Introduction
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, published a notice on January 9, 2026, inviting public comments on an application from Exxon Mobil Corporation. The company seeks an administrative determination that federal hazardous materials transportation law preempts specific state common law tort claims in New Jersey. These claims involve allegations of inadequate marking, employee training, loading and unloading procedures, and hazardous material classification for gasoline transported by cargo tank motor vehicles. The underlying dispute arises from a lawsuit filed by a former driver who claims exposure to benzene in gasoline caused health risks, including cancer. This development underscores ongoing tensions between federal uniformity in hazardous materials regulations and state-level liability claims, potentially affecting how companies handle gasoline transport nationwide. PHMSA's process allows for comments until February 9, 2026, with rebuttals by March 10, 2026, before issuing a determination.
Background of the Application
Exxon Mobil's application stems from a New Jersey Superior Court case, Singh et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corp. et al., docketed as MID-L-004215-22. In that lawsuit, plaintiffs allege that Exxon failed to warn about benzene's cancer risks in gasoline, provided insufficient training, used defectively designed loading equipment, and misclassified the material. The court denied Exxon's motion for summary judgment on June 24, 2025, rejecting the company's preemption arguments. Exxon then applied to PHMSA for a formal determination under 49 U.S.C. 5125(d)(1).
The application argues that allowing these tort claims would create inconsistent state requirements, undermining the federal Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR). Exxon highlights similar lawsuits in Pennsylvania, New York, and Louisiana, warning of a 'patchwork of state regulations that would make it impossible to label and ship gasoline in interstate commerce,' as stated in its filing. PHMSA has made the application and related documents available on Regulations.gov under Docket No. PHMSA-2025-0777.
Exxon's Key Preemption Arguments
Exxon presents four primary arguments for preemption, each tied to specific provisions of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA), codified at 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.
First, on marking and labeling, Exxon contends that the tort claims would impose a duty to add warnings about benzene's cancer risks on containers and shipping papers. This, it argues, differs from HMR requirements under 49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(1)(B) and (C), which mandate markings that are 'substantively the same' as federal standards. Exxon asserts that such state-imposed warnings would not align with existing HMR provisions and could obstruct federal compliance.
Second, regarding employee training, Exxon argues that the claims seek to enforce training beyond HMR mandates in 49 CFR part 172 subpart H. These federal rules require hazmat employees to know the regulations and perform functions properly, including measures to protect against exposure. Exxon notes that the plaintiff was employed by a separate transportation company, not Exxon, and claims any additional state duty to warn about benzene risks is preempted as not 'substantively the same' under 49 U.S.C. 5125(b).
Third, for loading and unloading, Exxon points to allegations of defective design in the loading arm at its facility. It argues this falls under HMTA's coverage of 'packing' and 'handling' in 49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(1)(A), with HMR provisions in 49 CFR 171.1(c) defining 'loading incidental to movement' as filling packaging under carrier oversight. Exxon maintains that state tort duties here would not match federal standards and could conflict with them.
Fourth, on classification, Exxon rejects claims that gasoline should be reclassified from a Class 3 flammable liquid to a Class 6.1 poisonous material due to benzene. It argues this would require redesigning gasoline to remove benzene, which it deems scientifically impossible, and that such a requirement is not 'substantively the same' as HMR classification rules under 49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(1).
Federal Preemption Framework
The notice outlines the legal basis for preemption under 49 U.S.C. 5125. Non-federal requirements are preempted if they fail the 'dual compliance' test—where compliance with both is impossible—or the 'obstacle' test, where they hinder federal objectives. Additionally, for specific subjects like classification, handling, marking, and shipping documents, state requirements must be 'substantively the same' as federal ones, defined in 49 CFR 107.202(d) as conforming in every significant respect.
This framework draws from Supreme Court precedents such as Hines v. Davidowitz (1941) and Ray v. Atlantic Richfield (1978). Congress emphasized uniformity in the HMTA to avoid conflicting regulations, as noted in the 1990 amendments finding that varied state laws create hazards and compliance burdens. The notice references Executive Order 13132 on federalism, which supports preemption only with clear statutory basis or direct conflict.
PHMSA's process for determinations, delegated under 49 CFR 1.97(b), involves public notice, comment review, and publication of a decision, with options for reconsideration and judicial review.
Perspectives and Implications
From Exxon's viewpoint, preemption is essential to maintain uniform national standards, preventing fragmented regulations that could disrupt interstate commerce. The company cites the potential for similar claims in multiple states as evidence of broader risks.
Opponents, including plaintiffs in the New Jersey case, may argue that tort claims address workplace safety gaps not fully covered by federal rules, such as specific benzene warnings. They could contend that these claims do not directly conflict with HMR and serve public health without obstructing federal goals.
Short-term implications include PHMSA's upcoming determination, which could influence the New Jersey case and similar litigation. Long-term, a finding of preemption might limit state tort remedies for hazmat workers, potentially shifting focus to federal enforcement. Conversely, no preemption could encourage more lawsuits, prompting companies to enhance voluntary warnings or training.
Conclusion
This PHMSA notice highlights a critical intersection of federal regulation and state liability in hazardous materials transport. Key elements include Exxon's arguments for preemption across marking, training, loading, and classification, grounded in the need for uniformity. Potential next steps involve reviewing public comments to inform PHMSA's determination, with possible appeals to federal courts. Ongoing debates may center on balancing worker protections with regulatory consistency, while challenges include reconciling scientific claims about benzene with practical transport standards. Stakeholders should monitor the docket for developments that could shape future policy.
