Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Tire Selection and Rims, 78724-78728 [2016-27051]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 9, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78724-78728]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27051]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0058]
RIN 2127-AL24


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Tire Selection and Rims

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document amends Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 110 to make it clear that special trailer (ST) tires are 
permitted to be installed on new trailers with a gross vehicle weight 
rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.) or less. It also excludes these 
trailers from a requirement that a tire must be retained on its rim 
when subjected to a sudden loss of tire pressure and brought to a 
controlled stop from 97 km/h (60 mph). The agency proposed these 
changes and, after a review of the comments received, has determined 
that these two revisions are appropriate and will not result in any 
degradation of motor vehicle safety.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 9, 2016.
    Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of 
this final rule must be received by December 27, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer 
to the docket number set forth above and be submitted to the 
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 
Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may contact 
Patrick Hallan, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, by telephone at 
(202) 366-9146, and by fax at (202) 493-2990. For legal issues, you may 
contact David Jasinski, Office of the Chief Counsel, by telephone at 
(202) 366-2992, and by fax at (202) 366-3820. You may send mail to both 
of these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Summary of the March 2013 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On June 26, 2003, the agency published a final rule amending 
several Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) related to 
tires and rims.\1\ That rulemaking was completed as part of a 
comprehensive upgrade of existing safety standards and the 
establishment of new safety standards to improve tire safety, as 
required by the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and 
Documentation Act of 2000 (TREAD Act). That final rule included 
extensive revisions to the tire standards and to the rim and labeling 
requirements for motor vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 68 FR 38116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    That final rule expanded the applicability of FMVSS No. 110 to 
include all motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 
4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less, except for motorcycles. Prior to the 
enactment of the TREAD Act, FMVSS No. 110 only applied to passenger 
cars and to non-pneumatic spare tire assemblies for use on passenger 
cars. In an effort to coordinate the upgraded vehicle standard, 
intended to apply to all vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 
pounds) or less, with the standards used on tires for vehicles with a 
GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less, the language in FMVSS No. 110 
was amended to require the use of tires meeting the new FMVSS No. 139, 
New pneumatic radial tires for light vehicles. The only exceptions 
provided in FMVSS No. 110 were for the use of spare tire assemblies 
with pneumatic spare tires meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 109 or 
non-pneumatic spare tire assemblies meeting the requirements of FMVSS 
No. 129.
    With the expansion of FMVSS No. 110 to include all motor vehicles 
with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less, the performance tests 
and criteria within the standard became applicable to all light 
vehicles, including light trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
buses, and trailers that had previously been subject to the 
requirements of FMVSS No. 120. However, FMVSS No. 110 specified a 
minimum performance requirement for rim retention among its many

[[Page 78725]]

requirements. This requirement was not previously included in FMVSS No. 
120 and, therefore, was not applicable to light trucks, multipurpose 
passenger vehicles, buses, and trailers. The effective date for these 
requirements was September 1, 2007, which provided approximately four 
years of lead time from publication of the final rule.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 71 FR 877 (Jan. 6, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the 2003 rule took effect, the Recreational Vehicle Industry 
Association (RVIA) shared two concerns with NHTSA that the trailer 
manufacturing industry had with FMVSS No. 110. First, RVIA and its 
members stated, from a literal reading of S4.1 of FMVSS No. 110, that 
special trailer (ST) tires and tires with rim diameter codes of 12 or 
below cannot be equipped on new trailers that are under 4,536 kg 
(10,000 pounds) or less because that section only permits FMVSS No. 
139-compliant tires to be equipped on trailers. Second, RVIA and its 
members questioned the need for the rim retention requirement for 
trailers in S4.4.1(b) and whether the dynamic rapid tire deflation test 
specified in that section could be conducted on trailers.
    After reviewing these concerns, NHTSA issued, on its own 
initiative, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) of March 13, 2013, 
proposing amendments to FMVSS No. 110 to address RVIA's concerns.\3\ 
Specifically, NHTSA proposed to amend FMVSS No. 110 to make clear that 
ST tires and tires with rim diameter codes of 12 or below can be 
installed on new trailers with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.) or 
less. Second, NHTSA proposed to amend FMVSS No. 110 to exclude these 
trailers from the requirement that a tire must be retained on its rim 
when subjected to a sudden loss of tire pressure and brought to a 
controlled stop from 97 km/h (60 mph). NHTSA tentatively determined 
that these two revisions would be appropriate and would not result in 
any degradation of motor vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 78 FR 15920.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of Comments

