[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 231 (Thursday, December 4, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55836-55844]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-21970]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, and 178
[Docket No. PHMSA-2024-0064 (HM-266)]
RIN 2137-AF68
Hazardous Materials: Modernizing Regulations To Facilitate
Transportation of Hazardous Materials Using Highly Automated
Transportation Systems
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) is publishing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM) to obtain stakeholder input on potential revisions to the
Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) to facilitate the safe
transportation of hazardous materials using highly automated
transportation systems.
DATES: Comments must be received by March 4, 2026, to ensure
consideration. However, PHMSA will consider late-filed comments to the
extent possible.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number
PHMSA-2024-0064 (HM-266) by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management System, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Dockets Operations, M-30, Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, Ground Floor, Room W12-140 in the West Building, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number (PHMSA-2024-0064) or RIN 2137-AF68 for this ANPRM at the
beginning of the comment. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov including any
personal information provided. If sent by mail, comments must be
submitted in duplicate. Persons wishing to receive confirmation of
receipt of their comments must include a self-addressed stamped
postcard.
Docket: For access to the dockets to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket
Operations Office; see ADDRESSES.
Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business
Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both
customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the
Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments in response to this ANPRM contain
commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as
private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this ANPRM, it is important that you clearly designate
the submitted comments as CBI. Pursuant to 49 CFR 105.30, you may ask
PHMSA to provide confidential treatment to the information you give to
the agency by taking the following steps: (1) mark each page of the
original document submission containing CBI as ``Confidential;'' (2)
send PHMSA a copy of the original document with the CBI deleted along
with the original, unaltered document; and (3) explain why the
information you are submitting is CBI. Submissions containing CBI
should be sent to Steven Andrews, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, DOT:
PHMSA-PHH-10, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Any comment PHMSA receives
that is not explicitly designated as CBI will be placed in the public
docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Andrews, Standards and
Rulemaking Division, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, at
202-366-8553.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Abbreviations and Terms
AAM Advanced Air Mobility
AAR Association of American Railroads
ADS Automated Driving System
ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
BVLOS Beyond Visual Line of Sight Operations
CDA Commercial Drone Alliance
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FMCSR Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
HMR Hazardous Materials Regulations
[[Page 55837]]
HMTA Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975
IMO International Maritime Organization
MASS Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships
MSC Maritime Safety Committee
NAS National Airspace System
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NTTC National Tank Truck Carriers
RFI Request for Information
RFP Request for Proposal
SMS Safety Management Systems
TSA Transportation Security Administration
USCG United States Coast Guard
UAS Unmanned Aircraft Systems
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
III. ANPRM Objective
IV. Potential Regulatory Updates to the HMR for Highly Automated
Transportation Systems
A. Special Permits
B. Shipping Papers and Emergency Response Information
C. Hazard Communication
D. Training
E. Security Plans and In-Depth Security Training
F. Packaging
G. Loading and Unloading
V. Highly Automated Transportation Systems by Mode
A. Rail Transportation
B. Air Transportation
C. Vessel Transportation
D. Highway Transportation
VI. Questions
VII. Future Actions
I. Executive Summary
PHMSA is publishing this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM) to solicit stakeholder input on the transportation of hazardous
materials in highly automated transportation systems. For the purposes
of this ANPRM, PHMSA considers highly automated transportation systems
as advanced transportation systems that leverage varying degrees of
automation, tailored to the system's complexity. The emergence of
highly automated technology has the potential to transform how
hazardous materials are transported while potentially enhancing safety,
efficiency, and reliability. This shift warrants a comprehensive review
of the requirements in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR
parts 171-180). PHMSA is publishing this ANPRM to solicit feedback that
can be used in performing that review.
II. Background
The HMR was primarily designed with traditional transportation
methods in mind. The advent of highly automated transportation
systems,\1\ ranging in possibility from drones and delivery robots to
fully automated freight trucks, introduces new challenges and
opportunities that were not anticipated by the original regulatory
framework of the HMR. These highly automated transportation systems
offer potential benefits, such as increased efficiency and reduced
human error, but also raise questions about safety and regulatory
compliance under the HMR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., USDOT Automated Vehicles Activities, https://www.transportation.gov/AV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 22, 2018, PHMSA published a Request for Information (RFI),
titled ``Request for Information on Regulatory Challenges to Safely
Transporting Hazardous Materials by Surface Modes in an Automated
Vehicle Environment.'' \2\ The RFI requested public comment on how the
emergence of automated technologies may impact the HMR and the
information that PHMSA should consider when determining how to best
ensure the HMR adequately account for surface automated vehicles. The
RFI also sought comment on the role that surface automated vehicles and
their supporting technologies might play in transportation, freight
movement, and commerce. PHMSA received 27 sets of comments from various
interested parties in response to the RFI, including valuable input
from private companies, public safety associations, and trade
associations.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 83 FR 12529 (Mar. 22, 2018).
\3\ https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2018-0001/comments.
