Proposed Rule2026-19242
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Denial of a Petition for Rulemaking
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
September 21, 2026
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
This document denies the September 11, 2025, petition for rulemaking submitted by Eric Dauster ("petitioner"). The petitioner requested that the agency initiate rulemaking to establish new standards for a centralized National Map Database (NMD) containing static roadway information and requiring global mapping providers to conform to these standards. The petitioner stated that the NMD standards should apply to entities responsible for the installation and maintenance of road infrastructure, including local municipalities, state transportation agencies, and private contractors. NHTSA is denying the petition based on a lack of information necessary for the agency to take action under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as well as the agency's view concerning the efficient allocation of agency resources.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 181 (Monday, September 21, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 181 (Monday, September 21, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59755-59756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-19242]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2026-2047]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Denial of a Petition for
Rulemaking
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document denies the September 11, 2025, petition for
rulemaking submitted by Eric Dauster (``petitioner''). The petitioner
requested that the agency initiate rulemaking to establish new
standards for a centralized National Map Database (NMD) containing
static roadway information and requiring global mapping providers to
conform to these standards. The petitioner stated that the NMD
standards should apply to entities responsible for the installation and
maintenance of road infrastructure, including local municipalities,
state transportation agencies, and private contractors. NHTSA is
denying the petition based on a lack of information necessary for the
agency to take action under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act, as well as the agency's view concerning the efficient
allocation of agency resources.
DATES: September 21, 2026.
ADDRESSES: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, please contact
Mr. Michael Venegas, Office of Automation Safety; Telephone: 202-366-
1810; Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cea3a7ada6afaba2e0b8aba0aba9afbd8eaaa1bae0a9a1b8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ee3e7ede6efebe2a0f8ebe0ebe9effdceeae1faa0e9e1f8">[email protected]</span></a>. For legal issues, please contact
David Jasinski, Office of the Chief Counsel; Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#432722352a276d2922302a2d30282a03272c376d242c35"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cca8adbaa5a8e2a6adbfa5a2bfa7a58ca8a3b8e2aba3ba">[email protected]</span></a>. The mailing address for these officials is:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Petitions for Rulemaking
III. NHTSA's Analysis and Decision
I. Background
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (``Safety Act'')
(49 U.S.C. 3010 et seq.) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for
new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Each
safety standard must be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle
safety, and be stated in objective terms. NHTSA does not endorse or
approve any vehicles or items of equipment. Further, NHTSA does not
approve or certify vehicles or equipment. Instead, the Safety Act
establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer
is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable
safety standards.
Petitions for rulemaking are governed by 49 CFR part 552. Pursuant
to section 552.6, the agency conducts a technical review of the
petition, which may consist of an analysis of the material submitted,
together with information already in possession of the agency. In
deciding whether to grant or deny a petition, the agency considers this
technical review as well as appropriate factors, which include, among
others, allocation of agency resources and agency priorities.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 49 CFR 552.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Petition for Rulemaking
The petitioner submitted a letter, dated September 11, 2025, that
includes a rulemaking petition pursuant to 49 CFR part 552.\2\ The
rulemaking petition requests that NHTSA establish standards for a NMD
that would serve as a centralized repository of static roadway
information. The petition further requests all entities responsible for
the installation and maintenance of road infrastructure maintain the
NMD and all global map providers conform existing map databases to the
new NMD standards. The petitioner states that the NMD standards should
be established due to the increasing deployment of Automated Driving
Systems (ADS) and the reliance of ADS on accurate and consistent static
map data to operate safely. As supporting information, the petition
includes various references, such as short descriptions and links to
articles and videos.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See the petition in the docket for this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. NHTSA's Analysis and Decision
After a thorough review of the petition and accompanying materials
provided by the petitioner, NHTSA has decided to deny the NMD
rulemaking petition based on a lack of sufficient data necessary to
proceed under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 30111(a) and (b)
the allocation of agency resources.
Insufficient Information To Suggest NMD Will Address Safety Need
Although conformance of map standards may have safety benefits for
the deployment and operation of ADS-equipped vehicles, the petitioner
has not provided sufficient information to establish the extent to
which the proposed NMD standards will address ADS relevant safety
needs.
NHTSA reviewed all sources provided by the petitioner to determine
whether and to what extent a safety need exists that could be resolved
by introducing NMD standards. Without more detailed evidence, it is
inconclusive whether map data inaccuracies are the root cause for the
ADS performance errors described by each of the provided sources. Some
sources do not directly reference map inaccuracies but instead point to
localization, perception, or other software errors. For example, the
petitioner references UC Irvine research from 2025 and summarily states
the research ``demonstrated that multicolored stickers placed on
traffic signs can cause self-driving systems to misinterpret commands,
resulting in hazardous braking or speeding.'' In reviewing the
research, UC Irvine points to possible limitations with regards to
traffic sign recognition due to physical patches or posters applied to
stop signs and speed limit signs, which NHTSA interprets as vision-
based inaccuracies rather than map inaccuracy issues.
