[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 33 (Thursday, February 19, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7880-7884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-03265]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 393
[Docket No. FMCSA-2025-0117]
RIN 2126-AC91
Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Fuel Tank
Overfill Restriction
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FMCSA removes the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSR) that a liquid fuel tank manufactured on or
after January 1, 1973, be designed and constructed so that it cannot be
filled, in a normal filling operation, with a quantity of fuel that
exceeds 95 percent of the tank's liquid capacity. This final rule
responds to a petition for rulemaking from the Commercial Vehicle
Safety Alliance (CVSA). The revision removes an unnecessary and
outdated requirement from the FMCSRs.
DATES: Effective March 23, 2026.
Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must be submitted
to the FMCSA Administrator no later than March 23, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Sutula, Chief, Vehicle and
Roadside Operations Division, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001; (202) 366-2551; [email protected]. If you
have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call
Dockets Operations at (202) 366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FMCSA organizes this final rule as follows:
I. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
II. Abbreviations
III. Legal Basis
IV. Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments
V. Changes From the NPRM
VI. International Impacts
VII. Section-by-Section Analysis
VIII. Regulatory Analyses
A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
[[Page 7881]]
B. E.O. 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation)
C. Congressional Review Act
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
E. Assistance for Small Entities
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)
I. Privacy
J. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
K. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
I. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket,
go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0117/document and
choose the document to review. To view comments, click this final rule,
then click ``Browse Comments.'' If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations
at U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help
you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting
Dockets Operations.
II. Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMV Commercial motor vehicle
CVSA Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
DOT Department of Transportation
EMA Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association
E.O. Executive Order
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FMCSR Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OOIDA Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association
PIA Privacy Impact Assessment
PTA Privacy Threshold Assessment
U.S.C. United States Code
III. Legal basis
The provision now codified at 49 CFR 393.67(c)(12) was adopted over
50 years ago on the basis of the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1935. That
authority is now found at 49 U.S.C. 31502(b), which authorizes the
Secretary of Transportation to prescribe requirements for, among other
things, the ``safety of operation and equipment'' of a motor carrier
and the ``standards of equipment'' of a motor private carrier (49
U.S.C. 31502(b)(1) and (2)).
Under the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984, as amended, 49 U.S.C.
31136(a), DOT is required to ``prescribe minimum safety standards for
commercial motor vehicles. At a minimum, the regulations shall ensure
that--(1) commercial motor vehicles are maintained, equipped, loaded,
and operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of
commercial motor vehicles do not impair their ability to operate the
vehicles safely; (3) the physical condition of operators of commercial
motor vehicles is adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles
safely . . .; (4) the operation of commercial motor vehicles does not
have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators;
and (5) an operator of a commercial motor vehicle is not coerced by a
motor carrier, shipper, receiver, or transportation intermediary to
operate a commercial motor vehicle in violation of a regulation
promulgated under this section, or chapter 51 or chapter 313 of this
title.''
This final rule is based on the authority of 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1)
to ensure that commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) are equipped and
operated safely. It does not implicate the driver-centered requirements
of 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(2)-(4). Because this final rule will remove a
requirement otherwise applicable to motor carriers, there is no obvious
risk of coercion related to this final rule to which a driver might be
subjected.
While 49 U.S.C. 31502(b) and 31136(a)(1) authorize FMCSA to
promulgate the rules in 49 CFR part 393 (Parts and Accessories
Necessary for Safe Operation), they also allow the agency to remove
regulations that are no longer needed for the safe operation of CMVs.
For the reasons explained below, FMCSA believes 49 CFR 393.67(c)(12)(i)
is obsolete and should be rescinded.
IV. Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments
A. Proposed Rulemaking
On May 30, 2025, FMCSA published in the Federal Register (Docket
No. FMCSA-2025-0117, 90 FR 22923) an NPRM titled ``Parts and
Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Fuel Tank Overfill
Restriction.'' The NPRM proposed to amend the FMCSR to remove the
requirement that a liquid fuel tank manufactured on or after January 1,
1973, be designed and constructed so that it cannot be filled, in a
normal filling operation, with a quantity of fuel that exceeds 95
percent of the tank's liquid capacity.
B. Comments and Responses
FMCSA solicited comments concerning the NPRM for 60 days ending
July 29, 2025. By that date, four comments were received from the
following parties: the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA),
Energy Marketers of America, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association (OOIDA), and the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association
(EMA).