For example, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) suggested
that PHMSA review the HMR to identify outdated requirements that
might hinder the use of highly automated transportation systems. In
contrast, safety organizations, such as the International
Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), expressed concerns about a loss
of safety with the potential introduction of highly automated
transportation systems moving hazardous materials. Amazon stated
that policymakers should ensure that the HMR prioritizes safety,
provides clear requirements, and maintains enough flexibility to
keep up with the pace of innovation. The National Tank Truck
Carriers (NTTC) recommended that PHMSA adopt a performance-based,
operator-neutral approach. NTTC added that, while preserving current
regulations for human operators where feasible, the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) and HMR should be updated to
establish performance standards that not only maintain the safety
requirements for human drivers but also hold automated vehicles--
whether driving or assisting in driving--to the same safety
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 14, 2019, PHMSA published a report, titled ``Hazardous
Materials Transport with Unmanned Systems,'' that focused on
identifying potential hazards and evaluating the current state of
highly automated transportation systems in hazardous materials
transportation by all modes.\4\ While the previously cited RFI focused
on highly automated systems in surface transportation, this report
broadened the scope to include highly automated transportation systems
in all modes. The report outlined likely scenarios for automated
hazardous materials transportation and associated risks, taking into
consideration the maturity of automated systems in those scenarios. The
report considered both risk reductions from utilizing automated systems
as well as the unique risks introduced by using automation. The report
provided a potential regulatory framework with decision points to help
ensure the safe integration of highly automated transportation systems
in hazardous materials transportation as well. PHMSA has placed a copy
of this report in the docket for this ANPRM and seeks comments on any
data within the report that may be useful in the development of an
NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Hazardous Material Transport with Unmanned Systems,'' Mar.
14, 2019, available at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/2020-03/Risk%20Assessment%20of%20HazMat%20by%20UAVs.pdf (accessed Sept. 30,
2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 16, 2024, the 2024 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Reauthorization Act \5\ (the FAA Act) was signed into law. Section 933
of the Act requires the Secretary of Transportation to use a risk-based
approach to establish the operational requirements, standards, or
special permits necessary to approve or authorize an air carrier to
transport hazardous materials by unmanned aircraft systems (UAS)
providing common carriage under 14 CFR part 135 or successor
authorities, as applicable, beginning within 180 days of enactment. In
addition, the FAA Act required the Secretary of Transportation to hold
a public meeting on the transportation of hazardous materials by UAS.
PHMSA and FAA held the public meeting as required on August 22,
2024,\6\ and received written comments, which were subsequently added
to the regulatory docket.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Public Law 118-63 (codified in scattered sections of 49
U.S.C.).
\6\ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Me2-rmWFInM.
\7\ https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2024-0117.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, FAA--in conjunction with PHMSA--published a Federal
Register notice to announce the availability of a guidance document
titled ``Guidance for Transporting Hazardous Materials by UAS''
intended for 14 CFR part 135 UAS applicants and existing certificate
holders who are interested in or expanding their current
[[Page 55838]]
authorization for carrying hazardous materials.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 90 FR 52133 (Nov. 19, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 7, 2025, FAA and the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) published an NPRM,\9\ titled ``Normalizing
Unmanned Aircraft Systems Beyond Visual Line of Sight Operations,'' as
directed by the FAA Act. FAA's NPRM proposes performance-based
regulations under a new 14 CFR part 108, enabling the design and
operation of UAS at low altitudes for beyond visual line of sight
(BVLOS) operations. Ultimately, this NPRM is intended to provide a
predictable and clear pathway for safe, routine, and scalable UAS
operations. This includes package delivery operations that can involve
the carriage of hazardous materials. The proposed 14 CFR part 108
enabling regulations for hazardous materials package delivery are
similar to current requirements for 14 CFR part 135 UAS operators
already authorized to load, handle, and transport hazardous materials.
In addition, FAA also expects to publish an NPRM titled ``Restrict the
Operation of an Unmanned Aircraft in Close Proximity to a Fixed Site
Facility'' proposing to establish criteria and procedures for the
operator or proprietor of eligible fixed site facilities to apply to
the FAA for a UAS-specific flight restriction.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Normalizing Unmanned Aircraft Systems Beyond Visual Line
of Sight Operations 90 FR 38212 (Aug. 7, 2025).
\10\ RIN 2120-AL33, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202504&RIN=2120-AL33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 3, 2025, PHMSA published a Request for Proposal (RFP) to
seek a contractor with the expertise, capabilities, and experience to
evaluate the safety performance of existing dangerous goods packaging
requirements in a UAS environment.\11\ The work will account for
operational conditions specific to the carriage of dangerous goods via
UAS, the corresponding hazards, and the safety performance of existing
packaging standards; and identify appropriate risk mitigations. It will
also identify potential hazards associated with malfunctions of UAS
package containment systems at various cruise altitudes, up to 400 feet
above ground level, which could inadvertently drop items during
transit. Offers to this RFP closed on July 2, 2025, and a final report
must be delivered to PHMSA no later than 21 months after the contract
is awarded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Notice ID 693JK325R0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, in June 2025, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.)
14307,\12\ titled ``Unleashing American Drone Dominance,'' to enhance
U.S. productivity, create high-skilled jobs, and reshape the future of
aviation. The E.O. aims to accelerate the safe commercialization of
drone technologies and fully integrate UAS into the National Airspace
System (NAS). The publication of this ANPRM aligns with the goals of
E.O. 14307 and seeks to develop a regulatory framework to facilitate
the transportation of hazardous materials via UAS (i.e., drones).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 90 FR 24727 (Jun. 11, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. ANPRM Objective
PHMSA works closely with its modal partners in developing modal
specific regulations and guidance involved in the transportation of
hazardous materials. The primary modal administrations that PHMSA works
with are the: (1) Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
for the transportation of hazardous materials by highway--see 49 CFR
part 177; (2) FAA for the safe transportation of hazardous materials by
air--see 49 CFR part 175; (3) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for
the safe transportation of hazardous materials by rail--see 49 CFR part
174; and (4) United States Coast Guard (USCG), part of the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS), for the safe transportation of hazardous
materials by vessel--see 49 CFR part 176. In addition, PHMSA works with
other administrations and offices within DOT, such as the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Office of the
Secretary of Transportation (OST), on issues related specifically to
highly automated transportation systems.
