EMA Regulatory Alert: PHMSA Issues Final Preemption Determination Protecting Uniform Federal Standards for Gasoline Transportation

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.