CVSA, Energy Marketers of America, and OOIDA were generally
supportive of the NPRM and agreed that the proposed change would remove
an unnecessary and outdated requirement. CVSA and Energy Marketers of
America stated that the language in section 393.67(c)(12)(i) is
outdated and no longer applicable to the current state of the industry
because liquid fuel tanks are now manufactured with a vented cap.
Energy Marketers of America agreed with FMCSA's reasoning that the
existing overfill safeguard in section 393.67(c)(12)(ii) is sufficient
to prevent fuel spillage due to thermal expansion. CVSA stated that
some manufacturers are equipping vehicles with tanks allowing 100
percent fill, based on the positioning of the filler neck and vented
cap, with no resulting issues. CVSA also stated that the proposed
revision would improve harmonization with the Canadian National Safety
Code Standard 11B, which currently allows for a 100 percent fill, and
benefit motor carriers who operate across the international borders
between the U.S. and Canada.
EMA submitted a comment in opposition to the NPRM. EMA noted that
the requirements in section 393.67(c) have been in place since January
1, 1973, and have provided a level of protection against incidental and
catastrophic fuel spillage for more than 5 decades. EMA expressed
concern that the NPRM did not adequately assess the safety implications
of the proposed change to ensure that the system design amendment would
provide for adequate control of fuel spillage on CMVs, citing the
warnings provided by manufacturers in owner's manuals and in the
vicinity of the fill spout indicating the dangers and risks of property
damage, fuel spillage, and personal injury or death from filling beyond
95 percent of capacity.
In addition, EMA expressed concern that, due to confusion about the
applicability of the amendment or because of operator misjudgment, some
CMV operators could respond to the amendment by adjusting fill
processes on current vehicles not designed for greater than 95 percent
filling capacity. EMA stated that this could increase risk of spillage
during fueling and fuel expansion and sloshing could lead to leakage
past the seals and ventilation systems. EMA also stated that operators
might pressure vehicle manufacturers to
[[Page 7882]]
increase the fill capacity of their fuel tanks on new vehicle
purchases, potentially up to 100 percent of their capacity, which would
require manufacturers to redesign fuel tank systems, assess the safety
consequences of the redesign, and undertake the full battery of
demonstration tests required in section 393.67(d) and (e). EMA claimed
that this would impose significant burdens on vehicle manufacturers.
EMA also stated that while FMCSA proposed to eliminate the 95 percent
fill limit in section 393.67(c)(12)(i), the NPRM did not propose to
remove the warning marking requirement for the fill limit in paragraph
(c)(11).
Finally, EMA stated that the NPRM was based on a flawed petition
for rulemaking from CVSA. EMA disagreed with the assertion in the CVSA
petition that vented caps render the current 95 percent maximum fill
provision outdated or unnecessary because air and safety vent systems
have been regulated requirements since 1973 and there is nothing new
about the function of these systems that would alleviate the need for
the refueling capacity requirement. EMA also disagreed with CVSA's
claims that there are manufacturers equipping vehicles with tanks
allowing 100 percent fill, because EMA is not aware of any tanks on
CMVs that allow 100 percent fill and CVSA's claim would imply that such
tanks would be in violation of the FMCSR requirements. In addition, EMA
disagreed with CVSA's claims that the proposed amendment would
eliminate the need for motor carriers who are operating these vehicles
to request an exemption because there are no such exemptions listed on
FMCSA's website. Finally, EMA disagreed with CVSA's claim that removing
section 393.67(c)(12)(i) would improve harmonization with the Canadian
National Safety Code Standard 11B because the Canadian National Safety
Code is a set of Canadian periodic vehicle inspection requirements, and
the FMCSR overfill restriction controls the design and construction of
fuel tanks.