Through stakeholder input to this ANPRM, along with incorporation
of its own insights, research, and findings, PHMSA aims to identify
necessary HMR regulatory revisions, guidance, legal clarification, and
educational resources needed to inform future work. PHMSA is focused on
current technologies and practices, and on exploring what might be
possible in the future as automation continues to evolve.
Lastly, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq)
requires all federal agencies to assess the impact of their regulations
on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small not-for-profit
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions) and consider less
burdensome alternatives. As such, PHMSA requests specific comment on
any aspects of the ANPRM (for any of the transportation modes) that
raise special concerns or considerations for small businesses and other
small entities--such as those aspects that would impose high costs or
would disproportionately burden small entities. Further, PHMSA requests
comment on alternative approaches it should consider that would achieve
the agency's objectives while minimizing costs or impacts to small
entities.
IV. Potential Regulatory Updates to the HMR for Highly Automated
Transportation Systems
A. Special Permits
While PHMSA is considering regulatory revisions in this rulemaking,
any person may currently request relief from the HMR via the Special
Permit process--see 49 CFR part 107, subpart B. PHMSA notes that as of
November 2025, PHMSA has received two applications for a special permit
seeking relief from the HMR for highly automated transportation
systems. Specifically, these special permits seek regulatory relief
from the HMR for the transportation of consumer type products when
delivered by UAS. PHMSA seeks stakeholder input on whether any changes
to the special permit process are necessary for highly automated
transport systems.
B. Shipping Papers and Emergency Response Information
The HMR requires most shipments of hazardous materials to have a
shipping paper and emergency response information meeting the
requirements in 49 CFR part 172, subparts C and G. Shipping papers and
emergency response information are basic communication tools for the
transportation of hazardous materials.\13\ A shipping paper and
emergency response information, which may appear on a shipping paper,
must accompany most hazardous materials shipments and be available
during transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The HMR defines shipping paper in Sec. 171.8 as ``a
shipping order, bill of lading, manifest or other shipping document
serving a similar purpose and prepared in accordance with Subpart C
of part 172 of this chapter.'' Furthermore, the HMR defines
emergency response information in Sec. 172.602(a) as information
that can be used in the mitigation of an incident involving
hazardous materials and, at a minimum, must contain the information
listed in paragraph (a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific to the shipping papers, these documents are important
because they serve as the principal source of information regarding the
presence, identification, and quantity of hazardous materials being
shipped. Shipping papers also serve as the source
[[Page 55839]]
of information necessary to comply with other HMR requirements (e.g.,
correctly placing labels, markings, or placards on a shipment),
ensuring the separation of incompatible hazardous materials and
limiting the number of radioactive materials that may be transported in
a vehicle or aircraft.
Shipping papers and emergency response information also serve to
notify transport workers that hazardous materials are present. Shipping
papers are the principal means of identifying hazardous materials
during transportation emergencies. Firefighters, police, and other
emergency response personnel are trained to obtain and review shipping
papers and emergency response information when responding to hazardous
materials transportation emergencies. The availability of accurate
information concerning hazardous materials being transported
significantly improves response efforts in these types of emergencies.
Shipments of hazardous materials via highly automated
transportation systems may present unique challenges to complying with
shipping paper and emergency response information requirements.\14\ For
example, in comments \15\ to the 2019 RFI, AAR suggested that existing
rules that mandate a physical shipping paper by rail (see Sec. 174.24)
could be more efficiently shared electronically through applications
like AskRail.\16\ In addition, AAR noted that in the event of an
accidental release of hazardous materials, Sec. 171.15 of the HMR
requires a telephone call to the National Response Center. AAR
suggested that PHMSA update the HMR to enable an automated system where
highly automated transportation systems can instantly notify responders
and stakeholders of an incident while providing detailed information
about the location, cargo, and other critical details. PHMSA will
consider this comment in development of the NPRM but seeks additional
comments on the potential use of automated incident response
notification systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ PHMSA notes that it recently published an NPRM that
proposes updates to the emergency response information requirements
in the HMR. 90 FR 28563 (Jul.1, 2025).
\15\ https://www.regulations.gov/comment/PHMSA-2018-0001-0016.
\16\ https://askrail.us/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments of hazardous materials using highly automated
transportation systems may not have humans in the transport vehicle;
therefore, a person may not be present to provide the shipping paper
and emergency response information to enforcement or emergency response
personnel. This presents unique challenges in ensuring that critical
safety and compliance information is readily accessible in the event of
an incident or inspection. In addition, the use of a highly automated
transportation system may introduce different types of informational
needs for emergency response personnel. For example, the number and
type of package details on a shipping paper may not be necessary when a
UAS is only transporting a single package because emergency response
personnel will see that there is only one package on the UAS. Emerging
technologies may also lead to the automated development, verification,
and certification of shipping papers.
PHMSA seeks input from stakeholders on any potential changes to the
HMR that may be needed to facilitate the transportation of hazardous
materials in highly automated transportation systems as it pertains to
shipping paper and emergency response information.
C. Hazard Communication
Hazard communication in the form of marking, labels, and placards
is a critical component of safety protocols for employees handling
hazardous materials and for emergency responders responding to
hazardous materials incidents. These requirements are found in 49 CFR
part 172, subparts D (Marking), E (Labeling), and F (Placarding).
Properly applied markings and labels ensure that everyone involved in
the transportation process can quickly identify the contents of
hazardous materials packages and understand any associated risks.
Placards provide critical visibility of hazards present on transport
vehicles from a distance during transit, allowing emergency responders
to quickly assess hazards in the event of an incident. Together, these
forms of hazard communication create a standardized system that
enhances safety and minimizes confusion in hazardous materials
transportation.
