Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 216; Roof Crush Resistance, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216a; Roof Crush Resistance; Upgraded Standard

• Citation: 91 FR 33078
• Published date: 03 June 2026
• FR Document: 2026-11068
• Pages: 33078-33081
• Section: Rules and Regulations
• Issuer: Transportation Department,National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

33078

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

1

90 FR 22983.

2

Docket number NHTSA–2025–0039, document

number NHTSA–2025–0039–0002.

Division, U.S. Coast Guard: telephone

410–576–2596, email

MDNCRMarineEvents@uscg.mil.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

: The Coast

Guard will enforce the safety zone

regulation for a fireworks display on the

Upper Potomac River, at Washington,

DC from 8:30 p.m. until 9:30 p.m., on

June 13, 2026. This action is being taken

to provide for the safety of life on

navigable waterways during this event.

Our regulation for recurring safety zones

for fireworks displays within the USCG

East District, 33 CFR 165.506, specifies

the location of the safety zone for the

fireworks show, which encompasses

portions of the Washington Channel in

the Upper Potomac River, in line no. 3

of Table 2 to Paragraph (h)(2). As

reflected in 33 CFR 165.23, vessels in

the vicinity of the safety zone may not

enter, remain in, or transit through the

safety zone during the enforcement

period unless authorized to do so by the

COTP or his representative, and they

must comply with directions from the

Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol

displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

In addition to this notification of

enforcement in the Federal Register, the

Coast Guard plans to provide

notification of this enforcement period

via the Local Notice to Mariners and

marine information broadcasts.

Dated: June 1, 2026.

Patrick C. Burkett,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the

Port, Sector Maryland-National Capital

Region.

[FR Doc. 2026–11096 Filed 6–2–26; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA–2025–0039]

RIN 2127–AM90

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards No. 216; Roof Crush

Resistance, Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard No. 216a; Roof Crush

Resistance; Upgraded Standard

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) to remove the

obsolete Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard (FMVSS) No. 216, related to

roof crush resistance. The agency

received one comment, but the

comment is not within the scope of the

proposed rule. Therefore, the agency is

removing the obsolete FMVSS No. 216

as proposed.

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–

2025–0039 through any of the following

methods:

•Electronic Submissions: Go to the

Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online

instructions for submitting comments.

•Fax: (202) 493–2251.

•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 http://

www.regulations.gov, 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

http://www.regulations.gov, or the street

address listed above. Follow the online

instructions for accessing the dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

: For

technical issues, you may contact Carla

Rush (email: Carla.Rush@dot.gov). For

legal issues, you may contact John

Piazza at John.Piazza@dot.gov. 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 remove the obsolete

FMVSS No. 216, ‘‘Roof crush resistance,

Applicable unless a vehicle is certified

to § 571.216a,’’ which originally went

into effect on September 1, 1973. It

established strength requirements for

the passenger compartment roof of

vehicles. NHTSA has since

implemented an updated roof crush

resistance standard in FMVSS No. 216a,

for which a multi-year phase-in required

full compliance by Model Year 2016.

Since FMVSS No. 216 is no longer

necessary, this final rule removes it and

modifies FMVSS No. 216a to clarify its

applicability. NHTSA received a

comment from The People’s Republic of

China, but the comment is outside the

scope of the rulemaking.

2

The People’s

Republic of China requested a two-year

phase-in for vehicles that are compliant

with FMVSS No. 216; however, full

compliance with FMVSS No. 216a was

required by model year 2016.

For the reasons set forth in the May

30, 2025 NPRM, NHTSA is adopting the

proposed changes to FMVSS No. 216

and FMVSS No. 216a in this final rule

without amendment.

This action does not affect the

applicability of 49 U.S.C. 30122, which

prohibits certain entities from making

inoperative any part of a device or

element of design installed in vehicle

pursuant to an FMVSS applicable on the

date of manufacture.

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Jun 02, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03JNR1.SGM 03JNR1

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES1

33079

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

3

Public Law 117–58.

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.’’

3

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

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 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 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 obsolete regulatory text; the

rule does 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 proposed 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Jun 02, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03JNR1.SGM 03JNR1

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES1

33080

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

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

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 FMVSS No.

216 in its entirety and modifies FMVSS

No. 216a to clarify its applicability, 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

removal of FMVSS No. 216 in its

entirety and modification of FMVSS No.

216a to clarify its applicability, 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) (Pub. L. 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

https://www.transportation.gov/privacy.

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Jun 02, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03JNR1.SGM 03JNR1

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES1

33081

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

1

90 FR 22973.

2

72 FR 5385 (Feb. 6, 2007).

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

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

Daniel.Rabinovitz@dot.gov. 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 John.Piazza@

dot.gov.

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

■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.

§ 571.216 [Removed]

■2. Remove § 571.216.

§ 571.216a [Amended]

■3. Amend § 571.216a by removing

paragraph S3.1(c).

Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR

1.95 and 501.7.

Jonathan Morrison,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 2026–11068 Filed 6–2–26; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA–2025–0035]

RIN 2127–AM86

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards No. 206; Door Locks and

Door Retention Components

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

remove obsolete requirements from

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

(FMVSS) No. 206, ‘‘Door locks and door

retention components.’’ The agency

received no comment on the proposed

changes to FMVSS No. 206 and

therefore the agency is adopting the

changes in this final rule.

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–

2025–0035 through any of the following

methods:

•Electronic Submissions: Go to the

Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online

instructions for submitting comments.

•Fax: (202) 493–2251.

•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 http://

www.regulations.gov, 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

http://www.regulations.gov, or the street

address listed above. Follow the online

instructions for accessing the dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

: For

technical issues, you may contact James

Myers (email: James.Myers@dot.gov).

For legal issues, you may contact John

Piazza at John.Piazza@dot.gov. 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 remove S4.1.3.2 in FMVSS

No. 206, ‘‘Door locks and door retention

components,’’ because the requirements

in this section are redundant. Paragraph

S4.1.3.2 purports to include

requirements for side rear door locks.

Paragraph S4.1.3.2 currently appears

immediately following S4.1.2.3(b) in the

standard, with no S4.1.3 or S4.1.3.1

appearing in the standard. Paragraph

S4.1.3.2 was intended to have been

deleted during updates to the regulatory

text implemented in a 2007 final rule.

2

That rule included requirements for rear

door locks in S4.3.1. Therefore, S4.1.3.2

is unnecessary, and NHTSA proposed to

delete it.

NHTSA received no comments on this

proposal. For the reasons set forth in the

May 30, 2025 NPRM, NHTSA is

adopting the proposed changes to

FMVSS No. 206 in this final rule

without amendment.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Jun 02, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03JNR1.SGM 03JNR1

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES1