Regulatory roundup: NTTC takes on EV safety gaps, automation, and highway funding

The tank truck industry has long supported commercial vehicle innovation and environmental progress, but the transition to electric trucks in hazmat transportation raises significant and unresolved concerns, including the severity of lithium-ion battery fires, lack of safe charging infrastructure, emergency-response gaps, and reduced capacity due to battery weight.

National Tank Truck Carriers recently outlined those concerns and more in a nine-page letter to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration in response to the agency’s request for input regarding the safety risks, operational challenges, and regulatory considerations associated with transporting hazardous materials with heavy-duty electric vehicles. “While electrification may present future opportunities for certain commercial applications, the transportation of [hazmat] by heavy-duty EVs raises unique safety, operational, infrastructure, and economic questions that have not yet been sufficiently studied or resolved,” Will Lusk, NTTC director of education and government relations, wrote in the May 4 letter to Yolanda Braxton, PHMSA director of program management, data, and statistics.

The unknown is NTTC’s greatest concern, Lusk indicated.

This’s because the industry’s primary hurdle is the complete lack of data regarding the safety and operational risks of using heavy-duty EVs to haul hazardous materials, Lusk told Bulk Transporter. And carriers are hesitant to adopt technology while the risks remain unquantified.

“The key factor here is uncertainty,” Lusk said. “We do not know what the risks are of having heavy-duty EVs haul hazardous materials. There are significant concerns about weight. There are significant concerns about how to put out a fire. There are significant concerns about range. There are significant concerns about charging infrastructure. And because of all these uncertainties, which are due to a lack of research, and a lack of real-world testing and evaluation for hazmat, our carriers don’t quite know how to get started. They don't know the risk profile. They don’t know if insurers will even allow it. There are so many questions.

“Ultimately, what it boils down to is they just don’t know if it’s safe.”

NTTC carrier members Kenan Advantage Group and Schneider have experimented with electric trucks, but only in drayage operations and other non-hazardous applications, Lusk relayed. “Nobody has ever used EVs to haul hazmat,” he said. “Or at least I’m completely unaware of any EVs in hazmat, or any EVs hauling tankers in widespread operational implementation.”

That’s why Lusk does not expect any new regulations or rulemakings regarding EVs in hazmat transport to come down any time soon. Instead, he believes PHMSA will focus on closing research gaps over the next few years to determine if battery-electric vehicle adoption is realistic—or fantastical.

“I get the sense PHMSA wants to explore more on the operational risk, safety—all the different nuances in hazardous materials transportation—to learn if battery-electric commercial motor vehicles are a viable and safe solution for hazmat, or aren’t they? And if not, why? That will help inform carriers, especially NTTC members, to determine if there is a viable path forward to EV implementation for their fleets in the future, based on the current technology.”

Autonomous hazmat transportation

NTTC also recently filed comments with PHMSA in response to the agency’s advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on hazmat transportation using “highly automated transportation systems.”

In a March 3 letter to PHMSA Administrator Paul Roberti, the association advocates for a performance-based, operator-neutral approach that maintains current safety levels while integrating new technology. Key recommendations include updating terminology to allow for electronic shipping information and ensuring autonomous vehicles meet rigorous cybersecurity standards to prevent remote exploitation. NTTC emphasizes that while innovation is welcome, it must not disrupt proven safety practices or compromise national security.

Ultimately, NTTC suggests that regulatory oversight should evolve to clearly define liability and operational expectations for both human and automated drivers.

“I do expect rulemaking changes to come as a result, but as this is an ANPRM versus an NPRM [notice of proposed rulemaking], it will be many months, or potentially years, before we see a response from PHMSA,” Lusk said. “Nevertheless, they’re forward-leaning on emerging technologies, which is great to see.”

Associations oppose ‘gas tax holiday’

In response to proposals to suspend the gas tax amid soaring fuel prices sparked by the Iran war, NTTC joined American Trucking Associations and the Truckload Carriers Association to discourage the idea supported by President Trump, citing the negative impact to the Highway Trust Fund.

“We understand and appreciate the desire to provide relief to Americans facing higher fuel costs,” association leaders said in a joint statement. “However, history shows that gas tax holidays deliver negligible benefit to consumers. Because the tax is collected at the wholesale level and not at the retail pump, most savings never reach the consumer. While the average motorist pays about $1.63 per week in federal fuel taxes, a suspension would translate into only about 30 cents in weekly savings.

“Without replacement funds, fuel tax revenues supporting critical investments in highway safety and infrastructure projects would evaporate, hindering the safe and efficient movement of people and goods across the country.

“America’s highways are truckers’ shop floor. While trucks are only four percent of vehicles on the road, the trucking industry covers nearly half of all Highway Trust Fund revenue. We look forward to working with members of Congress on solutions that deliver meaningful relief to consumers while preserving the long-term integrity of our transportation system.”