NHTSA Adds Automated Vehicles Rules to Unified Agenda

If you’ve ever wondered how a federal agency “soft-launches” a big idea before it shows up in the
Federal Register with 200 pages of definitions and everyone’s favorite bedtime story, “Requests for
Comment,” welcome to the Unified Agenda.

In the latest round, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) placed three
automated-vehicle-related rulemakings onto the Unified Agendaessentially a public, government-wide
planning list that signals what regulations agencies expect to work on and when. The headline sounds
bureaucratic (because it is), but the implications are very real: these entries point toward updates to
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that were written for a world where every vehicle has
a human driver, a steering wheel, and at least one person who has accidentally turned on the windshield
wipers while searching for the turn signal.

The short version: NHTSA is teeing up proposed changes to three FMVSS areastransmission shift
interlocks (FMVSS 102), windshield defrosting/defogging and wiping/washing (FMVSS 103/104), and
lighting equipment (FMVSS 108)to make those standards workable for automated driving systems (ADS)
vehicles that may have no manual controls. That “no manual controls” detail is the whole plot.

Why the Unified Agenda matters (and why it’s not “just paperwork”)

The Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions is a twice-yearly snapshot of what federal
agencies are planning to propose, finalize, or otherwise move through the rulemaking pipeline. Think
of it as the government’s shared calendar inviteless “RSVP required,” more “heads up, this is likely
coming.”

Unified Agenda 101: it’s a signal, not a finish line

Being listed in the Unified Agenda does not mean a rule is final, inevitable, or even
perfectly on schedule. Timelines can slip; priorities can change. But it does mean the agency is
actively planning work, has a subject area defined enough to publish it publicly, and wants stakeholders
to see what’s on deck. For companies building automated vehiclesor suppliers designing components that
have to pass compliance teststhis early visibility is gold.

And for everyone else? It’s a peek into how transportation safety rules evolve. Because yes, the rules
do evolvejust not at the speed of your phone’s operating system updates.

The three automated-vehicle FMVSS updates NHTSA put on the Agenda

NHTSA’s three entries are all about modernizing standards that assume a human driver and manual controls.
The agency’s own framing emphasizes maintaining existing safety performance while updating applicability
and testability for new vehicle designs.

1) FMVSS No. 102: Transmission shift position sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect

FMVSS 102 is about ensuring vehicles shift in predictable, safe waysespecially when starting and moving.
In conventional vehicles, this intersects with “starter interlock” logic (e.g., don’t start in drive) and
requirements tied to the way gear selections are presented and controlled.

Here’s the automated-vehicle friction point: a truly driverless ADS vehicle might not have a traditional
gear selector, a driver-facing “PRNDL” display, or a human hand doing the shifting. It may use software
logic and redundancy rather than a physical lever. Existing standard language and compliance procedures
can implicitly assume those physical controls exist.

What a modernization could do, in practical terms, is clarify how FMVSS 102 applies when shifting is managed
by the ADSand how compliance tests should be run when there isn’t a human driver to perform the prescribed
steps. For developers, this could reduce a common headache: designing “ghost controls” solely to satisfy test
assumptions rather than real-world safety needs.

2) FMVSS No. 103 and 104: Windshield defrosting/defogging and wiping/washing

Wipers and defrosters seem hilariously old-school until you remember they’re about visibilitykeeping the
vehicle’s forward view usable in rain, snow, humidity, and that awkward seasonal transition where your
windshield becomes a science experiment.

Traditional standards and test procedures typically assume a human driver looking through a windshield and
operating manual controls. But many advanced ADS designs rely on sensor suites, cameras, or other perception
hardware that may not sit “where a driver looks,” or in some concepts may avoid conventional windshield placement
entirely. NHTSA’s agenda language also hints at how the standard should apply when a vehicle lacks manual controls
and does not have outward-facing cameras or sensors behind the windshield.

Translation: the agency is trying to preserve the safety objectiveensuring critical forward visibility and safe
operation in adverse conditionswhile acknowledging that “visibility” for an automated vehicle might mean “sensor
performance and environmental robustness,” not only human eyeballs behind glass.

