Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer Information Program, 29542-29587 [E9-14496]
Download as PDF
29542
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 575
[Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0121]
RIN 2127–AK45
Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer
Information Program
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation (NHTSA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
SUMMARY: This document proposes a
broad new consumer information
program for replacement tires to inform
consumers about the effect of tires on
fuel efficiency, safety, and durability.
This consumer information program
would implement a national tire fuel
efficiency rating system for replacement
tires, with the information provided to
consumers at the point of sale and
online. Fuel efficiency ratings are
expected to inform consumers so that
they will be better informed about
replacement tire performance. This
consumer information program seeks to
enhance energy security and reduce
costs by improving fuel economy.
Information would also be provided
about safety and durability.
DATES: Comments to this proposal must
be received on or before August 21,
2009. In compliance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act, NHTSA is also seeking
comment on a new information
collection. See the Paperwork Reduction
Act section under Regulatory Notices
and Analyses below. Please submit all
comments relating to new information
collection requirements on or before
August 21, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by the docket number in the
heading of this document, by any of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments
on the electronic docket site by clicking
on ‘‘Help’’ or ‘‘FAQ.’’
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
M–30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC
20590.
• Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
Regardless of how you submit
comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document.
You may call the Docket Management
Facility at 202–366–9826.
Instructions: For detailed instructions
on submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the Public Participation heading of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this document. Note that all
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
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.dot.gov/privacy.html.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov, or the street
address listed above. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For policy and technical issues: Ms.
Julie Abraham or Ms. Mary Versailles,
Office of Rulemaking, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590. Telephone: (202) 366–0846.
For legal issues: Mr. Stephen Wood or
Ms. Sarah Alves, Office of the Chief
Counsel, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone: (202) 366–2992.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Overview
A. Summary
B. Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007
C. Proposal
1. Test Procedures
2. Proposed Rolling Resistance Rating
Metric
3. Proposed Label
4. Proposed Information Dissemination and
Reporting Requirements for Tire
Manufacturers and Tire Retailers
5. Consumer Education Program
D. Costs and Benefits
E. Lead Time
II. Background
A. Contribution of Tire Maintenance and
Tire Fuel Efficiency to Addressing
Energy Independence and Security
1. Tire Fuel Efficiency and Rolling
Resistance
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2. Relationship Between Tire Maintenance
and Tire Fuel Efficiency and Vehicle
Fuel Economy
3. 2006 National Academy of Sciences
Report
4. California
5. European Union
6. Japan
B. Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007 Mandated Consumer Tire
Information Program
1. Tires Subject to the Consumer
Information Program
2. Mandate To Create a National Tire Fuel
Efficiency Rating System
3. Communicating Information to
Consumers
4. Specification of Test Methods
5. Creating a National Consumer Education
Program on Tire Maintenance
6. Consultation in Setting Standards
7. Application With State and Local Laws
and Regulations
8. Compliance and Enforcement
9. Reporting to Congress
III. Which Tires Must Be Rated?
A. Passenger Car Tires
B. Replacement Tires
C. Tires within a Tire Model
D. Tires Excluded
IV. Rolling Resistance Test Procedure
A. Rolling Resistance
B. Possible Test Procedures Available to
Measure Rolling Resistance
C. NHTSA Research Results
D. Why Select a Single-Point Test Instead
of Multi-Point?
E. Why Select ISO 28580 Instead of Other
Tests?
V. Proposed Rolling Resistance Rating Metric
VI. Proposed Rating System
A. What Should We Convey to Consumers
in a Rating System?
1. Fuel Efficiency
2. Safety
i. Potential Safety Consequences
ii. Test Procedure
3. Durability
4. Overall Rating
B. How Should We Convey the Information
to Consumers in a Rating System?
1. Proposed Rating Formulas
i. Fuel Efficiency
ii. Safety
iii. Durability
2. Proposed Label Style
VII. Proposed Information Dissemination and
Reporting Requirements for Tire
Manufacturers and Tire Retailers
A. The Replacement Passenger Car Tire
Market
B. Assumptions about the Average Tire
Purchaser and the Average Tire
Purchasing Process
C. What Are We Proposing To Require of
Tire Retailers?
D. What Are We Proposing To Require of
Tire Manufacturers?
1. Data Reporting
2. Tire Labels
E. Requirements for Tire Retailers and Tire
Manufacturers With an Internet Presence
F. Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards
VIII. NHTSA’s Consumer Education Program
A. Previous Tire Consumer Education
Efforts
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
B. Potential Future Consumer Education
Efforts
1. What Information Should NHTSA
Convey?
