[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 21 (Monday, February 2, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4784-4787]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-01989]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA-2025-0678 (Notice No. 2025-06)]
Hazardous Materials: Request for Feedback on Hazmat
Transportation Risks: Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicles Versus Internal
Combustion Engine Motor Carriers
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice; request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) seeks public input on the safety risks, operational challenges,
and regulatory considerations associated with transporting hazardous
materials (hazmat) using heavy-duty electric vehicles (EVs) compared to
internal combustion engine (ICE) motor carriers (i.e., gas or diesel).
PHMSA aims to understand what impact the transition from ICE to EV
motor carriers may have
[[Page 4785]]
on hazmat packaging integrity, transportation safety, emergency
response protocols, regulatory compliance, and overall vehicle risk.
PHMSA may use the information gathered to develop a statement of work
for further research into the safety of transporting hazardous
materials in EVs.
DATES: Interested parties are invited to submit comments on or before
May 4, 2026. Comments received after this date will be considered to
the extent possible.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments identified by Docket Number PHMSA-2025-0678
by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management System, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Routing
Symbol M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: Docket Management System, Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
Docket Number [PHMSA-2025-0678] for this notice. To avoid duplication,
please use only one of these four methods. All comments received will
be posted without change to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)
and will include any personal information you provide.
Docket: For access to the dockets to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket
Operations Office (see ADDRESSES).
Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public. DOT posts these comments, without edit,
including any personal information the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business
Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is
treated both customarily and actually as private by its owner. Under
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from
public disclosure. It is important that you clearly designate the
comments submitted as CBI if your comments responsive to this document
contain commercial or financial information that customarily is treated
as private; you actually treat as private; and is relevant or
responsive to this notice. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) Sec. 105.30, you may ask PHMSA to provide confidential treatment
to information you give the Agency by taking the following steps: (1)
mark each page of the original document submission containing CBI as
``Confidential''; (2) send PHMSA, along with the original document, a
second copy of the original document with the CBI deleted; and (3)
explain why the information you are submitting is CBI. Submissions
containing CBI should be sent by mail to Andrew Leyder, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 2nd Floor, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, or by email to
[email protected]. Any information PHMSA receives that is not
designated specifically as CBI will be placed in the public docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Hazardous Materials Safety,
Research, Development & Technology, by email at [email protected],
or by mail at Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Purpose
PHMSA requests feedback on the potential safety risks, operational
challenges, and regulatory implications of using heavy-duty electric
vehicles (EVs) compared to internal combustion engine (ICE) motor
carriers (i.e., gas or diesel) for the transportation of hazardous
materials (hazmat). PHMSA is interested particularly in understanding
how this change may impact hazmat packaging integrity, transportation
safety, emergency response procedures, regulatory compliance, and
overall vehicle-related risk.
This is a Request for Information (RFI) only. This RFI is issued
solely for information and planning purposes. It does not constitute a
Request for Proposal (RFP) nor a promise to issue an RFP or other
solicitation in the future. This RFI does not commit the Federal
Government to contract for any supply or service. Further, the Federal
Government is not seeking proposals and will not accept unsolicited
proposals. Respondents are advised that the U.S. Government will not
pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in response to
this RFI. All costs associated with responding to this RFI will be
solely at the interested party's expense. Not responding to this RFI
does not preclude participation in any future RFP, if any is issued.
II. Background
Hazmat transportation historically has depended on gasoline and
diesel-powered motor carriers, which operate under established safety
regulations, containment protocols, and response procedures. As the use
of heavy-duty EV technology becomes more prevalent in the market, new
factors--such as battery chemistry, powertrain design differences,
charging infrastructure, and vehicle weight distribution--may introduce
distinct safety risks compared to ICE motor carriers. Potential factors
include:
Battery hazards: Lithium-ion batteries pose unique risks,
including thermal runaway, fire propagation, and flammable/toxic gas
emissions that differ from the hazards associated with conventional
fuel sources.
Charging station vulnerabilities: Transporting hazmat via
EVs requires charging infrastructure, which may influence cargo
exposure risks, spill ignition potential, and emergency shutdown
procedures.
Weight distribution and cargo stability: EV batteries add
additional weight that may impact hazmat containment strategies
differently than ICE motor carriers, and potentially may influence
vehicle stability, packaging requirements, and load distribution.
Emergency response adaptations: Fires, leaks, or
mechanical failures in heavy-duty EVs require specialized response
measures, which differ from those needed for ICE-powered motor
carriers.
PHMSA is seeking input from industry experts, fleet operators,
manufacturers, emergency responders, regulatory agencies, and other
stakeholders to help identify safety gaps, emerging safety innovations
in transportation technology (or next-generation safety solutions), and
potential regulatory adaptations related to hazmat transportation
across various motor carrier technologies.
III. Request for Feedback
Responses should compare the risks between heavy-duty EVs and ICE
motor carriers, with a focus on hazmat packaging and product safety, as
well as risks to the vehicles. Submissions should also identify
knowledge gaps and recommend areas for future research.
[[Page 4786]]
1. Hazmat Packaging and Containment Risks
What, if any, differences exist in containment failure
risks resulting from heat generated by EV batteries compared to fuel-
based (ICE) systems?
How does the weight distribution and the increase in total
powertrain weight of EV batteries affect cargo safety compared to ICE
motor carriers?
Are there certain types or classes of hazardous materials
(e.g., flammables, corrosives, or explosives) that pose an increased
risk when transported by EVs versus ICE motor carriers?
What additional testing methods or materials research
could enhance hazmat packaging performance for use in both EV and ICE
transportation applications?