    NHTSA received six comments on the proposal.\4\ RVIA, the National 
Marine Manufacturers Association, and the National Association of 
Trailer Manufacturers were fully supportive of the proposal. The Tire 
and Rim Association (TRA) suggested two revisions to the proposal, both 
of which were also supported by the Rubber Manufacturers Association 
(RMA). First, TRA suggested the addition of farm implement (FI) tires 
to the list of tire types that are allowed to be equipped on trailers. 
Second, TRA suggested that, with respect to ST tires, FI tires, and 
tires with rim diameter codes of 12 or below, NHTSA require such tires 
to be compliant with FMVSS No. 119 rather than FMVSS No. 109. NHTSA 
also received a comment from an individual, Mr. Steve Brady. Mr. Brady 
expressed concern about the safety impact from excluding trailers from 
the rim retention requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ All of the comments may be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Response to Comments

A. Use of ST Tires on Trailers With a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 Pounds) 
or Less

    As stated in the March 2013 NPRM, NHTSA believes that S4.1 
unnecessarily and unintentionally restricts the types of tires that can 
be used on light trailers. None of the commenters who addressed the 
issue opposed allowing ST tires and tires with a rim diameter code of 
12 of less to be used on light trailers. NHTSA has not identified any 
increased safety risk associated with the use of ST tires and tires 
with rim diameter code of 12 or less on light trailers. Accordingly, 
NHTSA is finalizing its proposal to allow ST tires and tires with a rim 
diameter code of 12 or less to be equipped on light trailers.
    TRA's comments, supported by RMA, suggest two additions to the 
proposal that require brief explanation. First, TRA suggested that FI 
tires be added to the list of tires that can be equipped on light 
trailers. We agree that, as with ST and tires with a rim diameter code 
of 12 or less, NHTSA did not intend to exclude the use of FI tires on 
light trailers. Nor have we identified any risks associated with the 
use of FI tires on light trailers. Accordingly, this final rule adds FI 
tires to the list of tires that may be equipped on light trailers 
contained in FMVSS No. 110.
    Second, TRA suggested that the language of the proposal requiring 
that ST tires and tires with a rim diameter code of 12 or less be 
compliant with FMVSS No. 109 be changed to refer to FMVSS No. 119 
instead. TRA's rationale behind this comment was that these tires could 
not be tested using FMVSS No. 109 because FMVSS No. 109 does not 
contain inflation pressures to use during testing.
    After submitting its comments on this issue, in June 2013, TRA 
submitted a petition for rulemaking requesting that NHTSA clarify that 
ST tires, FI tires, and tires with a rim diameter code of 12 or less 
are subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 119 and not those in FMVSS 
No. 109.\5\ The broader issue of whether and how ST tires, FI tires, 
and tires with a rim diameter code of 12 or less can meet FMVSS No. 109 
are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. That issue may be addressed in 
NHTSA's response to TRA's petition. For now, NHTSA believes it is 
sufficient to refer to both FMVSS No. 109 and FMVSS No. 119 as the 
standards under which ST tires, FI tires, and tires with a rim diameter 
code of 12 or less may comply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, we have revised our proposal to allow ST tires and tires 
with a rim diameter code of 12 of less that comply with FMVSS No. 109 
to be used on light trailers by adding FI tires to the list of 
allowable tires and by also noting that such tires may also be 
compliant with FMVSS No. 119.