2. Point of Sale
3. Interactive Mediums
4. Web Site Development
5. Paper Brochure Materials
6. Partnership Development
7. Exhibits and Conferencing
8. Local Education Programs
IX. Costs and Benefits
A. Costs
B. Benefits
X. Lead Time
XI. Compliance Tolerances
A. Fuel Efficiency
B. Safety
C. Durability
XII. Regulatory Alternatives
XIII. Public Participation
XIV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
B National Environmental Policy Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. Executive Order 13045
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 13211
K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
L. Plain Language
M. Privacy Act
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
I. Executive Overview
A. Summary
This document is being issued
pursuant to the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (EISA),1 which
was enacted in December 2007. EISA
included a requirement that NHTSA
develop a national tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program to
educate consumers about the effect of
tires on automobile fuel efficiency,
safety, and durability. Consumers
currently have little, if any, convenient
way of determining how tire choices can
affect vehicle fuel economy.
The collective effects of the choices
consumers make when they buy tires
are matters of public interest. The 240
million passenger cars and light trucks
in the United States consume about 135
billion gallons of motor fuel annually.2
Finding ways to reduce this energy
consumption is a national goal for
reasons ranging from ensuring economic
and national security to improving local
air quality and reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. Rolling resistance, or the
force required to make the tires roll,
differs from tire to tire and is a
characteristic that indicates a tire’s fuel
efficiency. Consumers, if sufficiently
informed and interested, could bring
about a reduction in average rolling
resistance of replacement tires by
adjusting their tire purchases, and as a
consequence, significantly reduce the
amount of fuel consumed annually.
While the handling, traction, and other
operating characteristics of tires are of
particular interest to tire buyers, they
are also matters of even broader public
interest in as much as they may
influence the safety performance of
vehicles on the nation’s highways.
Congress required NHTSA to establish
a tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program, including a
replacement tire fuel efficiency rating
system. This requirement is evidently a
response to a market failure in the form
of imperfectly informed decisions on
the part of consumers; the program
attempts to respond to the market
failure. In the same vein, EISA requires
that NHTSA develop requirements for
providing this information to
consumers, and a national tire
maintenance consumer education
program. All tires require proper
inflation and maintenance to achieve
their intended levels of efficiency,
safety, wear, and operating performance.
NHTSA has previously addressed the
importance of proper tire inflation to
safety and fuel efficiency in various
public service campaigns. NHTSA has
also mandated that tire pressure
monitoring systems (TPMSs) be
installed on new motor vehicles,3 but
TPMS is not a substitute for proper tire
maintenance. Motorists must be alerted
to the fact that even small losses in
inflation pressure can reduce tire
treadwear life, fuel efficiency, and
operating performance.4
This document proposes to require
tire manufacturers to label their
replacement tires for fuel efficiency,
safety, and durability based on test
procedures specified by the agency.
These tests address three aspects of tire
performance: rolling resistance, traction
and treadwear life. As noted above and
described in further detail below, rolling
resistance is a measurement of fuel
efficiency. A measurement of traction is
intended to indicate a tire’s ability to
stop on wet pavement. Thus, traction is
one metric that corresponds to safety. A
treadwear rating measures a tire’s wear
rate compared with that of control tires.
3 See
1 Public Law 110–140, 121 Stat. 1492 (Dec. 18,
2007).
2 Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 27,
Tables 4–1 and 4–2, available at https://cta.ornl.gov/
data/index.shtml (last accessed Mar. 5, 2009).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
70 FR 18136 (April 8, 2005).
4 Transportation Research Board Special Report
286, Tires and Passenger Vehicle Fuel Economy,
National Research Council of the National
Academies, 5 (2006) (hereinafter ‘‘2006 NAS
Report’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
29543
Treadwear life, therefore, corresponds to
a measure of durability.
Comparing this new proposed label
across potential replacement tires would
enable consumers to see how different
replacement tires can affect the fuel
economy they are getting from their
vehicle. The label would also allow
consumers to see the tradeoff they may
be facing between fuel efficiency, safety
(i.e., traction), and durability (i.e.,
treadwear life), and how the balance of
these factors may differ from tire to tire.
NHTSA’s research has found that while
tire construction need not sacrifice
traction or treadwear for improved fuel
efficiency, maintaining the same
traction and treadwear while increasing
the fuel efficiency of a given tire often
entails higher costs.5 Thus, if a
manufacturer seeks to improve the fuel
efficiency of a given replacement tire
construction while keeping cost
constant, there is a substantial chance
that the construction will sacrifice
either traction or treadwear.
The agency is proposing to require
that tire retailers display a tire fuel
efficiency consumer information
program poster that NHTSA will print
and provide to retailers. The poster
would communicate the importance of
comparing replacement tire ratings as
well as the importance of proper tire
maintenance. The agency is also
proposing to require tire retailers and
tire manufacturers that maintain Web
sites to link to NHTSA’s comprehensive
tire Web site it will be developing as
part of a national tire maintenance
consumer education program. The
agency seeks comments on any other
information dissemination requirements
that would ensure that easy-tounderstand information is conveyed in
a way that is most likely to impact
consumers’ decisions and, thus, affect
their behavior and save them and our
nation fuel and money.