Highly automated transportation systems may face a variety of
challenges in complying with the hazard communication requirements in
the HMR. For UAS package delivery operations in which packages are
transported outside the airframe and exposed to the environment at
higher altitudes, traditional hazard communication may be subject to
differing conditions than traditional transportation. In addition, so-
called ``last mile'' delivery shipments using personal delivery devices
or UAS to deliver consumer products may need additional clarification
as to when certain marking, labeling, and placarding requirements in
the HMR apply.
In its comments \17\ to the 2019 RFI, IAFF stated that table 1 and
table 2 materials (see Sec. 172.504) should never be authorized for
highly automated transportation systems when placards are required.
IAFF stressed the need for accurate cargo manifests and proper
placarding, and it encouraged creating preapproved travel routes to
minimize risks to the public and road users when transporting hazardous
materials with highly automated transportation systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ https://www.regulations.gov/comment/PHMSA-2018-0001-0017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHMSA notes that, traditionally, transportation restrictions on
hazardous materials are often modal and packaging specific and not
dictated by the specific type of transport vehicle (e.g., fixed wing
aircraft versus rotorcraft). Furthermore, the routing of hazardous
materials transportation is generally outside of the scope of the HMR.
For example, UAS transportation and areas where they are authorized to
fly is the responsibility of the FAA, and routing restrictions
applicable to highway transportation of hazardous materials are
governed by the FMCSA and State DOTs (though authorized pursuant to the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975 (HMTA)).
PHMSA seeks information from stakeholders on how the transportation
of hazardous materials using highly automated transportation systems
may affect the ability of entities to comply with the intent of
marking, labeling, and placarding requirements in the HMR. PHMSA also
seeks input on alternatives to the current marking, labeling, and
placarding requirements that might be better suited for highly
automated transportation systems.
D. Training
Part 172, Subpart H of the HMR requires all persons who meet the
definition of a hazardous materials employee under Sec. 171.8 to be
trained in the applicable requirements of the HMR. This training must
include general awareness/familiarization, function-specific
instruction, safety training, security awareness training, and, when
applicable, in-depth security training.
As automation technology advances, the roles and responsibilities
of hazardous materials employees may evolve, potentially altering the
scope and nature of required hazardous materials training. For
instance, highly automated transportation systems might reduce direct
human interaction with
[[Page 55840]]
hazardous materials, necessitating new or alternative types of
hazardous materials training focused on monitoring and managing
automated processes. In addition, should highly automated
transportation systems replace trained hazmat employees, an equivalent
replacement for hazardous materials training (e.g., safety assurance
and certification systems) may be needed to ensure the reliability of
the highly automated transportation systems. Consequently, PHMSA may
need to reassess and update training requirements to ensure they remain
relevant and effective in the context of highly automated
transportation systems. This may also include revisions or updates to
content in current security awareness training programs to ensure it
covers security considerations related to highly automated
transportation systems.
PHMSA seeks input from stakeholders on how the transportation of
hazardous materials in highly automated transportation systems might
affect the training requirements in the HMR, including hazardous
materials training requirements in the HMR. PHMSA also seeks input on
alternatives to the current hazardous materials training requirements
that might be better suited to the transportation of hazardous
materials in highly automated transportation system.
E. Security Plans and In-Depth Security Training
Part 172, subpart I of the HMR prescribes requirements for the
development and implementation of security plans to address security
risks related to the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce.
When a person is subject to these requirements, they also are subject
to the in-depth security training requirements prescribed in Sec.
172.704(a)(5). These requirements were originally established in the
HM-232 final rule \18\ stemming from the September 11, 2001, attacks
and continuing terrorist threats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 68 FR 14510 (Mar. 25, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability of security plan requirements--outlined in Sec.
172.800(b)--cover those materials that ``present significant security
threats.'' Many highly automated transportation systems may not be
subject to security plan requirements based on the type and quantity of
hazardous materials they carry. However, highly automated
transportation systems carrying certain types or quantities of
hazardous materials may ``present significant security threats'' due to
the unique nature of these emerging technologies, including
cybersecurity considerations. PHMSA notes that certain modes have--or
are proposing--requirements outside of the HMR covering security. For
example, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is proposing
certain security requirements in the aforementioned BVLOS part 108
rulemaking.
PHMSA seeks input on any potential changes to the applicability of
security plan requirements--and thus, in-depth security training--to
address any significant security threats in highly automated
transportation systems.
F. Packaging
The HMR prescribes packaging requirements for non-bulk and bulk
shipments of hazardous materials. The general requirements for
packaging can be found in 49 CFR part 173, and the requirements for
specification and performance-oriented packaging can be found in 49 CFR
part 178. Highly automated transportation systems may require new
packaging designs, performance standards, or rules to work with
different automated platforms, which could lead to updates in HMR
packaging standards to support these technologies. As technology around
highly automated transportation systems evolves, the HMR may also need
to be updated to address new risks and ensure that packaging
requirements keep pace with these advancements.
PHMSA seeks input on any potential changes that might need to be
made to address packaging requirements for highly automated
transportation systems.
G. Loading and Unloading
Various sections of the HMR contain requirements addressing the
loading and unloading of hazardous materials. The use of highly
automated transportation systems may create uncertainty or ambiguity
about how the loading and unloading of hazardous materials should
occur. For example, Sec. 175.90(a) requires that packages delivered by
air be inspected after delivery for evidence of leakage. Such
inspections by hazmat employees may be impractical for hazardous
materials delivered by an unmanned highly automated transportation
system to a private individual's home address.
PHMSA seeks input from stakeholders on how loading and unloading
procedures may need to be revised in the HMR to account for hazardous
materials being transported by highly automated transportation systems.