If you operate or plan to operate ADS fleets, this kind of update matters because weather is where confidence goes
to die. Snow, heavy rain, glare, fog, grimethese are exactly the edge conditions that turn a glossy demo into a
very expensive parking lot ornament. Anything that clarifies regulatory expectations around clearing, defogging,
washing, and testing can shape design priorities early.

3) FMVSS No. 108: Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment

FMVSS 108 governs lightingheadlamps, turn signals, brake lights, reflectors, and the rules around how those
devices perform and are controlled.

The “human driver” assumption shows up in a bunch of subtle ways: references to driver location, driver-actuated
switches, manual activation in a test procedure, and expectations about telltales or control interfaces that might
not exist in a driverless cabin.

A modernization aimed at ADS vehicles without manual controls likely focuses on the same theme: keep the safety
performance requirements, but make the standard workable for novel designs. For example, if a vehicle has no turn
signal stalk because it has no steering wheel, the key question becomes: how does the ADS reliably control signaling
behavior (including hazards), how is that validated, and what failure modes must be addressed?

This is especially relevant because lighting is a communication layer. Humans don’t need to know what your
perception stack is doingthey need to know whether you’re stopping, turning, yielding, or about to do something
that will make them question their life choices. Clear rules here help everyone: manufacturers, fleets, and the
public sharing the road.

Why now: the “no manual controls” problem is finally front and center

NHTSA has been working on automated vehicle policy and rulemaking for years, but the new wave of Unified Agenda
items is notably specific: it targets standards that create friction when a vehicle is designed for operation
without a human driver and without driver-operated controls.

From a strategic standpoint, that focus aligns with a broader policy goal often described as avoiding a patchwork
of state-by-state approaches and moving toward clearer national expectations for automated vehicles.

Timeline-wise, the Agenda entries indicate targeted work in early 2026 for proposed rules. Those dates can be
placeholders (and they often are), but they still communicate urgency: NHTSA wants these proposals in motion, not
sitting in the “someday” folder.

How these Agenda items fit into the larger NHTSA automated-vehicle puzzle

The Unified Agenda additions don’t exist in isolation. They sit alongside (and sometimes depend on) other NHTSA
initiatives that shape how automated vehicles are evaluated, monitored, and allowed to operate at scale.

AV STEP: a voluntary program with not-so-voluntary influence

One of the most important recent developments is AV STEPthe ADS-equipped Vehicle Safety, Transparency, and
Evaluation Program. While framed as voluntary, the concept is bigger than a simple “opt in” checkbox.

In plain English, AV STEP is designed to create a national framework for oversight and transparency around ADS-equipped
vehicles operating (or planning to operate) on public roads. It also connects to exemptions for vehicles that may not
fully comply with existing FMVSSexactly the situation many novel ADS designs face.

Even a voluntary framework can reshape industry behavior because it sets expectations for documentation, safety cases,
reporting cadence, and third-party assessment. If you want public trust, regulator trust, partner trust, and “city
transportation committee at a Tuesday night meeting” trust, your homework has to look good.

Incident reporting: turning a standing order into formal requirements

Another key thread is incident reporting for ADS and Level 2 advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS). NHTSA has used
standing orders to require reporting of certain safety-related incidents, and there have been efforts to codify and
refine those requirements through rulemaking.

For automated-vehicle companies, this is the “data discipline” side of the story. It pushes the industry toward
consistent definitions, consistent reporting, and a clearer public recordwhile also raising practical questions:
What counts as a reportable incident? How fast must you report? How do you handle software updates that change system
behavior between one incident and the next?

A well-designed reporting framework can improve learning and accountability. A poorly designed one can turn into a
paperwork treadmill that produces noise instead of insight. The fact that NHTSA is working on modernization plus
oversight at the same time suggests it wants both: fewer outdated barriers, and better visibility into real-world safety.

Exemptions: the bridge between innovation and compliance reality

The exemption process matters because the FMVSS system is built around certification. If your ADS vehicle design
doesn’t map cleanly onto standards written for human-driven vehicles, you either redesign the vehicle to fit the
rules, seek exemptions, or waitsometimes indefinitelyfor the rules to catch up.

