Rule2026-11080
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 204; Steering Control Rearward Displacement
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
June 3, 2026
Effective
July 6, 2026
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
On May 30, 2025, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement, so that it no longer applies to vehicles certified to the frontal barrier crash protection requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. The agency received one comment that supported the proposed changes to FMVSS No. 204. In addition, the commenter suggested additional amendments to remove obsolete regulatory text. NHTSA is adopting the proposed changes and the additional amendments suggested by the commenter.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 106 (Wednesday, June 3, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 3, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33116-33119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-11080]
[[Page 33116]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0032]
RIN 2127-AM84
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 204; Steering Control
Rearward Displacement
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 30, 2025, NHTSA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement, so that it no
longer applies to vehicles certified to the frontal barrier crash
protection requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.
208, Occupant Crash Protection. The agency received one comment that
supported the proposed changes to FMVSS No. 204. In addition, the
commenter suggested additional amendments to remove obsolete regulatory
text. NHTSA is adopting the proposed changes and the additional
amendments suggested by the commenter.
DATES:
Effective date: July 6, 2026.
Petitions for Reconsideration: If you wish to petition for
reconsideration of this rule, your petition must be received by July
20, 2026.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Docket No. NHTSA-
2025-0032 through any of the following methods:
<bullet> Electronic Submissions: Go to the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
<bullet> Fax: (202) 493-2251.
<bullet> Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket Management, 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., Monday through
Friday, except on Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help
you, please call (202) 366-9826 or (202) 366-9317 before coming.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act and
Instructions for Submission of Confidential Information heading below.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents, go
to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, or the street address listed above.
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may contact
Gary Brock at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f6b19784848fd8b48499959db6929982d8919980"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e5a28497979ccba7978a868ea5818a91cb828a93">[email protected]</span></a>. For legal issues, you may contact
John Piazza at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4f05202721611f262e35352e0f2b203b61282039"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c983a6a1a7e799a0a8b3b3a889ada6bde7aea6bf">[email protected]</span></a>. You can reach these officials by
phone at 202-366-1810. Address: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, West Building, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA published an NPRM \1\ on May 30, 2025,
proposing to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement. This safety standard
specifies requirements that limit the rearward displacement of the
steering column in a frontal crash. NHTSA proposed to exclude vehicles
from FMVSS No. 204 if they are certified to the frontal barrier crash
protection requirements of FMVSS No. 208. NHTSA received one comment on
this proposal. Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto Innovators)
commented in support of the proposed amendments to FMVSS No. 204. Auto
Innovators agreed with the conclusion reached by NHTSA that the frontal
crash protection requirements of FMVSS No. 208 are sufficient to ensure
limited steering column motion and occupant protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 90 FR 22968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In their comments, Auto Innovators also noted that section S4.1 of
FMVSS No. 204 includes an obsolete compliance date. S4.1 applies to
vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1991, while S4.2 applies to
vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1991. Auto Innovators
suggested removing S4.1 and replacing the introductory text of S4 with
a revised version of S4.2. NHTSA agrees with this suggestion and
believes that it is consistent with the proposal. NHTSA finds that,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) providing prior notice and opportunity
for comment on these additional changes to remove obsolete text is
unnecessary. Removal of text that is no longer applicable is not
substantive and unlikely to result in public interest or comment. NHTSA
is updating the regulatory text so that it is current.
Therefore, NHTSA is adopting the proposed changes to FMVSS No. 204
and the further changes suggested by Auto Innovators.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166; delegation
of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
Regulatory Analyses
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
This rule does not meet the criteria of a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Orders
14215 and 13563. Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
has not reviewed this rule under those orders.
This regulation is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.
Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation
The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609 provides
that the regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ
from those taken by the United States to address similar issues, and
that in some cases the differences between them might not be necessary
and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and
compete internationally. It further recognizes that in meeting shared
challenges involving health, safety, 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 and can reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary
differences in regulatory requirements.
In addition, section 24211 of the Infrastructure, Investment, and
Jobs Act, 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.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Public Law 117-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the changes adopted in this final rule are deleting
obsolete regulatory text, they do not implicate any issues regarding
international regulatory cooperation.
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.), for any
[[Page 33117]]
rulemaking where publication of a proposed rule is required by 5 U.S.C.
553 or any other law, agencies must prepare and make available for
public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the
effect of the rule 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 rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
I have concluded and hereby certify that this rule, which removes
duplicative requirements and obsolete regulatory text, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. NHTSA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule does not
meet the criteria in 5 U.S.C. 804(2) to be considered a major rule.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This final rule does not contain Federal mandates (under the
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local and
Tribal governments, or the private sector of $206 million (the value
equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2025) or
more in any one year. Thus, the rule is not subject to the analytical
requirements of the UMRA.