V. Highly Automated Transportation Systems by Mode
A. Rail Transportation
The HMR prescribes regulations for the safe transportation of
hazardous materials by rail in Part 174 of the HMR. PHMSA is not aware
of any highly automated rail systems that are currently transporting
hazardous materials in the United States. In early 2024, FRA received a
``Petition for Waivers of Compliance'' \19\ seeking temporary
suspension of certain FRA safety regulations to use a highly automated
rail system, which was later approved.\20\ PHMSA recognizes that highly
automated transportation systems, like the one outlined in this
``Petition for Waivers of Compliance,'' have the potential to be used
in the transportation of hazardous materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 89 FR 2707 (Jan. 16, 2024).
\20\ 90 FR 9053 (Feb. 2, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The HMR has several requirements in part 174 that could pose a
challenge to the transportation of hazardous materials using highly
automated rail transportation systems. For example, Sec. 174.26
requires that ``[p]rior to movement of a train, a railroad must provide
the train crew with train consist information as defined in Sec. 171.8
of this subchapter in hard-copy (printed paper) form.'' There may be
other examples within part 174 where PHMSA may need to revise or
clarify the HMR to accommodate the potential movement of train cars
that do not have train crews.
PHMSA, in collaboration with FRA, is reviewing the use of highly
automated rail systems for transporting hazardous materials. As part of
this ANPRM, we seek stakeholder input on how these operations could
impact the HMR and the rail-specific regulations in 49 CFR part 174.
B. Air Transportation
The HMR prescribes regulations for the safe transportation of
hazardous materials by air in 49 CFR part 175. The transportation of
hazardous materials by air has traditionally been more limited and
restrictive than transportation by other modes to account for the
unique risks in air transportation. For example, the authorized
quantity of hazardous materials in Column 9 of Sec. 172.101 of the HMT
is smaller for passenger and cargo aircraft than other modes. In some
cases, products such as dry ice are limited on passenger and cargo
aircraft due to the risk of asphyxiation to crew members, a concern
that does not apply to UAS since they do not carry crew. In addition,
there are more stringent
[[Page 55841]]
packaging standards (e.g., inner packagings that must meet pressure
differential requirements) and fewer exceptions for hazardous materials
transported by air.
Traditionally, hazardous materials transportation operations have
been conducted on a crewed passenger or cargo aircraft. On traditional
manned aircraft, hazardous material packages are accepted by operator
personnel and manually loaded onto an aircraft at the departure
airport. The packages are then flown to the destination airport and
manually unloaded.\21\ In this system, operator personnel physically
inspect all hazardous materials packages before they are loaded onto a
traditional aircraft (see Sec. Sec. 175.30 and 175.88) and the
packages are protected from external weather conditions. Lastly, the
packages are inspected for damage or leakage before being unloaded from
the aircraft (see Sec. 175.90).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ PHMSA acknowledges that 14 CFR part 133 external load
operations (e.g., rotorcraft) allows packages to be transported
externally to the airframe and the location of departure and arrival
can be at locations other than an airport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UAS operations introduce alternative scenarios from this
traditional process of transporting hazardous materials. UAS operations
do not necessarily begin or end at an airport. Some UAS operations are
designed for departure at a business parking lot (i.e., package
delivery from a convenience store) and delivery to a private
individual's home. In addition, UAS may carry hazardous materials
packages externally, exposing them to weather conditions, whereas
traditional type-certificated aircraft protect the package from such
exposure by containing them within the airframe.\22\ As previously
mentioned, traditional aircraft packages are unloaded by operational
personnel, while some UAS are designed to deliver packages by dropping
or releasing the package from above ground level. Since UAS are
unmanned, there are no crewmembers on the aircraft to access or
mitigate a potential incident, but it also means there are no
crewmembers potentially exposed to any hazardous materials should there
be an inflight incident. Many or all of these transportation functions
(e.g., loading, flight to destination, delivery) may be performed
autonomously, with a remote pilot-in-command simultaneously monitoring
multiple aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Currently the only authorization for hazardous materials to
be transported outside of the airframe are rotorcraft operations
(see Sec. 175.9(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, operators seeking approval to deliver packages via UAS
BVLOS are required to obtain a 14 CFR part 135 certification from FAA.
Under this certification, FAA has authorized several operators to
conduct package delivery by UAS. In addition, operators that intend to
accept, handle, and transport hazardous materials via UAS must obtain
an Operations Specification (OpSpec) A055 from the FAA and are subject
fully to the HMR. The OpSpec A055 indicates authorization for an air
carrier (including a UAS operator) to accept, handle, and transport
hazardous materials as cargo (i.e., Will Carry). The OpSpec A055 for
part 135 UAS certificate holders specifies the hazardous materials that
the operator may transport.
