FMVSS No. 110 Amendment for ADS Vehicle Placard Placement

Content

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

NHTSA is proposing to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, “Tire selection and rims and motor home/recreation
vehicle trailer load carrying capacity information for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less.”
The proposed modification would amend a single section of the standard to enable compliance by affixing the required placard
on the left side of the vehicle when there is not a “driver's side” for vehicles equipped with Automated Driving Systems (ADS)
that do not have manually operated driving controls. This rulemaking would allow flexibility in complying with the standard
without detriment to 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 May 1, 2026.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments identified by the docket number in the heading of this document or by any of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the electronic docket site by clicking on “Help” or “FAQ.”

• Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket Management Facility. U.S. Department of Transportation. 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, 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.

• Fax: 202-493-2251.

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 http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.

Privacy Act: 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.). You
may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit https://www.transportation.gov/privacy.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets via internet.

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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical issues, you may contact Ms. Lina Valivullah, Office of Automation Safety; Telephone: 202-366-1810; Email: Lina.Valivullah@dot.gov; Facsimile: 202-493-2739. For legal issues, you may contact Mr. David Jasinski, NHTSA Office of the Chief Counsel, Email: David.Jasinski@dot.gov. 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 Changes

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 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110,
“Tire selection and rims and motor home/recreation vehicle trailer load carrying capacity information for motor vehicles with
a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less.” The proposed modification would provide flexibility to vehicles without
manually operated driving controls in the placard section of the standard. This rulemaking

  would remove regulatory burdens 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
placarding requirement in FMVSS No. 110 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.

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 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), “Occupant Protection for Automated Driving Systems,”
was published in 2020, (4) 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 comments
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.

NHTSA proposes a modification 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. Though 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 Changes

Background

FMVSS No. 110, “Tire selection and rims and motor home/recreation vehicle trailer load carrying capacity information for motor
vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less” specifies tire selection requirements. It also includes a
requirement to affix an informational placard on the driver's side of the vehicle.

Proposal

NHTSA proposes to update the language in S4.3 to clarify the placard location in a vehicle that does not have manually operated
driving controls and therefore does not have a “driver's side.” The proposed addition to S4.3 would provide that, if the vehicle
does not have a driver's side to affix the placard, the left side of the vehicle may be substituted for the driver's side
in the stated locations. In addition, notification with alternative location details could be submitted to NHTSA for approval.
NHTSA believes this addition provides clarity and flexibility for different types of vehicles without affecting safety.

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 change to FMVSS No. 110.

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 provide clarity and flexibility without adding any new requirements.
  NHTSA does not anticipate any safety disbenefits for the proposed changes. The benefits to this rule would be reduced need
  for vehicle exemptions from this standard. 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 the location of the tire placard, 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 § 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. § 9(b). The Department's Operating Administrations (OAs) may apply CEs established in another OA's procedures. Id. § 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. 110, “Tire selection and rims and motor home/recreation vehicle trailer
load carrying capacity information for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less,” to update the
regulatory language, 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 E.O. 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 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 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. The 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 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 pertain to placement of the informational placard. 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 an 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 E.O. 13132 and E.O. 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 addresses the location of the informational placard. NHTSA believes that
  this change will have no effect on safety. Thus, NHTSA tentatively concludes that no conflict with State common law tort actions
  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 E.O. 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 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 www.transportation.gov/privacy.

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.

Executive Order 13609 (Promoting Regulatory Cooperation)

The policy statement in section 1 of E.O. 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.”

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 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 www.reginfo.gov.

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?

• Your comments must be written in English.
• 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.
• 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. • 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 www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

• 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, 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 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's guidelines may be accessed at http://www.bts.gov/programs/statistical_policy_and_research/data_quality_guidelines.

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).

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 Daniel.Rabinovitz@dot.gov. 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 David.Jasinski@dot.gov.

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 www.regulations.gov. 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.

Issued on March 27, 2026, in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95. Jonathan Morrison, Administrator.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

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

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.

1. Section 571.110 is amended by revising the introductory text of paragraph S4.3, to read as follows:

§ 571.110 Standard No. 110; Tire selection and rims and motor home/recreation vehicle trailer load carrying capacity information for
motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. * * * * *

S4.3 Placard. Each vehicle, except for a trailer or incomplete vehicle, shall show the information specified in S4.3 (a) through (g), and
may show, at the manufacturer's option, the information specified in S4.3 (h) and (i), on a placard permanently affixed to
the driver's side B-pillar. In each vehicle without a driver's side B-pillar and with two doors on the driver's side of the
vehicle opening in opposite directions, the placard shall be affixed on the forward edge of the rear side door. If the above
locations do not permit the affixing of a placard that is legible, visible, and prominent, the placard shall be permanently
affixed to the rear edge of the driver's side door. If this location does not permit the affixing of a placard that is legible,
visible, and prominent, the placard shall be affixed to the inward facing surface of the vehicle next to the driver's seating
position. If the vehicle does not have a driver's side, the left side of the vehicle may be substituted for the driver's side.
If none of the preceding locations is practicable, notification of that fact, together with drawings or photographs showing
a suggested alternate location in the same general area, shall be submitted for approval to the Administrator, National

  Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC 20590. This information shall be in the English language and conform
  in color and format, not including the border surrounding the entire placard, as shown in the example set forth in Figure
  1 in this standard. At the manufacturer's option, the information specified in S4.3 (c), (d), and, as appropriate, (h) and
  (i) may be shown, alternatively to being shown on the placard, on a tire inflation pressure label which must conform in color
  and format, not including the border surrounding the entire label, as shown in the example set forth in Figure 2 in this standard.
  The label shall be permanently affixed and proximate to the placard required by this paragraph. The information specified
  in S4.3 (e) shall be shown on both the vehicle placard and on the tire inflation pressure label (if such a label is affixed
  to provide the information specified in S4.3 (c), (d), and, as appropriate, (h) and (i)) may be shown in the format and color
  scheme set forth in Figures 1 and 2. If the vehicle is a motor home and is equipped with a propane supply, the weight of full
  propane tanks must be included in the vehicle's unloaded vehicle weight. If the vehicle is a motor home and is equipped with
  an on-board potable water supply, the weight of such on-board water must be treated as cargo.

---

[FR Doc. 2026-06254 Filed 3-31-26; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

Footnotes

(1) See, e.g., SAE, Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On Road Motor Vehicles, J3016202104 (April
30, 2021), *available at https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3016202104/;* Tex. Transp. Code section 545.451.

(2) 83 FR 6148.

(3) 84 FR 24433.

(4) 85 FR 17624.

(5) 87 FR 18560.

(6) 85 FR 78058.

Download File

Download