B. Rim Retention Requirement for Trailers

    The commenters, with the exception of Mr. Brady, expressed support 
for the proposed amendment to exclude trailers from the rim retention 
requirement. Mr. Brady opposed excluding trailers from the rim 
retention requirement. He stated that the test could be performed by 
towing trailers at 60 mph. He also expressed concern with the number of 
tire failures identified in the NPRM. He directed NHTSA to complaints 
about a single ST tire model with 85 complaints. Further, he noted that 
even if injury rates are low, there can be significant property damage 
resulting from blowouts. He stated that the proposal appears to have 
been made to lower costs to manufacturers while exposing the public to 
risk.
    In the NPRM, NHTSA noted that 963 complaints had been received 
containing both the words ``tire'' and ``trailer'', but 942 of those 
complaints were related to the towing vehicle. Only 10 complaints were 
related to the tire issues the towed vehicle and 11 were not 
sufficiently specific to determine whether the complaint was related to 
the towing vehicle or the trailer.\6\ Of the 10 complaints relating to 
trailer tires, the agency found that only nine complaints are related 
to tire failure (either blowout or tread separation) of one or more 
trailer tires. None of the nine VOQs appear to be related to the rim 
retention requirement, and there were no reported injuries or 
fatalities mentioned in any of these cases. The 85 complaints about the 
single model that Mr. Brady referred to in his comments were among the 
963 complaints that

[[Page 78726]]

were reviewed. Based on all of those complaints, NHTSA tentatively 
concluded that there was no continued safety need to justify the 
requirement that trailers comply with the rim retention requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ These complaints were discussed in more detail in the NPRM. 
See 78 FR 15922.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the TREAD Act rulemaking, only vehicles such as passenger 
cars were subject to the tire retention requirement in FMVSS No. 110, 
which requires that a tire must be retained on its rim when subjected 
to a sudden loss of tire pressure. Light trailers were not included 
because they were covered by FMVSS No. 120. However, after the TREAD 
Act rulemaking, light trailers and other vehicles such as light trucks 
and vans were added to FMVSS No. 110. Although the agency only 
expressly stated its intent to extend the applicability of the rim 
retention requirement to light trucks and vans, there was no limitation 
in the regulatory text that excluded trailers or any other vehicle type 
subject to FMVSS No. 110 from this requirement. The extension of the 
applicability of this requirement to trailers resulted in the 
implementation of the first on-road compliance test that NHTSA would 
conduct on light trailers.
    Although Mr. Brady stated that NHTSA could simply require that a 
trailer be towed at 60 mph in order to conduct the test, the agency 
notes that neither the text of S4.4.1(b), nor NHTSA's compliance test 
procedure contemplate the use of a towing vehicle. Without specificity, 
light trailer manufacturers cannot know how NHTSA would perform 
compliance testing of the rim retention requirement on trailers. 
Consequently, light trailer manufacturers would be responsible for 
certifying that their trailers comply with the rim retention 
requirement in any towing-towed vehicle configuration, which creates 
testing and certification issues.
    Based upon NHTSA's review of the nine cases of trailer tire 
failures discussed in the NPRM, the agency found no injuries or 
fatalities nor was it apparent that any of these cases could be 
addressed by the rim retention requirement. Based on that information, 
NHTSA concludes that there are no data available to document a safety 
problem related to rim retention of trailer tires. NHTSA also concludes 
that there is no continued safety need for trailers to comply with the 
rim retention requirements in S4.4.1(b) of FMVSS No. 110. Accordingly, 
this final rule implements the proposal to exclude trailers from the 
rim retention requirement. NHTSA does not believe that this change will 
have any measurable effect on the safety of light trailers.

IV. Effective Date

    This final rule clarifies which tires can be installed on new light 
trailers and removes the requirement that trailers meet the rim 
retention requirement in S4.4.1(b) of FMVSS No. 110. It does not impose 
any substantive requirements. Instead it removes a restriction on the 
manufacture of light trailers. Consequently, these amendments may be 
given immediate effect pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
    Similarly, good cause exists for these amendments to be made 
effective immediately pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30111(d). These amendments 
would allow light trailers to be equipped with tires designated for use 
on trailers, and it would relieve trailers from a performance 
requirement for which NHTSA has no associated test for compliance. We 
do not believe that these amendments will have any measurable effect on 
the safety of light trailers.

