H.R. 9338, the Pipeline Safety Authorization Act of 2026, advanced out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee with bipartisan support. Among its enforcement provisions, the bill would require the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to provide formal hearings in certain enforcement proceedings and establish protocols for making those hearings public.
The public hearing requirement is a modest improvement. It does not, however, address the aspect of PHMSA’s enforcement program most in need of reform.
Pipeline operators have questioned the transparency and consistency of PHMSA’s enforcement program for years. Those concerns extend well beyond whether a hearing is open to the public. They reflect broader questions about how enforcement decisions are made, who makes them, and whether the process provides the procedural safeguards expected in a formal administrative adjudication.
PHMSA’s regulations define a “formal hearing.” Yet the agency has never established the framework necessary to conduct one. There are no administrative law judges assigned to pipeline safety enforcement. There are no regulations governing formal hearing practice. There is no process for assigning cases to an independent adjudicator. Instead, enforcement matters proceed before informal hearing officers who are agency attorneys designated to perform that role.
The result is an enforcement program in which the agency investigates the alleged violation, prosecutes the enforcement action, and issues the final agency order within the same organizational structure. The Associate Administrator for the Office of Pipeline Safety signs the final order, while also overseeing the regional offices responsible for bringing enforcement actions. Opening the hearing to the public does not change how those decisions are made or who makes them.
Congress has an opportunity to modernize PHMSA’s enforcement program. If the objective is to improve transparency, consistency, and confidence in the enforcement process, the more consequential reforms would establish a genuine formal adjudication system. That means administrative law judges, formal hearing procedures, and a meaningful separation of investigative, prosecutorial, and adjudicative functions. Public access to the proceeding is worthwhile, but it is only a small part of what a modern enforcement program should provide.