Is it possible for an EV battery or battery system to
produce or emit wireless signals (i.e., radiofrequency signals) that
could interfere with cargo or onboard communications (i.e., packaging
tracking and monitoring systems), or cause harm to sensitive materials,
such as electronic detonators?
What concerns or risks do you believe might be associated
with transporting bulk hazardous materials--such as propane--in cargo
tanks on EV chassis compared to traditional ICE trucks, including both
permanently attached and portable (non-attached) tanks? Please include
perspectives on safety, reliability, and any other challenges this
configuration might present.
2. Vehicle-Specific Safety and Performance Risks
How do hazmat cargo risks differ based on the interaction
with heavy-duty EV powertrains versus ICE systems?
What, if any, potential vulnerabilities exist in vehicle
electronics, cooling systems, or containment barriers that are unique
to EV hazmat transportation? Please include vulnerabilities in loading
and unloading operations.
Is there a need for additional studies to support
engineering standards for cyber and functional safety for hazmat EVs?
How do the fire risks (such as heat flux, maximum burn
temperature, or burn time) associated with thermal runaway in EV
batteries differ from an ICE vehicle involved in equivalent incidents?
Additionally, how can further research help to refine prevention and
mitigation strategies for these risks?
What studies or data collection efforts could improve the
understanding of long-term vehicle wear due to hazmat exposure (e.g.,
radioactive material transportation) in EV versus ICE transportation?
Is there a need for additional studies to support engineering standards
for post-crash requirements (e.g., electric shock protection, battery
pack retention, electrolyte leakage, or fire safety) for hazmat EVs?
3. Infrastructure and Charging Considerations
What risks arise from charging heavy-duty EVs carrying
hazardous materials, compared to refueling ICE motor carriers?
Do the physical locations of charging stations (i.e.,
spacing between stations and proximity to buildings) or the location of
a charging port on the vehicle pose a unique risk for hazmat carriers?
How might infrastructure design be improved to enhance safety in these
contexts?
How do emergency shutdown measures at charging stations
compare to existing fuel safety protocols for hazmat carriers?
What types of operational studies or pilot programs could
help assess real-world risks of hazmat charging station interactions
compared to traditional fueling locations?
What risks are there for an EV fire in a tunnel? How would
the issues change or be added for hazmat carriers?
4. Regulatory Compliance and Standards
Do existing hazmat transportation regulations effectively
address the safety and operational considerations of both heavy-duty
EVs and ICE motor carriers, including for purposes of loading and
unloading hazardous materials, or are regulatory updates needed to
account for the unique challenges posed by EV technology?
Is emergency response guidance (Emergency Response
Guidance/Rescue Sheets ISO-17840, ``Road vehicles--Information for
first and second responders,'') submitted as part of 49 CFR 561.6
sufficient, and what additional information, if any, should be required
for hazmat EVs?
Should hazmat packaging, containment protocols, or safety
certifications be revised or updated to meet EV-specific risks?
How do battery disposal, maintenance, and lifespan
considerations for EV fleets impact hazmat compliance particularly when
compared to sustainability and compliance challenges associated with
ICE vehicles?
What research initiatives would be most valuable in
guiding the evolution of hazardous materials regulations for EV hazmat
transportation?
5. Emergency Response and Incident Mitigation
How do fire suppression strategies differ between hazmat
emergencies involving heavy-duty EV battery fires versus ICE fuel
fires?
Should fire response tactics be modified when a heavy-duty
EV is transporting hazardous materials versus a standard consumer EV?
Are emergency responders adequately trained to handle electrical system
risks, battery failures, and toxic emissions associated with EV-based
hazmat transportation? What training currently exists, and what
additional training should be developed, to better prepare responders
for these unique hazards? Should additional vehicle badging be required
to identify EV versus ICE for hazmat?
Do the risks from a hazmat spill change based on whether
the motor carrier is an EV or ICE powered vehicle?
How will EV battery fires affect hazmat packaging of any
type compared to an ICE fire? For instance, would there be a difference
in fire temperature, length of the event, damages caused, etc.? Please
provide examples of the types of packaging that would have differences
in impact.
How can further research improve emergency responder
safety protocols in responding to an incident involving hazardous
materials when EVs are involved?
6. Economic and Operational Feasibility
How do total operating costs for ICE motor carriers versus
heavy-duty EVs affect hazmat transportation decisions?
Are there differences in cargo capacity, range
limitations, or route planning between EV and ICE-based hazmat
transportation?
Are there technological barriers preventing widespread
adoption of heavy-duty EVs for hazmat shipments compared to ICE motor
carriers?
What long-term economic studies could assess whether
transitioning hazmat transportation fleets to heavy-duty EVs is
economically feasible?
What is the economic impact on an area when there is an EV
fire versus an ICE fire?
7. Future Research Considerations
What unknown risks still require research regarding hazmat
transportation via EVs versus ICE motor carriers?
Are there emerging technologies that could improve safety
or reduce risk
[[Page 4787]]
exposure for hazmat transportation across motor carrier types?
What gaps exist in current research, and what interagency
collaborations could strengthen future studies in EV and ICE vehicles
carrying hazmat?
Which of the identified areas have the highest safety
priority based on anticipated impacts?
What types of battery chemistries and sizes are used
currently in standard EVs and heavy duty EVs? Which types are most
common? Are some more dangerous than others?
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 28, 2026, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Yolanda Y. Braxton,
Director, Operations System Division, Office of Hazardous Materials
Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2026-01989 Filed 1-30-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P