Other sources cited in the petition and incidents reviewed by the
petitioner and included in the petition make claims that map data
inaccuracies are the root cause of incidents with ADS-equipped
vehicles. However, upon
[[Page 59756]]
NHTSA's review, depending on implementation specifics, such claims are
inconclusive and could equally be attributed to localization,
perception, or other software errors. Where map updates are included as
a remedy, they conform to the specification of the particular ADS
entity. For example, the petitioner provided links to articles
referring to two recalls conducted by Waymo. One recall involved a
software update to avoid incidents involving stationary and semi-
stationary roadway barriers, such as chains and gates, by improving
detection and avoidance of such roadway barriers.\3\ The second recall
relates to a collision with a pole in Phoenix, Arizona.\4\ The remedy
included (among other software updates) a map update to include a hard
road edge between the driveable surface area and pole-like permanent
objects which reside within the boundaries of the road rather than the
accuracy of the placement of the object itself. The map update remedy
is pertinent to Waymo's specifications for mapping near particular
objects; however, the specific approach or application of such
boundaries may not be pertinent or directly transferable to all ADS
developers or operators. While the sources provided support the
importance of maps in maintaining ADS safety, the petitioner has not
demonstrated sufficient information to establish the extent to which
the proposed NMD standards will address ADS safety needs across the
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/?nhtsaId=25E034000">https://www.nhtsa.gov/?nhtsaId=25E034000</a>.
\4\ <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/?nhtsaId=24E049000">https://www.nhtsa.gov/?nhtsaId=24E049000</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insufficient Information To Support Statutory Authority
The petitioner has not provided information on the practical means
or solutions by which NHTSA may establish a standard.
Consistent with the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards apply to manufacturers of motor vehicles and
motor vehicle equipment. The proposed rulemaking calls for a national
map database of static road features which is to be maintained by
entities responsible for installing and maintaining road
infrastructure. Since these entities are not manufacturers of motor
vehicle equipment, NHTSA would likely not have authority to regulate
these entities under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.
Furthermore, the petition provides enumerated rule requirements,
including accuracy standards, update frequency and validation, data
integrity and cybersecurity, and reconciliation and standardization for
external mapping companies, which may present significant challenges to
practicability. High-definition maps are not specifically called out in
the petition but are implied as the solution based on the proposed
standards for positional accuracy, resolution, and acceptable error
margins. To generate this level of accuracy at the frequency (the
petition states daily at minimum) and resolving map errors (petition
states within 72 hours) is likely to be a significant burden to the
responsible entities. In addition, the entities responsible for
installing and maintaining road infrastructure may not have the
existing expertise or resources to collect and maintain such detailed
level of information. The petition also calls for a public error-
reporting portal to catch possible map errors. This could result in
questionable error reporting which would need to be verified first
before taking action to correct. No practicable solutions are provided
for responsible entities to verify such error reporting nor means to
determine resolution criticality based on safety impact considering the
multitude of different ADS implementations and areas of operation,
influencing their sensitivities to such errors. Finally, a phased
rollout approach is proposed to prioritize high-traffic and high-risk
areas along with error update time windows based on what is deemed
critical or non-critical. Given the variety of ADS applications and
operating areas, it is not clear by what means or methods error
criticality is to be determined nor prioritization of update rollout to
avoid the potential for uneven advantages given to specific ADS
manufacturers or operators.
The Department's Automated Vehicle (AV) Framework \5\ follows three
guiding principles to: (1) prioritize the safety of ongoing ADS-
equipped vehicle operations on public roads, (2) unleash innovation by
removing unnecessary regulatory barriers, and (3) enable commercial
deployment of ADS-equipped vehicles to enhance safety and mobility for
the American public. NHTSA has already begun allocation of resources to
meet the principles of this framework, including through initiating
rulemakings related to ADS and reforming its exemption processes, as
well as continuing to monitor ADS-equipped vehicles through the
Standing General Order on Crash Reporting (SGO) and other enforcement
activities. At this time, due in part to the concerns identified above,
NHTSA does not believe its resources promoting ADS safety are best used
in pursuing a rulemaking based on this petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/trumps-transportation-secretary-sean-p-duffy-unveils-new-automated-vehicle-framework">https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/trumps-transportation-secretary-sean-p-duffy-unveils-new-automated-vehicle-framework</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, NHTSA is denying Eric Dauster's rulemaking petition.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.95.
Issued on in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95 and 501.5.
Jonathan Morrison,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2026-19242 Filed 9-18-26; 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 September 21, 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.