FMCSA Response
EMA's comment in opposition to the NPRM mischaracterizes the
requirements in section 393.67(c)(12) as manufacturing standards. The
fundamental purpose of 49 CFR part 393 is to ensure that no employer
operates a CMV or causes or permits it to be operated unless it is
equipped in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the
part. Compliance with the rules concerning parts and accessories is
necessary to ensure vehicles are equipped with the specified safety
devices and equipment. Nothing in this part is a manufacturing
standard. FMCSA does not have the authority to prescribe manufacturing
standards, which are typically established by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration. The standards in part 393 are enforced
during vehicle inspections, which are conducted at roadside to ensure a
CMV is operating in compliance with the FMCSR. There have been no
recorded violations of section 393.67(c)(12) in any roadside
inspections between 2021 and 2025 according to FMCSA Analysis &
Information data.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Available at https://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/AI/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, the length of time a regulation has been in effect is not a
valid basis to challenge revisions to that regulation. FMCSA must
constantly reevaluate its regulatory requirements to ensure they
accurately reflect current technologies and real-world situations. The
Agency is updating the requirements in section 393.67(c)(12) to reflect
that circumstances have changed since 1973, and the 95 percent fill
restriction is no longer necessary to prevent fuel tank overfill. Fuel
tank designs have advanced significantly in the past 52 years,
including the introduction of technologies like vented caps to relieve
excess pressure and check valves to prevent fuel spillage during
vehicle rollovers. The fuel capacity requirement specified in section
393.67(c)(12) was enacted to account for any spillage due to normal
expansion of the fuel contained in the tank. FMCSA believes that modern
venting systems for the tanks are sufficient to ensure that fuel will
not spill during normal expansion. In addition, EMA's argument about
safety risks with the proposed changes are without merit. While FMCSA
is removing the 95 percent fill limit in section 393.67(c)(12)(i), the
Agency is not requiring that tanks allow for 100 percent fill.
Following this final rule, fuel tanks must still meet the testing
requirements in section 393.67(d) in order to be equipped on a CMV.
These testing requirements will prevent the spilling and safety
concerns raised by EMA, regardless of a fill limit on the fuel tank.
Manufacturers are also welcome to continue designing fuel tanks that do
not allow filling past the 95 percent limit if they believe that is the
best approach.
EMA's assertion that there cannot be fuel tanks that allow for over
95 percent fill based on the U.S. market and regulations is also
flawed. As CVSA stated in its petition, Canada currently does not have
a fill limit for fuel tanks. Therefore, fuel tanks in Canada may allow
for 100 percent fill even if the FMCSR do not allow for anything above
95 percent. These vehicles may operate in cross-border operations
between Canada and the U.S., which could result in violations due to
the difference in Canadian requirements and the FMCSR. This change will
harmonize inspections between the U.S. and Canada, regardless of EMA's
assertion to the contrary.
FMCSA acknowledges that not proposing the removal of the warning
marking requirement for the fill limit in paragraph (c)(11) was an
oversight in the NPRM that would create conflicting requirements. The
Agency incorporates that additional revision in this final rule to
ensure consistency in the fuel tank regulations.
V. Changes From the NPRM
FMCSA amends section 393.67(c)(11) to remove the warning marking
requirement for the fill limit, as discussed in the comment response to
EMA above. Specifically, the Agency removes the second sentence of
paragraph (c)(11). The revision ensures that paragraph (c)(11) conforms
to revised paragraph (c)(12) and that the fill limit is no longer
referenced anywhere in section 393.67.
VI. International Impacts
Motor carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations
of the countries where they operate, unless an international agreement
states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the
regulatory differences between nations.
VII. Section-by-Section Analysis
This section-by-section analysis describes the changes to the
regulatory text in numerical order.
Section 393.67 Liquid Fuel Tanks
FMCSA removes the second sentence from paragraph (c)(11). The
Agency also removes paragraph (c)(12)(i) and incorporates the language
from paragraph (c)(12)(ii) into (c)(12).
VIII. Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), and
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
FMCSA has considered the impact of this final rule under E.O. 12866
(58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, and DOT
Order 2100.6B. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this final
rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action under
[[Page 7883]]
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, and has not reviewed it under that E.O.
This final rule removes the requirement that liquid fuel tanks
manufactured on or after January 1, 1973, are designed and constructed
so that they cannot be filled, in a normal filling operation, with a
quantity of fuel that exceeds 95 percent of the tank's liquid capacity.
The rule also removes a warning mark requirement about the 95 percent
fill limit. FMCSA has determined that a fill limit is unnecessary for
safety, as fuel tanks must still meet the testing requirements outlined
in section 393.67(d). These requirements explicitly prevent fuel
spillage, even during normal expansion.
This final rule enables manufacturers to design fuel tanks that
prioritize both safety and innovation. By reducing administrative
burdens, the rule results in cost savings to manufacturers. FMCSA does
not have the data to quantify these savings. Furthermore, this change
aligns the FMCSR with existing Canadian requirements, thereby
simplifying operations for affected motor carriers operating across
borders.
