Proposed Rule2026-05024
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Modernization of FMVSS No. 102 To Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
March 16, 2026
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
NHTSA is proposing to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 102, "Transmission shift position sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect." The proposed modification would except vehicles equipped with Automated Driving Systems (ADS) that do not have manually operated driving controls from the requirement for a transmission shift position display. This rulemaking would remove unnecessary regulatory burdens and costs associated with a display designed to aid a person driving the vehicle. As the transmission shift position display does not fulfill the same safety need in an ADS-equipped vehicle without manually operated driving controls, the amendment will not impact vehicle safety. This action is part of a larger NHTSA effort to address vehicle automation in the agency's regulations.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 50 (Monday, March 16, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 50 (Monday, March 16, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12532-12537]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-05024]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2026-0628]
RIN 2127-AM72
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Modernization of FMVSS
No. 102 To Accommodate ADS-Equipped Vehicles
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA is proposing to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 102, ``Transmission shift position sequence,
starter interlock, and transmission braking effect.'' The proposed
modification would except vehicles equipped with Automated Driving
Systems (ADS) that do not have manually operated driving controls from
the requirement for a transmission shift position display. This
rulemaking would remove unnecessary regulatory burdens and costs
associated with a display designed to aid a person driving the vehicle.
As the transmission shift position display does not fulfill the same
safety need in an ADS-equipped vehicle without manually operated
driving controls, the amendment will not impact vehicle safety. This
action is part of a larger NHTSA effort to address vehicle automation
in the agency's regulations.
DATES: Comments should be submitted no later than April 15, 2026.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number in
the heading of this document or by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the electronic
docket site by clicking on ``Help'' or ``FAQ.''
<bullet> Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket Management Facility. U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building,
Suite W58-213, Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. To be sure
someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9826 or (202) 366-
9317 before coming.
<bullet> Fax: 202-493-2251.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below. We will consider
all comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above. To the extent possible, we will also
consider comments filed after the closing date.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> at any time or to 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington,
DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays. Telephone: 202-366-9826.
Confidential Business Information: If you claim that any of the
information in your comment (including any additional documents or
attachments) constitutes confidential business information within the
meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) or is protected from disclosure pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1905, please see the detailed instructions given under the
Public Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this document.
Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to inform its decision-making process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
<a href="http://www.transportation.gov/privacy">www.transportation.gov/privacy</a>. To facilitate comment tracking and
response, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the name of
their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. Regardless of whether commenters identify themselves, all
timely comments will be considered fully.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may contact
Ms. Lina Valivullah, Office of Automation Safety; Telephone: 202-366-
1810; Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1955707778374f7875706f6c75757871597d766d377e766f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d894b1b6b9f68eb9b4b1aeadb4b4b9b098bcb7acf6bfb7ae">[email protected]</span></a>; Facsimile: 202-493-2739. For
legal issues, you may contact Mr. David Jasinski, NHTSA Office of the
Chief Counsel, Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#420623342b266c0823312b2c31292b02262d366c252d34"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1155706778753f5b7062787f627a7851757e653f767e67">[email protected]</span></a>. The mailing address of
these officials is: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
III. Proposed Change
IV. Request for Comment
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
VI. Public Participation
I. Executive Summary
This rulemaking focuses on vehicles equipped with Automated Driving
Systems (ADS) that do not have manually operated driving controls.
These vehicles currently are not available for consumer purchase;
however, there is considerable investment into the safe testing,
development, and validation of these vehicles, as well as localized
deployment by manufacturers and rideshare operators. Vehicle automation
technology has the potential to reduce roadway crashes and fatalities
while increasing mobility. As the technology is still maturing, and
many of the potential benefits are yet to be realized, NHTSA is
engaging in a process to remove unnecessary barriers to technological
innovation while ensuring motor vehicle safety is not compromised.
NHTSA seeks to address the application of certain existing crash
avoidance standards to ADS-equipped vehicles without manually operated
driving controls. In this document, NHTSA proposes to amend Federal
[[Page 12533]]
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 102, ``Transmission shift
position sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking
effect.'' The proposed modification would except vehicles without
manually operated driving controls from the requirement for a
transmission shift position display. This rulemaking would remove the
regulatory burdens and costs of a display that is unnecessary for an
ADS-equipped vehicle without manually operated driving controls with no
negative impact to vehicle safety.
NHTSA is working on multiple rulemakings to address requirements
for ADS-equipped vehicles. This notice solely addresses a display
requirement in FMVSS No. 102 for vehicles without manually operated
driving controls. The proposed exception does not apply to ADS-equipped
vehicles with manually operated driving controls.
