result from implementation or compliance with the standard.
Without a definition of the term ‘risk-based approaches’ that paragraph could be interpreted as making the proposed amendment superfluous.
Moving Forward
Curtis is a Sub-Committee Chair in the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee to which this bill was assigned for consideration. This means that there should be sufficient influence to see this bill considered in Committee. I suspect that the Democrats will generally oppose this bill as ‘risk-based approaches’ are frequently seen by them as a means for the regulated community to avoid strict enforcement of regulations. Still there should be sufficient influence to see this bill reported favorably by the Committee. This bill is not, however, politically important enough to be considered under regular order in the Senate and it would not survive an attempt at passage under the unanimous consent process. The best way for this bill to move forward would be for it to be added to a larger piece of legislation that would be considered under regular order.
Risk Based Approaches
This term is widely used in the safety community, and it is based upon the recognition that in many cases it is difficult to craft absolute safety rules that will fit each and every case. In fact, most safety regulations already acknowledge this fact in that they are generally broadly written and only require specific safety devices or procedures when they are already broadly accepted in the regulated industry. Still, even broadly written safety rules may not fit every case; some may not actually apply to a limited, specific situation, and others may be better served by some alternative means of compliance. DOT’s PHMSA already recognizes these situations in its Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) with their Special Permit program. That program allows a covered individual to propose alternative safety measures where current regulations are too restrictive or do not apply. The agency reviews the application, and if it is approved, that then becomes an enforceable part of the HMR for that individual.
I do not see anything in the current version of §60102 that would require DOT (PHMSA) to establish such a permit program in the Pipeline Safety Regulations. If Curtis really wants to see risk-based enforcement, perhaps the bill should have instead required DOT to establish a special permit program for the PSR.