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking is 
not considered significant and was not reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review.'' The rulemaking action has also been determined not to be 
significant under the Department's regulatory policies and procedures. 
The agency has further determined that the impact of this final rule is 
so minimal as to not warrant the preparation of a full regulatory 
evaluation.
    This final rule will not impose costs upon manufacturers. It 
clarifies the types of tires that can be installed on new light 
trailers and removes the rim retention requirement for light trailers. 
This final rule might result in cost savings to manufacturers 
associated with the certification of compliance with the rim retention 
requirement. However, we are unable to quantify any such cost savings. 
This final rule is not expected to have any impact on safety.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it 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 governmental jurisdictions). 
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates 
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency 
certifies the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of 
the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this final rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. This final rule would directly impact manufacturers of 
trailers with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.) or less. Although we 
believe many manufacturers affected by this final rule are considered 
small businesses, we do not believe this final rule will have a 
significant economic impact on those manufacturers. This final rule 
will not impose any costs upon manufacturers and may result in cost 
savings. This final rule will relieve light trailer manufacturers of 
the burden and costs associated with the rim retention requirement.

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order 
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 
the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation 
of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule would 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 preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision: 
When a

[[Page 78727]]

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.
    The express preemption provision described above is subject to a 
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance 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 such 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 there being an actual 
conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would 
effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone 
obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer, 
notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard. 
Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum 
standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose 
a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be 
preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist--for 
example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum 
standard--the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly 
preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
    Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered 
whether this 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 today's rule 
and finds that this rule, like many NHTSA rules, prescribes only a 
minimum safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not intend that this rule 
preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard 
on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by today's rule. 
Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not 
conflict with the minimum standard announced here. Without any 
conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State common 
law tort cause of action.

D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, 
section 3(b) of Executive Order 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 that requirement.
    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.

E. Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19855, April 23, 1997), applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, 
health, or safety risk that the agency has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the agency.
    This notice is part of a rulemaking that is not expected to have a 
disproportionate health or safety impact on children. Consequently, no 
further analysis is required under Executive Order 13045.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not 
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency 
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. There is not 
any information collection requirement associated with this final rule.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary 
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would 
be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory provisions 
regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise impractical. 
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. Technical standards 
are defined by the NTTAA as ``performance-based or design-specific 
technical specification and related management systems practices.'' 
They pertain to ``products and processes, such as size, strength, or 
technical performance of a product, process or material.''
    Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus 
standards bodies include ASTM International, the Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE), and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 
If NHTSA does not use available and potentially applicable voluntary 
consensus standards, we are required by the Act to provide Congress, 
through OMB, an explanation of the reasons for not using such 
standards.
    There are no voluntary consensus standards developed by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies pertaining to this final rule.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
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

[[Page 78728]]

1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the agency to 
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives 
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of 
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable 
law. Moreover, section 205 allows the agency to adopt an alternative 
other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome 
alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation 
of why that alternative was not adopted.
    This final rule would not result in any expenditure by State, 
local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 
million, adjusted for inflation.

I. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that 
implementation of this action would not have any significant impact on 
the quality of the human environment.

J. 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.

K. 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).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Tires.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as 
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 of Title 49 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

0
2. Amend Sec.  571.110 by revising S4.1 and S4.4.1(b) introductory text 
to read as follows:


Sec.  571.110  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.

* * * * *
    S4.1 General (a) Subject to the exceptions set forth in S4.1(b), 
vehicles shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of 
Sec.  571.139.
    (b) Notwithstanding the requirement in S4.1(a),
    (1) Passenger cars may be equipped with pneumatic T-type temporary 
spare tire assemblies that meet the requirements of Sec.  571.109 or 
non-pneumatic spare tire assemblies that meet the requirements of Sec.  
571.129 and S6 and S8 of this standard. Passenger cars equipped with a 
non-pneumatic spare tire assembly shall also meet the requirements of 
S4.3(e), S5, and S7 of this standard.
    (2) Trailers may be equipped with ST tires, FI tires, or tires with 
a rim diameter code of 12 or below that meet the requirements of Sec.  
571.109 or Sec.  571.119.
* * * * *
    S4.4.1 * * *
    (b) Except for trailers, in the event of rapid loss of inflation 
pressure with the vehicle traveling in a straight line at a speed of 97 
km/h (60 mph), retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be 
stopped with a controlled braking application.
* * * * *

    Issued on November 3, 2016 in Washington, DC, under authority 
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5.
Mark R. Rosekind,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-27051 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P