II. Background
This proposed rule addresses ADS-equipped vehicles that do not have
manually operated driving controls. An ADS commonly is considered to be
a combination of hardware and software that can perform all real-time
operational and tactical functions required to operate a vehicle on a
sustained basis.\1\ These functions traditionally are performed by a
person using manually operated driving controls. As defined in 49 CFR
571.3 and used throughout this document, manually operated driving
controls means a system of controls: (i) used by an occupant for real-
time, sustained, manual manipulation of the motor vehicle's heading
(steering) and/or speed (accelerator and brake); and (ii) positioned
such that they can be used by an occupant, regardless of whether the
occupant is actively using the system to manipulate the vehicle's
motion. In an ADS-equipped vehicle designed to be operated only by an
ADS, manually operated driving controls may not be necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., SAE, Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related
to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles,
J3016_202104 (April 30, 2021), available at <a href="https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3016_202104/">https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3016_202104/</a>; Tex. Transp. Code Sec. 545.451.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has published prior Federal Register notices requesting
comment, proposing changes, and updating existing regulations to
address vehicle automation. These notices include a Request for Comment
(RFC), ``Removing Regulatory Barriers for Vehicles with Automated
Driving Systems,'' published on February 13, 2018,\2\ and a subsequent
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) with the same title
published on May 28, 2019.\3\ The RFC posed questions about identifying
and addressing regulatory barriers for vehicles that lack traditional
manual controls or have unconventional seating. The ANPRM focused on
the challenges of testing and verifying compliance for vehicles without
traditional manual controls. A separate NPRM, ``Occupant Protection for
Automated Driving Systems,'' \4\ was published in 2020, with the
corresponding Final Rule, ``Occupant Protection for Vehicles with
Automated Driving Systems,'' published on March 30, 2022.\5\ The
rulemaking focused on crashworthiness standards for ADS-equipped
vehicles without manual driving controls, revising definitions and
updating occupant protection standards to exclude vehicles specifically
designed not to contain any occupants. The 2022 Final Rule also
established the definition in 49 CFR 571.3 for manually operated
driving controls. On December 3, 2020, NHTSA published an ANPRM titled,
``Framework for Automated Driving Systems,'' to discuss and request
comment on the manner in which the agency would define, assess, and
manage objectively the safety of ADS performance while ensuring the
needed flexibility to enable further innovation.\6\ The ANPRM included
recognition of a phased approach to addressing ADS safety, including
NHTSA's modernization of the FMVSS for ADS-equipped vehicles without
traditional manual driving controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 83 FR 6148.
\3\ 84 FR 24433.
\4\ 85 FR 17624.
\5\ 87 FR 18560.
\6\ 85 FR 78058.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA proposes an exception to an existing requirement for ADS-
equipped vehicles that do not contain manually operated driving
controls and therefore cannot be driven by a person in the vehicle.
ADS-equipped vehicles without manually operated driving controls
currently face regulatory barriers presented by requirements related to
manual controls unnecessary for operation of the vehicle by the ADS.
While vehicles not intended to be driven manually may not have manually
operated driving controls, others may have manually operated driving
controls if converted from a conventional vehicle or if equipped with
controls for specialized use. NHTSA maintains that any vehicle equipped
with manually operated driving controls must continue to meet all
existing safety requirements, regardless of whether the vehicle is
equipped with an ADS.
III. Proposed Change
Background
FMVSS No. 102, ``Transmission shift position sequence, starter
interlock, and transmission braking effect,'' includes requirements to
reduce the likelihood of shifting errors and unintended acceleration.
The standard applies to passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger
vehicles, trucks, and buses. Section S3.1.4 of FMVSS No. 102 requires
that the transmission shift positions, including the positions in
relation to each other and the position selected, be displayed in view
of the driver when; (a) the ignition is in a position where the
transmission can be shifted; or (b) the transmission is not in park.
This information is displayed to minimize the likelihood of the driver
shifting to the wrong position or mistaking what gear the vehicle is
in. These driver errors can lead to unintended accelerations and
crashes.
Proposal
In ADS-equipped vehicles that do not have manually operated driving
controls, there is no safety need addressed by visually displaying the
transmission shift positions because the shift position information is
stored in, and the transmission shifting is controlled by, the ADS. A
visual display of the transmission shift positions in such a vehicle is
unnecessary and does not aid the safe operation of the vehicle because
there is not a human driving the vehicle who could make errors related
to shift position. The instantaneous transmission shift position
display in an ADS-operated vehicle does not communicate future vehicle
maneuvers and therefore provides no inherent safety benefit for people
in or around the vehicle. Vehicle manufacturers may choose to remove
the transmission shift position display to reduce visual clutter and to
provide customizable displays for the occupants in ADS-equipped
vehicles without manually operated driving controls. Excepting ADS-
equipped vehicles without manually operated driving controls from the
transmission shift position display requirement does not preclude
manufacturers from displaying vehicle direction or transmission shift
position information or including additional visual displays to enhance
situation awareness for occupants.
