States, Injured Drivers Ask PHMSA to Rethink Gasoline Preemption Ruling
New York led 19 jurisdictions and the Locks Law Firm in separate petitions urging federal regulators to reconsider a decision that state tort claims over gasoline loading and training are preempted by federal hazmat law.
The State of New York, joined by 16 other states, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealths of Massachusetts and Virginia, filed a petition for reconsideration on September 29, 2026, asking the Chief Counsel of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to revisit Preemption Determination No. PD-42(R), according to the petition posted to docket PHMSA-2025-0777. The Locks Law Firm, representing five plaintiffs in pending personal-injury lawsuits, filed a separate petition the same day raising related objections.
PHMSA's determination, dated September 4, 2026, and published in the Federal Register on September 9, 2026 (91 Fed. Reg. 57,439), found that the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) and the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) "wholly preempt" state common-law tort claims concerning the marking, employee training, loading and unloading, and hazard classification of gasoline carried in cargo tank motor vehicles, PHMSA said in the notice.
The ruling grew out of an August 26, 2025 application by Exxon Mobil Corporation, filed after a New Jersey Superior Court judge in Middlesex County denied Exxon's motion for summary judgment on preemption grounds in Singh v. Exxon Mobil Corp., according to the petitions. That underlying lawsuit, along with related cases in New York and Pennsylvania, alleges that long-term occupational exposure to benzene in gasoline caused blood cancers in tanker drivers and terminal workers.
In their 21-page filing, the petitioning states argue PHMSA's determination improperly functions as an appellate review of a state court's interlocutory order, raising separation-of-powers and federalism concerns the states say the agency dismissed "in a footnote." The states also argue PHMSA ignored a savings clause in the HMTA that exempts state requirements "authorized by another law of the United States," contending the Occupational Safety and Health Act's preservation of workplace injury claims, 29 U.S.C. § 653(b)(4), covers the claims at issue. The states further argue PHMSA misapplied the Supreme Court's decision in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell and overlooked the Court's ruling in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, and that under Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, courts owe no deference to an agency's preemption conclusions.
The Locks Law Firm's petition, filed on behalf of Peter and Chrismae Singh, Harrington and Grace Watt, and Kenneth Vieldhouse, raises similar objections to the missing OSH Act analysis and argues the determination improperly reached beyond the scope of Exxon's application to address vapor-recovery and benzene-content claims that the firm says are governed by Environmental Protection Agency rules, not PHMSA's hazmat regulations. The firm also alleges the determination contains factual errors about the underlying litigation record.
Both petitions ask PHMSA to either abstain from a final ruling in deference to the pending state court cases or revise the determination to find the HMTA and HMR do not preempt the claims.
What it means
The dispute determines whether truck drivers, terminal workers and others exposed to gasoline during transport, loading or unloading can sue under state negligence and failure-to-warn law, or whether federal hazmat rules foreclose those claims. Motor carriers, fuel terminal operators and their insurers that handle gasoline by cargo tank motor vehicle have a direct stake in whether PHMSA's broad preemption finding stands, since it could shield covered loading, unloading and training practices from state tort liability nationwide. A reversal would let the underlying personal-injury suits, including Singh v. Exxon Mobil, proceed on the merits in state court.
What's next
Under 49 C.F.R. § 107.211, PHMSA's Chief Counsel must act on the petitions and, per § 107.211(d), publish any resulting determination in the Federal Register. The New York-led petition states that other parties and commenters notified by mail may submit comments to the Chief Counsel within 20 days of mailing, which occurred September 29, 2026, pointing to a comment window closing around October 19, 2026. No date for a final agency ruling on the petitions is stated in the filings. Watch docket PHMSA-2025-0777 on regulations.gov for additional comments and for PHMSA's eventual response.
Sources
Other: Petition for Reconsideration from State of NY et al on PD-42(R) — Regulations.gov (PHMSA), 2026-10-01
Other: Petition for Reconsideration from Locks Law Firm on PD-42(R) — Regulations.gov (PHMSA), 2026-10-01
Comments