The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued an interpretive rule formally excluding fuel additives from the Portable Fuel Container Safety Act (PFCSA), effective Oct. 19, 2026.
The rule follows a September 2025 federal court decision finding that CPSC exceeded its authority by applying flame mitigation requirements to fuel additive containers. As ILMA reported in January, the Department of Justice declined to appeal the ruling.
Greater regulatory certainty: The exclusion is now codified in CPSC regulations rather than relying solely on the court’s decision.
Purpose-based exclusion: The rule applies to additives intended solely for maintenance or performance purposes. Products designed to create heat or power, or that can substitute for fuel, remain subject to the PFCSA.
No new requirements: The rule imposes no additional obligations and has no preemptive effect.
The rule marks the culmination of more than three years of advocacy by ILMA and its coalition partners, including petitions to delay enforcement, engagement with CPSC leadership and Congress and a coalition letter urging the government not to appeal.
In September 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled in favor of fuel additive manufacturer Sea Foam/Auto-Mark, finding that the PFCSA’s reference to “flammable liquid fuels” does not include products intended to clean or maintain fuel systems rather than create heat or power.
The court based its decision on the statutory meaning of “fuel,” concluding that the additives at issue fall outside the law.
CPSC has now aligned its regulations with the court’s decision. Under the new 16 C.F.R. § 1461.2(b), “flammable liquid fuels” exclude additives intended solely to improve engine performance, clean components, extend engine life, stabilize fuel, prevent weather-related effects or serve other purposes unrelated to creating heat or power.
The rule reverses CPSC’s 2023 interpretation, which classified certain liquids with flash points below 140 degrees Fahrenheit as fuels if used in a mixture to support combustion. That interpretation relied on Chevron deference, which the Supreme Court overturned in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024).
CPSC estimates the clarification will eliminate approximately $545.7 million in annual compliance costs.
President Donald Trump signed a proclamation on October 23, modifying the list of Canadian products subject to the additional 50% tariff imposed […]
Update (Sept. 18, 2026): On September 16, a federal court granted a preliminary injunction blocking New Mexico’s PFAS product labeling regulation, which […]
A federal district court has upheld Oregon’s packaging extended producer responsibility (EPR) law against constitutional challenges brought by the National Association of […]
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
Manage your cookie preferences below:
Essential cookies enable basic functions and are necessary for the proper function of the website.
Google Tag Manager simplifies the management of marketing tags on your website without code changes.
These cookies are used for managing login functionality on this website.
WPForms is a user-friendly WordPress plugin for creating custom forms with drag-and-drop functionality.
Statistics cookies collect information anonymously. This information helps us understand how visitors use our website.
Google Analytics is a powerful tool that tracks and analyzes website traffic for informed marketing decisions.
Service URL: policies.google.com (opens in a new window)
You can find more information in our Privacy Policy and .