Modernizing FMVSS 102/103/104/108 helps reduce the need for exemptions driven purely by outdated assumptions.
Meanwhile, a clearer exemption path can help newer designs reach limited deployment while regulators learn what
should change long-term.

What this means for automakers, AV developers, and fleet operators

If you build or operate ADS vehicles, the Unified Agenda additions are not a reason to panicthey’re a reason to
plan. Here’s what “plan” actually looks like in this context:

Update your compliance map (and don’t wait for the NPRM to start)

Start by mapping which FMVSS requirements currently rely on manual controls, driver location assumptions, or test
procedures requiring a human to perform steps. The moment a proposed rule drops, the fastest teams aren’t the ones
who “read it first”they’re the ones who already know where it will land inside their design and validation workflow.

Build “testability” into your design, not afterthoughts

One recurring issue in ADS design is that a system can be safe in concept but painful to certify because the test
method doesn’t match the vehicle architecture. If FMVSS modernization shifts testing assumptions, that can either
reduce or increase design burden depending on how early you engage with compliance engineering.

Expect more attention to operational safety evidence

Modernizing a standard doesn’t automatically equal “looser rules.” Many updates are better understood as “rules that
are equally strict but less anchored to the 1990s control layout.” In practice, this can mean more emphasis on
demonstrating equivalent or improved safety performance through robust procedures, documentation, and validation.

Two concrete examples of how these changes could play out

Example 1: A driverless delivery pod operating in a rainy coastal city

Imagine a compact delivery vehicle designed with no steering wheel, no driver seat, and a sensor-heavy front end.
Under current assumptions, FMVSS 103/104 and FMVSS 108 can trigger awkward questions: Where are the manual controls?
How do you validate wiping and defogging performance if the vehicle’s “critical vision” is tied to sensors rather than
a driver’s field of view? How do you test lighting activation in scenarios typically initiated by a driver?

If NHTSA’s modernization clarifies applicability and testing approaches, the manufacturer can focus on safety outcomes:
weather robustness, sensor visibility, reliable lighting behavior, and fail-safe strategiesrather than building
artificial driver controls that exist only to satisfy procedure steps.

Example 2: A robotaxi designed for true “no driver” operation

For a purpose-built robotaxi, FMVSS 102 comes into play if there’s no traditional gear selector, and FMVSS 108 matters
for external communication with other road users. A clearer standard can reduce the “interpretation gap” where companies
and regulators spend months debating whether a requirement applies or how to measure it in a novel design.

The payoff is time and predictability. And in the automated vehicle world, predictability is practically a superpower.

What to watch next

• Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM): The Unified Agenda entries point toward proposed rules in 2026. When the NPRMs publish, the details will matter more than the headlines.
• Dockets and comment periods: Watch for how NHTSA defines scope (vehicles with ADS and no manual controls), and how it addresses test procedures.
• Interaction with other AV initiatives: AV STEP, incident reporting, and exemption updates all shape the compliance ecosystem around ADS deployments.
• Industry positioning: Automakers, AV developers, suppliers, and safety advocates will likely converge on a few recurring themes: safety equivalency, transparency, and practical testability.

Frequently asked questions

Does listing on the Unified Agenda mean these rules are guaranteed?

No. The Unified Agenda is a planning document, not a binding schedule. But it’s a strong indicator that NHTSA intends
to move forward and wants the public to see that intent early.

Are these rules about Level 2 driver-assistance systems?

The three new FMVSS modernization entries are framed around ADS vehicles lacking manual controls. Separate NHTSA efforts
address incident reporting that can include ADS and Level 2 ADAS, but the Agenda items highlighted here focus on standards
that assume a human driver interface.

Will these changes eliminate the need for exemptions?

Not entirely. Some novel designs will still conflict with other FMVSS provisions. But modernizing standards that are
“manual-control-dependent” can reduce exemptions sought solely to work around outdated assumptions.