To obtain an OpSpec A055, the operator must have an FAA-accepted
hazardous materials manual that documents specific processes and
procedures to ensure that hazardous materials are safely and properly
handled, stored, packaged, loaded, and carried on board an aircraft in
accordance with the HMR. In addition, the operator must have an FAA-
approved hazardous materials training program.\23\ Upon certification,
part 135 applicants must develop and implement a Safety Management
System (SMS) to manage safety risks and ensure the effectiveness of
safety risk controls in accordance with 14 CFR part 5. In a recent
final rule, titled ``Safety Management Systems,'' \24\ the FAA updated
the SMS requirements, which included expanding these requirements to
certificate holders authorized to conduct operations in accordance with
14 CFR part 135. Before this final rule, a formal SMS was voluntary for
part 135 operators, but FAA ensured during the certification process
that part 135 UAS applicants had assessed the risks from the
transportation of hazardous materials, including the risks to people
and property on the ground resulting from the carriage of hazardous
materials. As noted earlier, FAA and TSA published an NPRM proposing to
establish 14 CFR part 108 and accompanying security requirements. This
enabling regulation would establish a new certificated classification
for package delivery operators of hazardous materials, similar to part
135 UAS will-carry operations. As proposed, part 108 would require that
certificated package delivery operators authorized to accept, handle,
and transport hazardous materials packages have an accepted hazardous
materials manual, approved hazardous materials training program, and
safety risk assessment (SRA) acceptable to the FAA Administrator. In
addition to UAS package delivery operations, Advanced Air Mobility
(AAM) provides another class of aircraft that will potentially be a
highly automated transportation system that may transport hazardous
materials in commerce. AAM is a transportation system that is comprised
of urban air mobility and regional air mobility using manned or
unmanned aircraft.\25\ This umbrella term covers aircraft that are
typically highly automated and electrically powered, with some aircraft
such as powered lift aircraft having vertical takeoff and landing
capability. Many of these aircraft fall into the powered-lift category
and are often referred to as air taxis.\26\ Unlike some UAS operations,
AAM package delivery operations are anticipated to transport packages
inside of the airframe. Additionally, AAM package delivery could
include the transportation of hazardous materials on the same aircraft
as passengers or in passenger baggage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Operators who are not authorized to accept, handle, and
transport hazardous materials (i.e., Will Not Carry) are not issued
an OpSpec A055. However, they are still required to have an accepted
or approved hazardous materials manual and training program to
ensure that the have processes, procedures, and trained personnel to
reject hazardous materials (including undeclared packages) from
being accepted, handled, and transported. FAA notes that will not
carry operators are not subject to the HMR unless offering hazardous
materials as a shipper.
\24\ 89 FR 33068 (Apr. 26, 2024).
\25\ As defined in Section 951, Paragraph (1) of the FAA Act.
\26\ https://www.faa.gov/air-taxis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, PHMSA anticipates the industry may develop additional
variations of highly automated transportation systems designed to carry
payloads inside the airframe over long-ranges for use in off-airport
operations. In addition, there are other aspects of pre-transportation
and transportation functions specific to air transportation in part 175
that could become automated, such as packaging inspection and aircraft
loading functions (including traditional manned aircraft).
Ultimately, the air-specific requirements in part 175 of the HMR
may pose a challenge for compliance when using highly automated air
transportation systems as highlighted above. PHMSA--in collaboration
with FAA--is seeking stakeholder input on how UAS, AAM, and other
highly automated transportation systems can meet the intent of the HMR
and the air-specific regulations.
C. Vessel Transportation
The HMR prescribes regulations for the safe transportation of
hazardous materials by vessel in part 176 of the HMR. While PHMSA is
not aware of any
[[Page 55842]]
highly automated vessel transportation systems that currently are
transporting hazardous materials in waters subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has
begun to scope policies on the use of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships
(MASS).\27\ The IMO published a Marine Safety Circular (MSC), titled
``Outcome of the Regulatory Scoping Exercise for the Use of Maritime
Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS).'' \28\ This MSC discusses outcomes of
a regulatory scoping exercise for the use of MASS, conducted by the
IMO's Maritime Safety Committee. In addition, the IMO established a
dedicated MASS Working Group to further develop the MASS Code and
address issues under the Legal and Facilitation Committee's purview.
These matters will be reviewed by the Joint MSC/LEG/FAL Working Group
on MASS. The objective is to adopt a non-mandatory goal-based MASS Code
by 2025, which will serve as the foundation for a mandatory goal-based
MASS Code, anticipated to enter into force on January 1, 2028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Pages/Autonomous-shipping.aspx.
\28\ MSC.1/Circ.1638 (Jun. 3, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHMSA, in collaboration with USCG, is exploring the potential use
of highly automated vessel transportation systems for hazardous
materials. To better understand the impact on the HMR, we are seeking
stakeholder input on how these operations might affect hazardous
materials transportation and the vessel-specific regulations in 49 CFR
part 176.
D. Highway Transportation
The HMR prescribes regulations for the safe transportation of
hazardous materials by highway in part 177 of the HMR. These
regulations address critical safety aspects, such as packaging and
vehicle requirements, to ensure that hazardous materials are
transported safely by highway. Historically, these regulations have
been tailored to human-driven vehicles, where the qualifications,
actions, and decisions of the driver play a central role in ensuring
safe operations.
As the transportation industry advances, emerging technologies--
such as Automated Driving Systems (ADS)--are poised to transform the
landscape of highway transportation. ADS operation raises unique
considerations for the safe and efficient transportation of hazardous
materials. ADS can offer enhanced safety features, such as the
potential for more precise vehicle control, fewer human errors, and
optimized route planning, but can also introduce new challenges in
terms of regulatory oversight, emergency response, and system
interoperability. ADS may operate in ways that differ significantly
from traditional, human-driven vehicles, potentially altering the
dynamics of risk assessment, hazard mitigation, and emergency
management.
Given these advancements, FMCSA and PHMSA recognize the need to
evaluate and, where necessary, update the HMR to account for the
integration of ADS in the transportation of hazardous materials by
highway, including FMCSA's consideration of whether the transportation
of hazardous materials by fully automated commercial motor vehicles
should be restricted or prohibited under the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs).\29\ This ANPRM seeks to gather input from
stakeholders, including industry experts, technology developers, safety
organizations, and emergency responders, to ensure that regulatory
updates are grounded in current and future technological realities
while continuing to prioritize safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ In its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ``Safe
Integration of Automated Driving Systems-Equipped Commercial Motor
Vehicles,'' FMCSA requested comment on whether the transportation of
hazardous materials by fully automated CMVs should be restricted or
prohibited. 84 FR 24449, 24452 (May 28, 2019). Most commenters
responding to this question supported restricting the transportation
of hazardous materials in fully automated CMVs. The comments are
available in Docket FMCSA-2018-0037.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHMSA, in collaboration with FMCSA, is exploring the potential use
of highly automated commercial motor vehicles for moving hazardous
materials. To better understand the implications for the HMR, we are
seeking stakeholder input on how these technologies might affect
hazardous materials transportation and the highway-specific regulations
in 49 CFR part 177.