Executive Order 13175
Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and
coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies
that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative
comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or
actions that have substantial direct effects 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. NHTSA has assessed the impact
of this final rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule would
not have tribal implications that require consultation under Executive
Order 13175.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501-3520), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the
collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) control number. This final rule is deregulatory and only removes
duplicative requirements and obsolete text; the rule would not impose
any additional information collection requirements.
E-Government Act Compliance
NHTSA is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, 2002 to
promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to
provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government
information and services, and for other purposes. The E-Government Act
of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347, sec. 208, 116 Stat. 2899, 2921, Dec. 17,
2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct a privacy impact assessment
for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains,
or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or
substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or
disseminate information as a result of this rule. Accordingly, NHTSA
has not conducted a privacy impact assessment.
Executive Order 13132; Federalism Summary Impact Statement
NHTSA has examined this final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255; Aug. 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives
is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded
that the final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement. This final rule does 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 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 address the same aspect of performance.
The express preemption provision described above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]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 are generally preserved. However, the Supreme
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied
preemption of State common law tort causes of action by virtue of
NHTSA's rules--even if not expressly preempted.
This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon the
existence of an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher
standard that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle
manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment
against the manufacturer--notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance
with the NHTSA standard. 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
will generally not be preempted. However, 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 Order 13132, NHTSA has considered whether
this final rule could or should 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
[[Page 33118]]
likelihood that preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort
litigation.
To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language
and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of this final rule
and does not foresee any potential State requirements that might
conflict with it. NHTSA does not intend that this final rule preempt
state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor
vehicle manufacturers than that established by this final rule.
Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not
conflict with the standards in this final rule. Without any conflict,
there could not be any implied preemption of a State common law tort
cause of action.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this final
rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). NHTSA has determined that this rule is
categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4). Categorical
exclusions are categories of actions that the agency has determined
normally do not significantly affect the quality of the human
environment and therefore do not require either an environmental
assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). 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. The Department's Operating
Administrations (OAs) may apply CEs established in another OA's
procedures. 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.'' This
rulemaking, which removes unnecessary regulatory text from FMVSS No.
204, 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 (FTA) 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 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61
FR 4729, February 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) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General.
NHTSA has reviewed this rulemaking action and determined that it
conforms to the applicable standards in section 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. The issue of preemption is discussed above in
connection with E.O. 13132 (Federalism). NHTSA believes that this final
rule specifies clearly the changes made to FMVSS No. 204, defines any
necessary key terms, and provides a clear legal standard for
manufacturers to follow. The amendments do not take effect
retroactively. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that an
individual submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other
administrative proceedings before they may file suit in court.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Public Law 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments
shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as
a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the
agencies and departments.'' Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as SAE (formerly, the
Society of Automotive Engineers). The NTTAA directs this agency to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. Because
the changes in this final rule are deleting obsolete regulatory text,
they do not implicate any issues regarding consensus standards.
Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
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 in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Privacy Act and Instructions for Submission of Confidential Information
NHTSA will place any petitions for reconsideration received into
the docket. Anyone can search the electronic form of all documents
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, or other organization). For
information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, see <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/privacy">https://www.transportation.gov/privacy</a>.
You should submit a redacted ``public version'' of your petition
(including redacted versions of any additional documents or
attachments) using any of the methods identified under ADDRESSES. This
``public version'' 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.
If you submit confidential information, you also need to submit a
request for confidential treatment directly to the Office of 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 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
[[Page 33119]]
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 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). 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 the Office of the Chief
Counsel at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#94d0f5fafdf1f8bac6f5f6fdfafbe2fde0eed4f0fbe0baf3fbe2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="773316191e121b592516151e1918011e030d3713180359101801">[email protected]</span></a>. You may either submit your
request via email or request a secure file transfer link. If you are
submitting the request via email, please also email a courtesy copy of
the request to John Piazza at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a3e9cccbcd8df3cac2d9d9c2e3c7ccd78dc4ccd5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="62280d0a0c4c320b0318180322060d164c050d14">[email protected]</span></a>.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Motor vehicle safety, motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as
follows:
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. Amend Sec. 571.204 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs S2 and S4 and
0
b. Removing paragraphs S4.1 and S4.2.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 571.204 Standard No. 204; Steering control rearward
displacement.
* * * * *
S2. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars and to
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. However, it does not
apply to vehicles certified to S14 of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR
571.208). It also does not apply to walk-in vans or vehicles without
steering controls.
* * * * *
S4. Requirements. When a passenger car or a truck, bus or
multipurpose passenger vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of
4,536 kg or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg or less is
tested under the conditions of S5 in a 48 km/h perpendicular impact
into a fixed collision barrier, the upper end of the steering column
and shaft in the vehicle shall not be displaced more than 127 mm in a
horizontal rearward direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the
vehicle. The amount of displacement shall be measured relative to an
undisturbed point on the vehicle and shall represent the maximum
dynamic movement of the upper end of the steering column and shaft
during the crash test.
* * * * *
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.7.
Jonathan Morrison,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2026-11080 Filed 6-2-26; 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 June 3, 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.