Monday,
September 14, 2026 EMA is pleased to report a significant regulatory victory for the
fuel distribution industry. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) has issued a final administrative determination
concluding that the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) and
the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) preempt state common law tort
claims concerning the marking, employee training, loading and unloading
operations, and hazardous materials classification of gasoline
transported by cargo tank motor vehicles (CTMVs). EMA actively
participated in this proceeding and the final determination vindicates
the position EMA advocated on behalf of the fuel marketing industry.
Background
Earlier this year, EMA submitted formal comments to PHMSA supporting
Exxon Mobil Corporation's petition for a preemption determination under
HMTA. The petition arose from state tort litigation seeking to impose
obligations on gasoline marketers including additional
benzene-specific warning labels, carrier-level employee training duties,
loading equipment redesign, and product reclassification that went
beyond what the HMR requires.
EMA was explicitly recognized by the agency among a broad coalition
supporting preemption that included the American Petroleum Institute,
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Western States Petroleum Association, and 17
State Attorneys General. EMA argued that allowing state tort claims to
function as de facto regulatory requirements would fracture the uniform
federal framework that protects both safety and interstate commerce,
creating a patchwork of conflicting obligations. EMA's comments
specifically highlighted the operational consequences for small and
mid-sized fuel distributors including compliance cost escalation,
disruption to interstate fuel resiliency, and the procedural
irregularity of imposing regulatory duties through tort litigation
rather than notice-and-comment rulemaking.
PHMSA's Ruling and Analysis
In a nutshell, PHMSA determined that the HTMA and HMR fully preempt
State common law tort claims, reaffirming that 49 U.S.C. 5125(a) and (b)
contain independent bases for preemption. PHMSA's notice included a
topic-by-topic analysis addressing each claim category:
Container Marking and Shipping Papers. PHMSA found that state
common law duties requiring benzene-specific cancer warnings on gasoline
containers and shipping papers are preempted. The HMR already provides
an exhaustive, globally harmonized hazard communication system under 49
CFR Part 172. State-specific supplementary warnings are not
"substantively the same" as HMR requirements and would undermine the
uniform, immediately recognizable hazard indicators that first
responders rely on.
Employee Training. PHMSA found that state tort duties imposing
training obligations beyond the HMR's standardized framework including
duties directed at employees of third-party carriers present an
obstacle to the Federal training scheme under 49 CFR Part 172, Subpart
H. The agency noted that a patchwork of state-specific training regimes
would burden national carriers that routinely cross state lines.
Notably, PHMSA also emphasized that requiring a fuel company to train
third-party drivers is in direct conflict with the HMR's
well-established definitions of hazmat employer and hazmat employee.
Loading and Unloading Equipment Design. PHMSA confirmed that
loading arm design and operational specifications applicable to bulk
gasoline facilities are captured by the HMR. State tort judgments
finding federally compliant loading equipment "defective" would
effectively impose new, localized design requirements constituting
non-federal requirements concerning the designing and fabricating of
packaging components that are not substantively the same as the HMR. The
agency reasoned that forcing operators to retrofit loading equipment to
satisfy disparate State jury verdicts presents a substantial obstacle to
the safe, uniform transportation of gasoline in interstate
commerce.
Hazardous Material Classification. PHMSA held that any state
common law duty that would require gasoline to be treated as something
other than a Class 3 flammable liquid effectively compelling product
redesign to eliminate benzene would constitute an impermissible
re-classification that directly conflicts with the HMR's internationally
harmonized classification scheme.
Judicial Review is Possible
Any party aggrieved by PHMSA's determination may file a petition for
reconsideration within 20 days of Federal Register publication, or seek
judicial review in an appropriate United States Court of Appeals within
60 days.
EMA will monitor any challenge and keep members informed of further
developments.
"This determination is a win for every fuel marketer in America.
Uniform federal standards exist for a reason they keep drivers safe,
supply chains moving, and small businesses out of an impossible maze of
conflicting state requirements. PHMSA got this right," stated EMA
President Rob Underwood.