Real-world experiences related to “NHTSA adds automated vehicles rules to the Unified Agenda”

If you want to understand what this Unified Agenda moment feels like inside an automated vehicle company, picture
a group chat that starts with: “New RINs dropped.” Then imagine five different teams reading that sentence five different ways.

The policy team reads it like a weather alert. The engineering team reads it like a surprise midterm. The product team reads it
like a roadmap slide that will definitely be used in the next investor deck. And the compliance team? The compliance team reads it
like a countdown clock that just started ticking, even though the actual NPRM isn’t out yet.

In practical terms, “rules added to the Unified Agenda” triggers a very specific set of routines:

• Someone makes a tracker. Not because they love spreadsheets (they don’t), but because every rulemaking becomes a living object:
  scope, key dates, internal owners, and a running list of questions that will need answers when the NPRM arrives.
• Someone else translates. Engineers do not naturally speak “Federal Register.” Lawyers do not naturally speak “sensor placement tradeoffs.”
  So the company creates a translation layer: what the rule might change, which design assumptions could be affected, and what data will be needed
  to argue for a workable compliance path.
• The “manual controls” debate shows up everywhere. A surprisingly large amount of vehicle architecture is downstream of one question:
  Are we building for “driver optional” or “driver absent”? The Unified Agenda entries that explicitly target vehicles without manual controls tend to push
  organizations toward sharper decisions. If your concept vehicle is truly driverless, you suddenly care a lot about how FMVSS 102, 103/104, and 108 will
  be tested without a human doing the actions the test procedure expects.

One of the most common “experience-based” lessons in this phase is that ambiguity is expensive. When the rules assume a driver, companies sometimes add
placeholder interfacesbuttons, switches, or displays that are technically present but operationally irrelevant. Those additions can increase cost, increase
failure points, and (ironically) increase risk if they confuse passengers or create new misuse pathways. So when NHTSA signals modernization, internal teams
often get excited for a very unglamorous reason: it may reduce the need to build “compliance theater.”

Another recurring experience: weather becomes your uninvited co-author. A lot of automated driving optimism lives in ideal conditionsclear lanes, good
signage, predictable lighting. But once you operate in the real world, FMVSS 103/104 doesn’t feel like a boring wiper standard; it feels like a forced
conversation about robustness. Teams end up running field tests that look more like endurance sports than engineering: spray rigs, fog chambers, cold soak
testing, and long drives that exist solely to answer, “What happens when the windshield is dirty, the camera housing is wet, and the sun hits at exactly
the wrong angle?”

The Unified Agenda also shapes stakeholder conversations. Cities and local agencies often ask, “What’s the federal posture?” Fleet partners ask, “Will we
be compliant when we scale?” Safety advocates ask, “What evidence will the public see?” Having NHTSA’s planned work visibleeven before the proposal is
publishedchanges those discussions. It gives companies a concrete artifact to reference, and it gives everyone a reason to align on a timeline, even if
that timeline is fuzzy.

Finally, there’s a subtle but real cultural effect: when the federal government lists specific FMVSS modernization work for driverless designs, it signals
that “no manual controls” vehicles are no longer treated as science fiction. They’re treated as designs that might actually show up at scaleand therefore
deserve safety rules that can evaluate them properly. Inside companies, that can be motivating. It can also be sobering. Because if your design is about to
be measured by standards written with real consequences, you can’t just demo your way to trust. You have to engineer it, document it, and prove it.

Conclusion

NHTSA adding automated-vehicle-focused FMVSS modernization items to the Unified Agenda is a classic “quiet signal with loud implications.” It doesn’t finalize
anything today, but it tells the market where federal safety regulators are headed: updating rules that assume a human driver so that truly driverless ADS designs
can be evaluated, certified, and deployed without relying on awkward workarounds.

If you build, supply, insure, operate, or regulate automated vehicles, the smart move is to treat the Unified Agenda as an early planning advantage. Track the
proposals, map your compliance dependencies, and get ready to participate when the NPRMs arrive. The future of automated vehicles won’t be decided by hype; it’ll
be decided by whether safety rules can measure real-world performanceand whether industry can meet that bar.