Synopsis of ANPRM — PHMSA: Modernizing Hazardous Materials Regulations for Highly Automated Transportation Systems

Federal Register

Deadline: March 4, 2025

Agency:
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). Federal Register Public Inspection

Action:
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) inviting stakeholder input on potential revisions to the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 C.F.R. Parts 171–180) to address the transportation of hazardous materials using highly automated transportation systems. Federal Register Public Inspection

Docket No. / RIN:
Docket PHMSA-2024-0064 (HM-266); RIN 2137-AF68. Federal Register Public Inspection

Purpose:
PHMSA seeks comments to inform a future Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) concerning how the existing HMR should be modernized to safely and effectively accommodate the emerging use of highly automated transportation systems (HATS) in the movement of hazardous materials. This includes evaluating whether current regulatory provisions, developed with traditional human-operated conveyances in mind, pose safety ambiguities or operational impediments in automated contexts. Federal Register Public Inspection

Scope and Background:
The ANPRM arises from the increasing development and deployment of transportation technologies with varying degrees of automation (e.g., automated trucks, drones, robotic delivery systems). PHMSA recognizes that certain HMR requirements—such as loading/unloading protocols, inspection duties, documentation, and employee training—may not clearly translate to operations without human operators or where automation performs key functions. The document situates this rulemaking within past agency engagements (e.g., prior Requests for Information, reports on automated hazardous materials transport, new statutory mandates such as the 2024 FAA Reauthorization Act, and broader executive policy objectives).

Analysis of PHMSA’s ANPRM (HM–266) in the Context of IHMM’s CDGP and CHMM Responsibilities

I. Overview of the Proposed Regulatory Action

PHMSA’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), HM–266, seeks public comment on modernization of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 C.F.R. Parts 171–180) to accommodate highly automated transportation systems (HATS) used in the movement of hazardous materials. The ANPRM identifies potential regulatory gaps where current rules presuppose human operators and manual execution of safety-critical tasks. PHMSA requests feedback on areas including:

  • Hazard communication and shipping papers

  • Loading/unloading and inspection duties

  • Emergency response information and incident reporting

  • Competent authority approvals and special permits

  • Mode-specific automation issues (air, vessel, rail, highway)

  • Training, qualifications, and safety assurance mechanisms

This rulemaking, if advanced to an NPRM, will significantly affect hazardous materials professionals responsible for compliance, risk analysis, emergency preparedness, and safety management—core functional areas of both CDGPs and CHMMs.

II. Regulatory Implications for CDGPs

The CDGP credential is grounded in deep expertise in multimodal international transport regulations, including the UN Model Regulations, ICAO TI, and IMDG Code (CDGP Blueprint, p. 1–2). CDGPs perform or oversee classification, packaging, marking/labeling, placarding, shipping documentation, acceptance checks, emergency response integration, and security planning across all modes.

A. Impact on Domain 1 – International Regulatory Standards

Domain 1 (40% of exam content) requires CDGPs to apply international modal regulations, understand terminology, and integrate training and certification obligations.
HATS-based transport challenges these competencies in several ways:

  1. Shipping Paper Accessibility & Digitalization: Automated vehicles may carry no human operator. CDGPs will need to interpret whether digital shipping papers satisfy ICAO, IMDG, and UN Model Regulation requirements for “availability,” “possession,” and “immediate presentation” to authorities.

  2. Emergency Response Information: International modal rules require emergency instructions to be physically present. Automated systems may rely on remote operators, integrated data systems, or machine-readable formats—raising questions of legal sufficiency.

  3. Definitions & Terminology: Adoption of automation-related terms (e.g., “operator,” “remote pilot-in-command,” “automated vehicle controller”) will affect CDGPs’ obligation to employ precise regulatory definitions (Domain 1.3).

PHMSA’s proposed modernization would require CDGPs to revise compliance strategies to ensure alignment with international frameworks.

B. Impact on Domain 2 – Management of Transportation (22%)

The CDGP Blueprint assigns major responsibility for classification, packaging selection, marking, labeling, placarding, and transportation documentation.

CDGP Blueprint

Automation challenges these areas:

  • Loading/Unloading Standards: Automated cargo handling systems must meet UN/ICAO/IMDG requirements for segregation, stowage, and securement (Tasks 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.1.6). PHMSA’s inquiry into whether automated systems can reliably fulfill or document these functions directly implicates CDGP oversight.

  • Documentation Requirements: The shift to automated or remote-controlled conveyances may require regulatory reinterpretation of “carrier responsibility,” affecting Tasks 2.1.7 and 4.1.2.

  • Inspection and Acceptance: CDGPs must ensure compliance with modal inspection standards (Task 3.1.5). If inspections become automated, CDGPs will need to evaluate the evidentiary sufficiency of automated inspections.

C. Impact on Domains 3–6 – Handling, Documentation, Emergency Management, Security

PHMSA’s ANPRM intersects directly with:

  • Emergency information & incident reporting (Domain 5): automated systems must still provide immediate notification and ensure the accuracy of incident reports. CDGPs would need to validate that automated reporting meets regulatory triggers.

