The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), an agency within the Department of Transportation (DOT), has finalized a rule that removes references to liquid-burning flares from the emergency equipment requirements for commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). Published in the Federal Register on February 19, 2026, this amendment updates 49 CFR Parts 392 and 393, eliminating language tied to warning devices that the agency deems obsolete and unused. Effective March 23, 2026, the rule addresses a regulatory relic from an era when such flares were common, but modern alternatives like fusees and reflective triangles have rendered them unnecessary. This development reflects FMCSA's ongoing efforts to modernize safety standards, ensuring regulations remain practical while upholding the core mandate of safe CMV operation under 49 U.S.C. 31136(a). By excising these outdated provisions, the agency reduces confusion for operators and new entrants in the trucking industry, potentially easing compliance without compromising roadside visibility requirements.
Background and Regulatory Context
Liquid-burning flares, once a staple in CMV emergency kits, involved open flames fueled by liquid combustibles to signal stopped vehicles. The FMCSRs previously required them as an option under sections like 392.22(b)(2) for placement during breakdowns, alongside fusees or reflective triangles. Specifications for these flares appeared in 393.95(j), mandating compliance with Underwriters Laboratories standards, while 393.95(f)(2) and (g) outlined quantities and usage restrictions, such as prohibitions on vehicles carrying explosives or flammable gases.
This rule stems from FMCSA's recognition that liquid-burning flares are no longer manufactured or employed in the industry. The agency initiated the change through a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on May 30, 2025, published in the Federal Register (90 FR 22919), with corrections on June 5 and July 9, 2025. The NPRM invited public input on removing these references, citing their obsolescence as the primary rationale. FMCSA's authority derives from 49 U.S.C. 31136(a), which requires minimum safety standards for CMVs, emphasizing safe equipment and operation. The rule indirectly touches on subsections (a)(2) and (a)(4) by slightly altering operator responsibilities, but it retains requirements for other warning devices, ensuring no gap in safety protocols.
Historically, warning device rules evolved from broader highway safety efforts in the mid-20th century, influenced by organizations like the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). Precedents such as the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 reinforced FMCSA's role in updating regulations to reflect technological advancements, similar to past amendments phasing out outdated equipment like certain tire types.
Key Players and Public Response
FMCSA led the rulemaking, with input from DOT officials, including David Sutula, Chief of the Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division. The process involved coordination with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for regulatory review under Executive Order 12866.
Public comments, solicited for 60 days ending July 29, 2025, were unanimously supportive. Six submissions came from entities including AAMVA, the American Trucking Associations, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Veolia North America, and two private citizens. AAMVA highlighted potential minor costs—up to $20,000—for updating CDL publications, but noted these could be absorbed during routine revisions, especially when combined with other FMCSA deregulatory actions. No opposition emerged, underscoring industry consensus that liquid-burning flares are defunct. This alignment reflects broader political forces favoring deregulation, as seen in Executive Order 14192 (issued January 31, 2025, and attributed to President Trump), which promotes eliminating outdated rules to unleash prosperity.
Legal and Technical Amendments
The final rule makes targeted changes to the FMCSRs. In 392.22(b)(2)(i) and (ii), it removes mentions of liquid-burning flares, focusing instead on fusees and reflective triangles for signaling stopped CMVs. Similarly, 393.95(f)(2) now specifies only fusees to meet 392.22 requirements, while (g) restricts flame-producing devices on hazardous material vehicles, and (j) retains standards solely for fusees.
These edits eliminate any mandate or option for liquid-burning flares, but preserve the overall framework for emergency signaling. For instance, drivers must still place three bidirectional reflective triangles or lighted fusees within 10 minutes of stopping, as per 392.22(b)(1). The rule incorporates no new standards, relying on existing Underwriters Laboratories criteria (UL No. 912, dated July 30, 1979, with a 1981 amendment) for remaining devices.
From a legal perspective, this aligns with precedents like FMCSA's 2018 rule on obsolete brake standards, where unnecessary provisions were excised without substantive safety impacts. Perspectives vary: safety advocates might view it as prudent housekeeping, while industry groups see it as reducing regulatory burden. Critics, if any, could argue for retaining all options, but the lack of comments suggests broad acceptance.
Implications and Economic Analysis
Short-term implications include smoother compliance for motor carriers, who no longer need to parse outdated text during training or inspections. New entrants benefit from clearer rules, potentially lowering familiarization costs. FMCSA's regulatory analysis under E.O. 12866 deems the rule non-significant, with de minimis cost savings from eliminated confusion. No behavioral changes are expected, as these flares are unused.
Long-term, the rule supports FMCSA's deregulatory agenda, possibly encouraging further reviews of obsolete provisions. It qualifies as a deregulatory action under E.O. 14192, contributing to the mandate of identifying regulations for elimination. Economic assessments confirm no impacts under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, or Paperwork Reduction Act, with categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Different viewpoints emerge: trucking associations applaud the simplification, while state agencies like AAMVA note administrative adjustments. Overall, the rule maintains safety equivalence, as alternative devices suffice for visibility.
In summary, this FMCSA rule modernizes CMV safety regulations by removing vestiges of outdated technology, ensuring the FMCSRs remain relevant. Potential next steps include monitoring compliance post-March 2026 and addressing any petitions for reconsideration by that date. Ongoing debates may focus on further deregulation versus emerging safety needs, such as advanced signaling tech. Challenges could arise if industry shifts demand new standards, but for now, this action streamlines without controversy, paving the way for adaptive federal oversight in transportation safety.
