ILTA Comments on PHMSA ANPRM - Potential Revisions to the Hazardous Materials Regulations to Facilitate the Safe Transportation of Hazardous Materials Using Highly Automated Transportation Systems
The International Liquid Terminals Association (ILTA), submit these comments responding to the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) published by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) in the Federal Register on December 04, 2025. ILTA represents more than 60 commercial operators of over 600 aboveground liquid storage terminals that handle a wide range of liquid commodities, including crude oil, refined petroleum products, chemicals, fertilizers, animal fats, and vegetable oils. Many of these terminals operate under PHMSA’s Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR). For this reason, PHMSA’s potential revisions to the HMR regarding highly automated transportation systems are of special interest to ILTA.
ILTA is concerned with this ANPRM’s provisions on shipping papers, hazard communications, packaging, and security plans & in-depth training, with an emphasis on the negative impact this ruling could have on smaller terminal operators.
Shipping Papers, Hazard Communications, and Packaging
Section IV, subparts B, C, and F calls for stakeholder input on potential changes to the HMR pertaining to shipping papers, emergency response hazard communications, and packaging, citing potential uses of automated incident response notification systems or other emerging technologies that may lead to the automated development, verification, and certification of shipping papers; alternatives to current marking, labeling and placarding requirements; and potential changes to address packaging requirements.
ILTA expresses concern with a shift to autonomous responses to hazard communications. Subpart B asks for additional comments on the potential use of automated incident response notification systems. Should an accidental hazardous material discharge occur on an autonomous vehicle, either through a spill or other form of accident, there would be no “on-site” human response to the event. Costly time for mitigating and stopping the discharge would be lost as emergency responders travel to the scene of the discharge, potentially enhancing the negative impact of the discharge in the environment and local community. This concern should be given utmost importance as PHMSA considers new rulemaking for autonomous systems.
In addition, ILTA expresses concern with the implementation cost burden of these systems. Many terminal operators have no need to transition to automated handling of shipping papers and packaging, and regulations that promote these systems may ultimately lead to the forced adoption of these systems. As PHMSA navigates addressing these new technologies, it must ensure that any regulation keeps the implementation of these technologies as optional for companies.
Training
Section IV, subpart D of the ANPRM calls for stakeholder input on the applicability of security plan requirements and in-depth security training to address significant security threats in highly automated transportation systems.
ILTA expresses concern that updates to training requirements for automated transportation systems will force operators to adopt automated systems to comply. Subpart E cites “revisions or updates to content in current security awareness training programs to ensure it covers security considerations related to highly automated transportation systems.” For companies choosing not to implement automated transportation systems, PHMSA should tailor regulations to ensure that baseline security standards do not force operators to adopt automated systems. Changing this baseline standard would place a burden on terminal operators to both implement these costly new systems and train their employees on these new systems.
Security Plans and In-Depth Security Training
Section IV, subpart E of the ANPRM calls for stakeholder input on potential changes to the applicability of security plan requirements and in-depth security training to address significant security threats in highly automated transportation systems.
In addition, ILTA expresses concern that this security component will place an increased and unnecessary operational burden on terminal security systems. Terminal facilities already operate in a complex web of rules and regulations mandated by the Coast Guard, TSA, CISA, and other programs. Security plans would have to be updated to be in compliance with PHMSA, while also keeping other competing, and often overlapping, agency oversight in mind. As PHMSA updates its security plans and in-depth security training, this duplicative burden should be top-of-mind for regulators.
Loading and Unloading
Section IV, subpart G of the ANPRM calls for stakeholder input on how loading and unloading procedures may need to be revised to account for highly automated transportation systems.
ILTA expresses concern with the operational requirements of autonomous vehicles regarding their access to facilities for loading, unloading, and other operations. A key factor allowing autonomous vehicles to navigate is the cameras attached to the vehicle. As a security precaution, many terminal facilities do not allow cameras into their facility, placing this security measure in immediate conflict with most, if not all autonomous vehicles. This security oversight should be emphasized as PHMSA considers autonomous vehicle rulemaking.
Regulatory Burden for Small Operators
Section III of this ANPRM calls for specific comment on any aspects of the ANPRM that raise special concerns or considerations for small businesses and other small entities relating to aspects that would impose high costs or would disproportionately burden small entities.
For smaller terminal operators, transitioning to automated systems to move hazardous materials would be extremely costly. Major rule changes to shipping papers, emergency information, packaging, loading, unloading, security plans, hazmat security, cyber security, and training have the potential to drive smaller terminal companies out of business as they spend to comply with this new regulatory burden. Many smaller operators have no need for complex and costly automated systems and operate safely and efficiently using man-operated systems under the current HMR. Shifting the regulatory baseline for automated systems will be beneficial for large technology and logistic companies who profit from the sale of these systems but will be damaging to these smaller operators.
Conclusion
As PHMSA considers updating hazmat regulations for automated processes, any changes need to be narrowly tailored to focus on companies that choose to automate, rather than forcing the terminal industry to remodel their systems to comply with an automation mandate. Any future PHMSA rulemaking and guidance needs to ensure automation, and the regulatory requirements that come with it, remain optional.
ILTA thanks PHMSA for the opportunity to comment on this ANPRM. Please contact the undersigned with any questions.
Respectfully,
Leakhena Swett
President
ILTA | International Liquid Terminals Association