VI. Questions
To better understand the potential impacts of future regulatory
revisions on the transportation of hazardous materials in highly
automated transportation systems, PHMSA is asking a series of questions
to identify potential updates to the HMR. Whenever possible, please
provide supporting data or specific examples.
For Section B, ``Economic Questions,'' PHMSA is seeking per-unit,
aggregate, and programmatic (both one-time implementing and recurring)
data. Explanation of the bases or methodologies employed in generating
cost and benefit data, including data sources and calculations, is
valuable so that PHMSA can explain the support for any estimates it is
able to provide that accompany a proposed rule, and other commenters
may weigh in on the validity and accuracy of the data. Please also
identify the baseline (e.g., a particular edition of a consensus
industry standard; widespread voluntary operator practice; or
documentation of sample surveys and other operator-level data or
information) from which those incremental costs and benefits arise.
When estimates are approximate or uncertain, consider using a range or
specifying the distribution in other ways.
When responding to a specific question below please note the topic
letter and question number in your comment.
A. General Questions
1. How should PHMSA address the transportation of hazardous
materials using highly automated transportation systems (e.g.,
revisions to the HMR, corresponding guidance, other resources)?
2. Should PHMSA consider specific automation use cases when
revising the HMR? Or should requirements be scoped to various system
automation use cases and performance capabilities remain with the
appropriate modal administration?
3. What specific safety concerns do you foresee with the use of
highly automated transportation systems for hazardous materials? What
specific safety benefits do you foresee with the use of highly
automated transportation systems for hazardous materials?
4. How should PHMSA and modal administrations evaluate and mitigate
risks associated with these systems?
5. Are there existing regulations that you believe adequately
address the use of highly automated transportation systems for
hazardous materials? If not, what new regulations or amendments would
you recommend?
6. How can PHMSA support innovation while ensuring safety and
compliance?
7. Are current packaging requirements in 49 CFR parts 173 and 178
adequate for highly automated transportation systems? If not, in what
ways are they not adequate, and what new regulations or amendments
would you recommend?
8. Are current packaging exceptions in 49 CFR part 173 adequate for
highly automated transportation systems? If not, in what ways are they
not adequate, and what new exceptions or amendments would you
recommend?
9. Are there hazard classes, packing groups, amounts, or specific
commodities that should not be
[[Page 55843]]
authorized for transportation in highly automated transportation
systems?
10. How should PHMSA and the modal administrations evaluate the
hazards and risks of certain hazard classes or divisions with the
varying use cases and performance capabilities of highly automated
transportation systems?
11. Are there other types of highly automated transportation
systems not mentioned in this ANPRM that PHMSA should consider
(particularly technologies that are under development or being tested)?
12. What performance-based regulations need to be modified or
clarified for highly automated transportation systems? Are there any
prescriptive requirements in the HMR that should become more
performance-based? Are there any requirements in the HMR that are not
appropriate for highly automated transportation systems?
13. The HMR references ``conditions normally incident to
transportation.'' How should this term evolve to account for highly
automated transportation systems that introduce different conditions on
packages from the more traditional transportation systems?
14. What responsibilities should operators have to communicate the
expected conditions of transport via a highly automated transportation
system to shippers and freight forwarders?
15. What additional requirements might be necessary to protect
hazardous materials packages from being exposed to the effects of
highly automated transportation systems failure (e.g., transport
vehicle battery fire, crash)?
16. Are there any current industry standards specific to highly
automated transportation systems that would help PHMSA and modal
administrations evaluate potential requirements or exceptions of the
HMR?
17. Are there international or country-specific regulatory
frameworks that stakeholders recommend PHMSA consider harmonizing with?
If so, why?
18. How can the HMR support efficient and effective hazardous
materials communication (e.g., marks, labels, shipping papers) for
highly automated transport systems?
19. How do unmanned highly automated transportation systems (e.g.,
absence of passengers, crewmembers, drivers) affect the current level
of safety of the HMR?
B. Economic Questions
1. What are the broadly anticipated economic benefits of using
highly automated transportation systems for hazardous materials?
2. What are the specific economic impacts of revising the HMR to
further enable commercial UAS hazardous materials package delivery?
3. What are the specific economic implications of hazardous
materials delivered by ADS systems or personal delivery devices?
4. How should PHMSA evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these
systems compared to traditional methods?
5. How can PHMSA balance the need for safety regulations with the
economic burden on businesses?
6. What additional costs would companies face if new inspection and
safety protocols (e.g., remote package inspection or monitoring
systems) were required for highly automated transportation systems
transporting hazardous materials?
7. What types of hazardous materials does the industry expect to
transport via highly automated transportation systems in the near
future, and by which mode? What commodities are expected to be
transported by highly automated transportation systems in high volumes
once the technology is more widely deployed?
C. Specific HMR Questions
1. What incident reporting requirements should be added or modified
in Sec. Sec. 171.15 and 171.16 to account for highly automated
transportation systems (e.g., new triggers for reporting, new data
points)?
2. How should PHMSA ensure that highly automated transportation
systems comply with the intent of shipping paper requirements in part
172, subpart C (e.g., hazard communication documentation that provides
appropriate information to appropriate personnel, including emergency
responders)?
3. How should PHMSA ensure that highly automated transportation
systems comply with the intent of emergency response information
requirements in part 172, subpart G?