For these reasons, NHTSA proposes to add a clause to S3.1.4.3 of
FMVSS No. 102, excepting vehicles without manually operated driving
controls from the shift position display requirement. The proposed
change accommodates these vehicle designs without affecting
[[Page 12534]]
vehicle safety. The proposed update would not affect the requirements
for non-ADS vehicles or for ADS-equipped vehicles with manually
operated driving controls. NHTSA requests comment regarding unintended
safety implications not addressed in the proposal.
Proposed Effective Date
As provided by 49 U.S.C. 30111(d), an FMVSS may not become
effective before the 180th day after the standard is prescribed or
later than one year after it is prescribed. However, NHTSA may provide
a different effective date after finding, for good cause shown, that a
different effective date is in the public interest. NHTSA must publish
the reasons supporting such a finding. Similarly, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)
provides that a final rule cannot become effective until at least 30
days after the date of publication except, among other reasons, the
rule grants or recognizes an exemption, relieves a restriction, or for
good cause found and published with the rule. It is in the public
interest for this proposed rule, if adopted, to be effective
immediately. Because this proposed rule, if adopted, would remove an
unnecessary regulatory requirement for ADS-equipped vehicles without
manually operated controls, there does not appear to be a need for lead
time for regulated entities to comply. In addition, this proposed rule,
if adopted, would provide an exemption and relieve a restriction for
ADS-equipped vehicles. NHTSA seeks comment on whether the rule could be
made effective within a time period shorter than 180 days or upon
publication of any final rule.
IV. Request for Comment
NHTSA seeks public comment on the proposed changes to except
vehicles without manually operated driver controls from S3.1.4.3 of
FMVSS No. 102.
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, E.O. 14192, and E.O. 14219
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Orders 12866, 14192, and 14219. This proposed rule does not
meet the criteria of a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866. Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has not reviewed this proposed rule under those orders. This
proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, is expected to be an E.O.
14192 deregulatory action because it removes an unnecessary regulatory
burden for the reasons discussed above. At this stage, the agency has
not quantified any potential benefits or costs. For this rule, NHTSA
does not anticipate any new regulatory costs, as it would remove
unnecessary requirements without adding any new requirements. NHTSA
does not anticipate any safety disbenefits for the proposed changes.
The primary benefit of this rule would be reduced compliance costs.
However, given the still-developing nature of this market, NHTSA cannot
quantify the number of vehicles that may be potentially affected by
this proposed rule. Further, without this regulatory change, NHTSA
believes that these vehicles would seek exemptions from this standard,
rather than include the unnecessary equipment. Finally, though NHTSA
could seek to quantify compliance costs on a per-vehicle basis, any
estimate based on traditional vehicle configurations may not be
accurate, given the different design and nature of ADS-equipped
vehicles without manually operated driving controls. NHTSA requests
comment on these assumptions and any other information that could help
quantify their impacts in the final rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), agencies must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rulemaking on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of
an agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rulemaking will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. NHTSA has concluded and hereby certifies that this proposed
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. As the factual basis for this certification,
NHTSA finds as follows: As described elsewhere in the preamble, NHTSA
proposes to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens and costs associated
with a transmission shift position display unnecessary for an ADS-
equipped vehicle without manually operated driving controls, with no
negative impact to vehicle safety.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this
notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Pursuant to 49 CFR
1.81, the Secretary has delegated the ``functions'' under NEPA to the
Administrators ``as they relate to the matters within the primary
responsibility of each Operating Administration.'' NHTSA has determined
that this rule is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR
771.118(c)(4). Categorical exclusions are actions identified in an
agency's NEPA procedures that do not normally have a significant impact
on the environment and therefore do not require either an environmental
assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See DOT Order
5610.1D Sec. 9. In analyzing the applicability of a categorical
exclusion, the agency must also consider whether extraordinary
circumstances are present that would warrant the preparation of an EA
or EIS. Id. at Sec. 9(b). The Department's Operating Administrations
(OAs) may apply CEs established in another OA's procedures. Id. at
Sec. 9(f). To do so, the Operating Administration ``must evaluate the
action for extraordinary circumstances identified in the OA procedures
in which the CE is established to determine if a normally excluded
action may have a significant impact and coordinate with the
originating OA to ensure that the CE is being applied correctly.'' Id.