  • Security (Domain 6): automated systems raise new risks related to cybersecurity, system takeover, route manipulation, and remote access. CDGPs’ duties to develop security procedures (Tasks 6.1.2–6.1.4) will require substantial modernization.

III. Regulatory Implications for CHMMs

The CHMM credential encompasses the entire hazardous materials lifecycle—identification, storage, transport, facility operations, emergency response, remediation, and regulatory compliance across RCRA, CERCLA, EPCRA, TSCA, CAA, CWA, HMTA, SARA, OSHA, and DOT HM regulations.

CHMM Blueprint 2021

HATS transportation affects multiple CHMM functions.

A. Impact on Domain 2 – Shipping and Transporting Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials (10.34%)

CHMMs must identify transport requirements, packaging, labeling/placarding, marking, shipping paper content, and acceptance/rejection conditions. The ANPRM raises questions including:

  • How does one satisfy DOT shipping paper access requirements when no onboard human exists?

  • Can automated conveyances meet “carrier” obligations to provide hazardous materials training (49 C.F.R. Part 172, Subpart H) when no driver or operator is present?

  • How will acceptance/rejection determinations (Task 2.7) occur when only automated systems perform inspections?

CHMMs will require updated compliance frameworks to ensure that automated systems meet legal requirements historically tied to a human operator.

B. Impact on Domain 3 – Storage and Domain 4 – Facility Operations

Automated loading/unloading intersects directly with:

  • Storage requirements, labeling, and signage (Domain 3)

  • Engineering controls and hazardous communication (Domain 4)

Automated facilities or robotic loading systems must comply with DOT segregation, securement, hazard communication, and compatibility standards. CHMMs responsible for facility compliance must assess whether automated systems introduce:

  • New failure modes

  • Gaps in OSHA hazard communication plans

  • Unaddressed RCRA generator obligations during automated loading

  • Conflicts between automated system design and physical safety controls

C. Impact on Domain 6 – Recordkeeping and Reporting & Domain 7 – Training

PHMSA’s ANPRM raises core regulatory questions for CHMMs:

  • Recordkeeping: Automated systems may generate digital logs, but legal sufficiency under RCRA, EPCRA, CERCLA, and HMTA must be confirmed (Domain 6.2).

  • Incident Reporting: Automated detection and notification mechanisms must still meet statutory reporting deadlines and quantity triggers (Task 6.1).

  • Training: CHMMs must ensure training adequacy for employees interacting with automated systems, including cybersecurity awareness and new operational hazards (Domain 7).

D. Impact on Domain 8 – Emergency Response

Automated vehicles transporting hazardous materials may complicate:

  • On-scene mitigation decisions

  • Remote emergency response support

  • Determinations of spill quantity and hazards (Tasks 8.1–8.4)

  • Responsibility for immediate reporting to the National Response Center (Task 8.3)

CHMMs will need to reconcile automated-system data with statutory emergency response frameworks that assume human observational input.

IV. Cross-Credential Analysis: Common Regulatory Responsibilities Impacted

Both credentials share responsibilities that will be materially affected:

1. Hazard Communication

Automation raises questions about whether digital or remote hazard communication satisfies requirements in 49 C.F.R. §§ 172.200–204, 602, 606, 604.

2. Training & Competency

CDGPs and CHMMs must ensure training programs meet both DOT and international requirements even when human operators are reduced or eliminated.

3. Carrier & Shipper Responsibilities

Automation may blur the regulatory distinction between a “carrier,” “operator,” “driver,” “pilot-in-command,” or “vessel person-in-charge.”

4. Emergency Response & Incident Reporting

Who triggers notifications when the system is automated?
What qualifies as “knowledge” of the release for reporting purposes?

5. Security & Cybersecurity

Both credentials must now factor automated-system vulnerabilities into:

  • Security plans

  • Risk assessments

  • Route planning

  • Access controls

Security awareness training and cyber-risk mitigation are critical additions to existing Domain 6 duties (CDGP) and Domain 12 duties (CHMM).

V. Legal Risks and Compliance Gaps for IHMM Certificants

A. Ambiguous Responsibility Assignments

Existing regulations assign many duties to “drivers,” “operators,” or “persons in charge”—roles that may disappear or become remote. CDGPs and CHMMs risk non-compliance without clear regulatory definitions.

B. Potential for Enforcement Exposure

Facilities or shippers that rely on automated systems without updated SOPs, documentation controls, or cyber-security protections may face:

  • DOT civil penalties

  • RCRA generator violations

  • EPCRA/CERCLA reporting failures

  • OSHA hazard communication deficiencies

C. Lack of Harmonization with International Standards

CDGPs in particular face compliance complexity if PHMSA modernizes faster or slower than ICAO/IMDG/UN Model Regulations.

VI. Conclusion: Strategic Implications for IHMM and Its Certificants

Both CDGPs and CHMMs sit at the center of PHMSA’s contemplated regulatory updates. The ANPRM touches every competency domain outlined in the IHMM blueprints, and future regulatory modernization will require certificants to:

  • Update SOPs, training programs, and compliance systems

  • Integrate automation-based controls into hazard communication, emergency response, and security frameworks

  • Understand and manage the rewritten allocation of regulatory duties in automated operational contexts

  • Navigate dual domestic and international compliance landscapes as automation expands across transport modes