B. E.O. 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation)
E.O. 14192 (90 FR 9065, Jan. 31, 2025), Unleashing Prosperity
Through Deregulation, requires that for ``each new [E.O. 14192
regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified
for elimination.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Executive Office of the President, Executive Order 14192 of
January 31, 2025, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, 90 FR
9065-9067 (Feb. 6, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-
25-20, March 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192
actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192
regulatory action.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ OMB, Guidance Implementing Section 3 of Executive Order
14192, Titled ``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,''
Memorandum M-25-20 (Mar. 26, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as ``an action that
has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.'' This final
rulemaking is expected to have total costs less than zero and is
therefore considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.
C. Congressional Review Act
This final rule is not a major rule as defined under the
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808).'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ A major rule means any rule that OMB finds has resulted in
or is likely to result in (a) an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more; (b) a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, geographic regions, Federal,
State, or local government agencies; or (c) significant adverse
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export
markets (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,\5\
requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory
action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any
significant economic impact. The term small entities means small
businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently
owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and
governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5
U.S.C. 601(6)). Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the
impact of all regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies
strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Public Law. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, (Mar. 29, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the
head of an Agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This final rulemaking removes an outdated and
unnecessary requirement for liquid fuel tanks manufactured on or after
January 1, 1973.
Consequently, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
E. Assistance for Small Entities
In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857),
FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this final rule
so they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate
in the rulemaking initiative. If the final rule will affect your small
business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal
regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and
Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman (Office of the National
Ombudsman, see https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/oversight-advocacy/office-national-ombudsman) and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness
Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each
agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on
actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory
enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for
exercising these rights.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. The Act addresses actions that may result in the
expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $206 million (which is the value equivalent
of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2024 levels) or more
in any 1 year. Because this final rule will not result in such an
expenditure, a written statement is not required.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule contains no new information collection requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
H. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)
A rule has implications for federalism under section 1(a) of E.O.
13132 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), Federalism, if it has ``substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
FMCSA has determined that this rule will not have substantial
direct costs on or for States, nor will it limit the policymaking
discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law
or regulation. Therefore, this final rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Impact Statement.
I. Privacy
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005,\6\ requires the Agency
to assess the privacy impact of a regulation that will affect the
privacy of individuals. This final rule will not require the collection
of personally identifiable information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Public Law. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, note following 5
U.S.C. 552a (Dec. 4, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies
and any
[[Page 7884]]
non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system of
records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.
The E-Government Act of 2002,\7\ requires Federal agencies to
conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for new or substantially
changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates
information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed
technology will collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a
result of this final rule. Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a PIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Public Law. 107-347, sec. 208, 116 Stat. 2899, 2921 (Dec.
17, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Agency will complete a Privacy Threshold
Assessment (PTA) to evaluate the risks and effects the final rule might
have on collecting, storing, and sharing personally identifiable
information. The PTA will be submitted to FMCSA's Privacy Officer for
review and preliminary adjudication and to DOT's Privacy Officer for
review and final adjudication.
J. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
This final rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175
(65 FR 67249, Nov. 9, 2000), Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct
effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
K. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
FMCSA analyzed this final rule pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The Agency
believes this final rule will not have a reasonably foreseeable
significant effect on the quality of the human environment. This action
falls under a published categorical exclusion and is thus excluded from
further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under DOT Order 5610.1D,\8\ Subpart B,
subsection (e). Specifically, paragraph (e)(6)(bb), which covers
regulations pertaining to vehicle operation safety standards, equipment
approval, and/or equipment carriage requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Available at: https://www.transportation.gov/mission/dots-procedures-considering-environmental-impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 393
Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, FMCSA amends 49 CFR part 393 to read as follows:
PART 393--PARTS AND ACCESSORIES NECESSARY FOR SAFE OPERATION
0
1. The authority citation for part 393 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31136, 31151, 31502; sec. 1041(b), Pub. L.
102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 1993; secs. 5301 and 5524, Pub. L. 114-94,
129 Stat. 1312, 1543, 1560; and 49 CFR 1.87.
0
2. Amend Sec. 393.67 by revising paragraphs (c)(11) and (12) to read
as follows:
Sec. 393.67 Liquid fuel tanks.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(11) Markings. If the body of a fuel tank is readily visible when
the tank is installed on the vehicle, the tank must be plainly marked
with its liquid capacity.
(12) Overfill restriction. A liquid fuel tank manufactured on or
after January 1, 1973, must be designed and constructed so that when
the tank is filled, normal expansion of the fuel will not cause fuel
spillage.
* * * * *
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.
Derek Barrs,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2026-03265 Filed 2-18-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P