This rulemaking, which proposes to amend FMVSS No. 102, ``Transmission
shift position sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking
effect,'' to exclude ADS-equipped vehicles without manually operated
driving controls from the requirement for a transmission shift position
display, is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4):
Planning and administrative activities not involving or leading
directly to construction, such as: Training, technical assistance and
research; promulgation of rules, regulations, directives, or program
guidance; approval of project concepts; engineering; and operating
assistance to transit authorities to continue existing service or
increase service to meet routine demand. NHTSA has coordinated with the
Federal Transit Administration to ensure that this CE is being applied
correctly. NHTSA does not anticipate any environmental impacts, and
there are no extraordinary circumstances present in connection with
this rulemaking.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined this rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and has tentatively concluded that no
additional
[[Page 12535]]
consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives
is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has tentatively
concluded that this rule does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or
the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. NHTSA expects
that this rule, if adopted, would not have ``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.''
NHTSA rules can have a preemptive effect in two ways. First, the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express
preemption provision: When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect
under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may
prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same
aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment
only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this
chapter. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by
Congress that preempts any non-identical State legislative and
administrative law addressing the same aspect of performance. NHTSA is
not aware of any State motor vehicle equipment or inspection laws or
regulations that require ADS-equipped vehicles that do not have manual
driving controls to be equipped with transmission shift positions
displays. However, NHTSA seeks comment on whether any such State
requirements exist that would be preempted by this rule, if adopted.
The express preemption provision described above is subject to a
savings clause under which compliance with a motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from
liability at common law. 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express
preemption provision generally are preserved.
NHTSA rules can also preempt State law if complying with the FMVSS
would render the motor vehicle manufacturers liable under State tort
law. Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum
standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose
a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers generally will not be
preempted. If and when such a conflict does exist--for example, when
the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum standard--the
State common law tort cause of action is impliedly preempted. See Geier
v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
Pursuant to Executive Orders 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered
whether this proposed rule would preempt State common law causes of
action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the
preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that
preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation. This
rule simply proposes to allow for the removal of transmission shift
position displays in ADS-equipped vehicles that do not have manual
driving controls. These displays were intended only for a human driver
operating a vehicle with manual driving controls, and do not serve a
safety purpose for ADS-equipped vehicles that do not have manual
driving controls. NHTSA believes that this change will have no effect
on safety. Thus, NHTSA tentatively concludes that no conflict with
State common law causes of action would occur. Without any conflict,
there could not be any implied preemption of a State common law tort
cause of action. NHTSA also seeks comment on this tentative conclusion.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729; Feb. 7, 1996), requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) specifies
whether administrative proceedings are to be required before parties
file suit in court; (6) adequately defines key terms; and (7) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is
consistent with these requirements.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of
preemption is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no
requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or
pursue other administrative proceedings before they may file suit in
court. In addition, the rule provides a clear legal standard for
compliance, while promoting simplification and burden reduction by
excepting vehicles without manual controls from the requirements
without any reduction in safety.
Privacy Act
Please note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of
all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For
information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, see
<a href="http://www.transportation.gov/privacy">www.transportation.gov/privacy</a>.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, as amended by Public Law 107-
107 (15 U.S.C. 272), directs the agency to evaluate and use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or is otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards
bodies, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA
directs us to provide Congress (through OMB) with explanations when the
agency decides not to use available and potentially applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),
Public Law 104-4, requires Federal agencies to prepare a written
assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted
for inflation with base year of 1995). Adjusting this amount by the
implicit gross domestic product price deflator for the year 2024
results in $187 million (125.224/66.937 = 1.87). This NPRM would not
result in a cost of $187 million or more to either State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector. Thus, this
NPRM is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 of the UMRA.
[[Page 12536]]
Executive Order 13609 (Promoting Regulatory Cooperation)
The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609
provides, in part: The regulatory approaches taken by foreign
governments may differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to
address similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the
regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign
counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of
American businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation
can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that
are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation.
International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or
prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.
In addition, section 24211 of the Infrastructure, Investment, and
Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58), Global Harmonization, provides that DOT
``shall cooperate, to the maximum extent practicable, with foreign
governments, nongovernmental stakeholder groups, the motor vehicle
industry, and consumer groups with respect to global harmonization of
vehicle regulations as a means for improving motor vehicle safety.''
\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ H.R. 3684 (117th Congress) (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed amendment would except certain vehicles from current
regulations and therefore does not implicate any issues regarding
international regulatory cooperation.
Severability
The issue of severability of FMVSSs is addressed in 49 CFR 571.9.