4. How can highly automated transportation systems effectively
implement the intent of hazard communication requirements, including
labeling, marking, and placarding, as specified in part 172, subpart D,
E, and F, respectively?
5. What specific part 172, subpart H training requirements should
PHMSA establish or clarify to account for highly automated
transportation systems?
6. Should PHMSA update its current hazardous materials employee
training requirements to address the transportation of hazardous
materials using highly automated transportation systems? If so, what
types of safety assurance and certification systems should PHMSA and
modal administrations consider (i.e., routine safety assurance and
continued monitoring equivalent to initial and recurrent hazardous
materials training)?
7. Should PHMSA revise the applicability of security plan
requirements to address any significant security threats in highly
automated transportation systems? If so, how should PHMSA revise the
security plan applicability?
8. How should PHMSA consider any cybersecurity concerns created by
the use of highly automated transportation systems? Who should PHMSA
consult regarding these concerns?
9. The HMR have multiple sections related to definitions, including
Sec. Sec. 105.5, 107.1, 109.1, and 171.8. Does PHMSA need to add new
definitions in these sections that are explicitly related to highly
automated transportation systems? If so, what definitions are needed?
Are there definitions in other Federal laws, Federal regulations, or
international regulations the HMR should be consistent with or
incorporate?
10. Should additional information be required of a Special Permit
applicant for highly automated transportation systems? Or should
additional information continue to be requested by PHMSA and modal
administrations on an ad hoc basis?
D. Rail-Specific Questions
1. How should PHMSA ensure highly automated transportation systems
comply with the general requirements for the transportation of
hazardous materials by rail as outlined in Sec. 174.1?
2. How can highly automated transportation systems meet the
inspection and acceptance requirements specified in Sec. 174.9?
3. How should PHMSA ensure highly automated transportation systems
address the requirements for the removal and disposition of hazardous
materials at destination as outlined in Sec. 174.16?
4. What specific segregation procedures should be adopted by highly
automated rail transportation systems to comply with Sec. 174.81?
E. Air-Specific Questions
1. How can highly automated transportation systems comply with the
general requirements for the transportation of hazardous materials by
air as outlined in part 175 (e.g., applicability, acceptance,
rejection, loading, handling, unloading, storage incidental to
movement, packaging, notifications)?
[[Page 55844]]
2. How should PHMSA and FAA address HMR requirements (e.g.,
accessibility, prohibitions, quantity limits) when no crewmembers are
present on cargo aircraft (e.g., UAS, AAM)?
3. How should PHMSA and FAA address HMR requirements (e.g., Sec.
175.10 allowances, passenger notification, quantity limits) when no
crewmembers are present on passenger aircraft, but passengers are
present (e.g., AAM transportation of passengers and passenger aircraft
authorized cargo)?
4. Should there be new exceptions or revisions to current
exceptions from the HMR in part 175 (e.g., Sec. Sec. 175.8, 175.9) to
account for highly automated transportation systems? Should the
exceptions be contingent on approval by the FAA and operator safety
risk assessments?
5. How can highly automated transportation systems meet the
acceptance and inspection requirements specified in Sec. 175.30?
6. Should PHMSA apply the same criteria for Column 9 quantity
limits of the Sec. 172.101 HMT to highly automated aircraft
transportation systems? Should quantity limits be increased or
decreased? If so, how should PHMSA tackle establishing new quantity
limits?
7. Are there any hazardous materials currently subject to the HMR
when transported by aircraft (but not regulated when transported by
other modes) that should not be subject when transported by unmanned
highly automated air transportation systems?
8. How can highly automated transportation systems comply with the
notification and reporting requirements for hazardous materials
incidents as specified in Sec. 175.31?
9. How can highly automated transportation systems comply with
current inspection requirements (e.g., Sec. Sec. 175.88, 175.90, for
packages of hazardous materials)?
F. Vessel-Specific Questions
1. How should PHMSA ensure highly automated transportation systems
comply with the general requirements for the transportation of
hazardous materials by vessel as outlined in Sec. 176.1?
2. How can highly automated transportation systems meet the
documentation requirements specified in Sec. 176.24, including the
need for shipping papers, certificates, and dangerous cargo manifests?
3. What specific stowage and segregation procedures should be
adopted by highly automated transportation systems to comply with Sec.
176.83?
G. Highway-Specific Questions
1. How should PHMSA ensure highly automated transportation systems
comply with the general requirements for the transportation of
hazardous materials by highway as outlined in Sec. 177.800?
2. When hazardous materials are transported using highly automated
transportation systems, should PHMSA revise the requirements in Sec.
177.817(e) that state that ``[a] driver of a motor vehicle containing
hazardous material, and each carrier using such a vehicle, shall ensure
that the shipping paper required by this section is readily available
to, and recognizable by, authorities in the event of accident or
inspection?'' If so, how?
3. How would the implementation of highly automated transportation
systems affect compliance with 49 CFR part 177, which includes specific
operational requirements for hazardous materials transported by highway
(e.g., loading/unloading, attendance, and incident reporting)?
4. Are there specific provisions in 49 CFR part 177 that would be
particularly burdensome for small businesses using highly automated
transportation systems for the transportation of hazardous materials?
5. What specific highway segregation requirements should be adopted
by highly automated transportation systems to comply with Sec.
177.848?
VII. Future Actions
Following the publication of this ANPRM, PHMSA will carefully
review and consider all public comments submitted to the docket. In
addition to public input, PHMSA will incorporate its own insights,
research, and findings to inform the development of a potential NPRM.
Furthermore, PHMSA may explore the possibility of hosting a public
meeting to gather additional data and stakeholder input, ensuring a
comprehensive and well-informed regulatory proposal.
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 2, 2025, under the
authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
William A. Quade,
Acting Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2025-21970 Filed 12-3-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P