2026-18382NoticeWallet

Feds Block NJ Suits Against Exxon: Gas Hauls Trump Tort Claims

Published Date: 9/9/2026

Notice

Summary

The Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) seeks a determination that Federal law preempts State common law claims brought against it in New Jersey concerning the safe transportation of gasoline in commerce. PHMSA is issuing a final administrative determination concluding that the State common law tort claims presented by Exxon are preempted. Each of these duties, if imposed, would present an obstacle to compliance with the Federal regulatory framework essential for the safe transportation of gasoline. In addition, any claims about covered subjects, such as the marking, loading and unloading, and classification of gasoline that are not substantively the same as the applicable HMR provisions are preempted.

Analyzed Economic Effects

5 provisions identified: 2 benefits, 2 costs, 1 mixed.

State Tort Claims Against Gasoline Transport Preempted

PHMSA issued a final administrative determination on September 9, 2026, finding that Federal law (the Hazardous Material Transportation Act and the Hazardous Materials Regulations) preempts State common law tort claims brought against Exxon in New Jersey that would impose new safety duties about transporting gasoline. PHMSA says such State duties are preempted when they would prevent compliance with 49 U.S.C. 5125 or are not "substantively the same" as the HMR.

Benzene Warnings and Marking Claims Preempted

PHMSA found that State common law duties that would require adding benzene-specific cancer warnings to gasoline container markings or shipping papers are preempted under 49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(1) because they are not "substantively the same" as the Hazardous Materials Regulations in 49 CFR part 172. PHMSA said adding such State-specific warnings would conflict with the HMR's uniform hazard communication system and would obstruct emergency responders' use of standardized markings.

State Training-Based Claims Barred When They Conflict

PHMSA concluded that State common law claims demanding different or additional hazardous materials employee training are preempted to the extent they create an obstacle to complying with Federal training rules in 49 CFR part 172, subpart H. PHMSA explained that State-imposed training duties that conflict with HMR definitions or create a patchwork across States would frustrate the national training framework for hazmat employees.

Design-Defect Claims Over Loading Equipment Preempted

PHMSA determined that State common law claims alleging design defects in loading/unloading equipment (for example, loading arms at bulk facilities) are preempted because those claims would regulate covered subjects (design, manufacture, marking of packaging components) or pose an obstacle to the HMR. PHMSA reasoned that forcing retrofits or State-specific design changes would disrupt the uniform federal safety regime for bulk transfers into cargo tank motor vehicles.

State Reclassification of Gasoline Claims Preempted

PHMSA found that any State common law duty that would require reclassifying gasoline (for example, treating it as a different hazardous class because of trace benzene) is preempted under 49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(1)(A). PHMSA said classification is a covered subject of the HMR and allowing State reclassification would undermine the federal hazard classification system.

Personalized for You

How does this regulation affect your finances?

Personalize government policy and PRIA will tell you what this federal register document means for your household, plus every other regulation we track. PRIA reads each provision against your financial profile to show you exactly what matters to your wallet.

Key Dates

Published Date
9/9/2026

Department and Agencies

Department
Independent Agency
Agency
Transportation Department
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Source: View HTML

Related Federal Register Documents

Previous / Next Documents

Back to Federal Register