It provides that if any FMVSS or its application to any person or
circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the part and the
application of that standard to other persons or circumstances is
unaffected. Comments are requested on the severability of this proposed
FMVSS.
Regulation Identifier Number
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda twice annually. You may use the RIN
contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this
action in the Unified Agenda.
Rulemaking Summary, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4)
As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule can be
found in the Abstract section of the Department's Unified Agenda entry
for this rulemaking at <a href="https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202504&RIN=2127-AM72">https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202504&RIN=2127-AM72</a>.
VI. Public Participation
How long do I have to submit comments?
Please see DATES section at the beginning of this document.
How do I prepare and submit comments?
<bullet> Your comments must be written in English.
<bullet> To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the
Docket, please include the Docket Number shown at the beginning of this
document in your comments.
<bullet> Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR
553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your
primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach
necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on
the length of the attachments.
<bullet> If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF
(Adobe) File, NHTSA asks that the documents be submitted using the
Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing NHTSA to
search and copy certain portions of your submissions. Comments may be
submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto the Docket
Management System website at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
<bullet> You may also submit your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
ADDRESSES.
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html">http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html</a>. DOT's
guidelines may be accessed at <a href="http://www.bts.gov/programs/statistical_policy_and_research/data_quality_guidelines">http://www.bts.gov/programs/statistical_policy_and_research/data_quality_guidelines</a>.
How can I be sure that my comments were received?
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.
How do I submit confidential business information?
You should submit a redacted ``public version'' of your comment
(including redacted versions of any additional documents or
attachments) to the docket using any of the methods identified under
ADDRESSES. This ``public version'' of your comment should contain only
the portions for which no claim of confidential treatment is made and
from which those portions for which confidential treatment is claimed
has been redacted. See below for further instructions on how to do
this.
You also need to submit a request for confidential treatment
directly to the Office of the Chief Counsel. Requests for confidential
treatment are governed by 49 CFR part 512. Your request must set forth
the information specified in Part 512. This includes the materials for
which confidentiality is being requested (as explained in more detail
below); supporting information, pursuant to Part 512.8; and a
certificate, pursuant to Part 512.4(b) and Part 512, Appendix A.
You are required to submit to the Office of the Chief Counsel one
unredacted ``confidential version'' of the information for which you
are seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to Part 512.6, the words
``ENTIRE PAGE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION'' or ``CONFIDENTIAL
BUSINESS INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN BRACKETS'' (as applicable) must
appear at the top of each page containing information claimed to be
confidential. In the latter situation, where not all information on the
page is claimed to be confidential, identify each item of information
for which confidentiality is requested within brackets: ``[ ].''
You are also required to submit to the Office of the Chief Counsel
one redacted ``public version'' of the information for which you are
seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to Part 512.5(a)(2), the
redacted ``public version'' should include redactions of any
information for which you are seeking confidential treatment (i.e., the
only information that should be unredacted is information for which you
are not seeking confidential treatment).
[[Page 12537]]
NHTSA is currently treating electronic submission as an acceptable
method for submitting confidential business information to the agency
under Part 512. Please do not send a hardcopy of a request for
confidential treatment to NHTSA's headquarters. The request should be
sent to Dan Rabinovitz in NHTSA's Office of the Chief Counsel (NCC) at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a6e2c7c8cfc3ca88f4c7c4cfc8c9d0cfd2dce6c2c9d288c1c9d0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b3f7d2dddad6df9de1d2d1dadddcc5dac7c9f3d7dcc79dd4dcc5">[email protected]</span></a>. You may either submit your request via email
or request a secure file transfer link. Manufacturers or any companies
that already have a Confidential Business Information (CBI) Portal
account or an Enterprise Account with NHTSA should use the CBI Portal
for their submission. If you submit a CBI request, please also email a
courtesy copy of the request to David Jasinski at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#682c091e010c4622091b01061b0301280c071c460f071e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="195d786f707d3753786a70776a7270597d766d377e766f">[email protected]</span></a>.
Will the Agency consider late comments?
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing
the final rule, we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion
for future rulemaking action.
How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are
indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on
the internet. To read the comments on the internet, go to
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
Please note that, even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
Proposed Regulatory Text
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 571 as set forth below:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
0
2. Section 571.102 is amended by revising S3.1.4.3, to read as follows:
Sec. 571.102 Standard No. 102; Transmission shift position sequence,
starter interlock, and transmission braking effect.
S3.1.4.3 Such information need not be displayed when the ignition
is in a position that is used only to start the vehicle, or in a
vehicle without manually operated driving controls.
Issued on March 11, 2026, in Washington, DC, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95.
Jonathan Morrison,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2026-05024 Filed 3-13-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on March 16, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.