California Attorney General Rob Bonta is squaring off against ExxonMobil in a high-stakes regulatory fight that could reshape how injured workers seek justice after handling hazardous materials on the job.
This week, Bonta joined a coalition of state attorneys general urging federal regulators to reject an Exxon request that, critics say, would effectively cut off many injured workers from the courts. The clash comes on the heels of a New Jersey ruling that refused to shut down a delivery driver’s lawsuit over alleged benzene exposure. Citing that case, Bonta said workers have a right to compensation for job-related harms and added that when hazardous materials are involved, there should be more protections, not less.
Bonta said California is part of a group of 18 attorneys general that submitted formal comments to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, urging the agency to turn down Exxon’s bid. As outlined by the California Department of Justice, the coalition is asking PHMSA to preserve long-standing state common-law remedies that help workers and communities secure compensation and enforce public health protections.
What Exxon Wants PHMSA To Decide
Exxon has asked PHMSA to issue an administrative determination that the federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Act and the Hazardous Materials Regulations preempt certain state common-law tort claims tied to gasoline transported by cargo-tank motor vehicles. PHMSA first put the request out for public comment in January.
According to the Federal Register, the agency is weighing whether state-law duties are substantively equivalent to the federal requirements. Exxon’s application focuses on issues such as marking and shipping paper warnings, employee training, loading and unloading practices, and hazardous-material classification.
Exxon’s Arguments And The Case Behind Them
Exxon argues that state-law duties that require warnings about benzene exposure or impose particular training standards are not "substantively the same" as the Hazardous Materials Regulations. The company says that allowing those state rules to stand would create a patchwork of conflicting obligations for interstate fuel shipments.
The application stems from the case Singh v. Exxon Mobil. As summarized in the Federal Register, the New Jersey state court denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on June 24, 2025, and Exxon then sought a preemption ruling from PHMSA.
Why The States Are Pushing Back
In a 22-page coalition letter to PHMSA, the attorneys general warn that granting Exxon’s request would intrude on states’ traditional police powers and cut off a critical route for injured workers to seek redress. They argue that private tort suits often reveal internal company information that regulators and the public would not otherwise see, thereby bolstering accountability and local public health protections.
The coalition contends that a sweeping preemption decision would weaken those protections and make it harder for workers and communities to hold companies to account. The full legal and policy arguments are laid out in the comment letter filed with the agency; see the document posted by the California Department of Justice.
Legal Process And What Happens Next
PHMSA’s notice in the Federal Register set out an initial window for public comments, followed by a rebuttal period, before the agency’s Chief Counsel issues a formal determination. Comments were originally due in February, with rebuttals in March, and the docket later received an extension along with multiple submissions.
Any final PHMSA decision on preemption could be challenged in federal court and would likely have nationwide implications, affecting how states regulate hazardous materials transport and how workers pursue civil remedies when things go wrong.
What It All Means For Workers
Bonta has framed the dispute as a fight over whether injured workers will continue to have a meaningful chance to seek compensation, or whether corporations can narrow their liability through federal preemption. "We believe that workers harmed by hazardous materials on the job have a right to compensation," he said, and his office has emphasized that California and its partner states want PHMSA to leave state tort remedies in place.
For Bonta’s full public statement on the issue, see the press materials from the California Department of Justice.