In developing the proposal, the
agency conducted tire testing research
to determine which test procedure
would best standardize a fuel efficiency
rating and provide accurate
discrimination among replacement tires.
The agency is proposing the specific test
procedure by which manufacturers are
to measure rolling resistance for the
rating system. NHTSA also conducted
consumer focus group research to
improve understanding of the typical
tire purchaser and the tire purchasing
5 See National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, NHTSA Tire Rolling Resistance
Rating System Test Development Project: Phase 2—
Effects of Tire Rolling Resistance Levels on
Traction, Treadwear, and Vehicle Fuel Economy
(February 2009). This Phase 2 research report will
be placed in the docket.
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
29544
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
process for the average consumer.
NHTSA’s preliminary consumer
research explored the type of label
(including forms of rating, scales, and
graphic) that best communicates the
information to consumers. In this
notice, we are proposing a label based
on the rating scale and presentation that
tested best with consumers and that
promises to improve the operation of
the market in terms of three factors (fuel
economy, safety, and durability) that
matter to consumers. We are aware that
by itself, the rating scale may not make
the relevant information fully
meaningful to consumers; from the label
alone, it is not entirely clear what a high
rating, rather than a low one, will mean
in terms of what matters to consumer
choices. The agency is planning to do
additional consumer testing, including
additional types of testing such as
quantitative and experimental
techniques, to make the label as
meaningful as possible. At this point,
the agency cannot project the expected
consumer reaction to this program, and
it will engage in continued testing to
provide such projections. The agency
requests comment on the proposed
rating systems, the proposed label, and
potential future consumer research.
NHTSA is also publishing a
companion Preliminary Regulatory
Impact Analysis (PRIA) that provides an
analysis on the potential economic
impacts of this consumer information
program. The agency seeks comment on
this preliminary analysis.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
B. Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007
The provision of EISA that mandates
the consumer tire information program
built on a legislative proposal originally
introduced in 2006 after a NAS report
was issued suggesting that a tire fuel
efficiency consumer information
program could increase vehicle fuel
economy by an average of 1 to 2
percent.6 Many factors affect a vehicle’s
fuel economy, including the tire’s
rolling resistance, or force required to
make the tires roll. The 2006 NAS report
estimated that 4 percent (urban) to 7
percent (highway) of the energy
available from the vehicle’s fuel usage is
used to overcome the rolling resistance
of the tires. Therefore, reducing rolling
6 Previous attempts to establish a national tire
fuel efficiency program can be found in proposed
amendments to various energy bills in prior years.
See e.g., S. Amdt. 3083, 108th Cong., 150 Cong. Rec.
S4710 (2004) (proposing to amend S. 150); S. Amdt.
1470, 108th Cong., 149 Cong. Rep. S10707 (2003)
(proposing to amend S. 14). These amendments
proposed regulating the fuel efficiency of tires in
addition to a tire fuel efficiency grading system and
consumer information program, and were not
adopted.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
resistance can reduce a vehicle’s fuel
consumption. As one of many strategies
to meet the Federal corporate average
fuel economy (CAFE) standards for new
passenger cars and light trucks,
automobile manufacturers often equip
vehicles with low rolling resistance
tires. However, consumers often
unknowingly purchase higher rolling
resistance tires when replacing their
vehicle tires, because information on the
comparative rolling resistance of tires
and its impact on vehicle fuel economy
is not readily available.
One of the most significant of the
EISA mandates is the setting of separate
maximum feasible standards for
passenger cars and for light trucks at
levels sufficient to ensure that the
average fuel economy of the combined
fleet of all passenger cars and light
trucks sold by all manufacturers in the
U.S. in model year (MY) 2020 equals or
exceeds 35 miles per gallon. In the near
future, per the President’s
announcement, NHTSA and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
intend to initiate a joint rulemaking
with NHTSA proposing CAFE standards
under the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended
by EISA, and EPA proposing greenhouse
gas emissions standards under the Clean
Air Act.7 It is intended that this joint
rulemaking proposal will reflect a
carefully coordinated and harmonized
approach to implementing these two
statutes.8 The new standards will
propose a significant increase in fuel
economy by 2016.9 This consumer tire
information program is one of the
actions that will contribute towards the
larger goals of energy independence and
security.
Section 111 of EISA added section
32304A to Chapter 323 of title 49,
United States Code. This chapter
codifies consumer information
requirements initially established by the
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost
Savings Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92–513).
The new section 32304A is entitled
‘‘Consumer tire information’’ and
specifies as follows:
• Within 24 months of the enactment
of EISA, NHTSA is to promulgate rules
establishing a national tire fuel
efficiency consumer information
program for replacement tires to educate
consumers about the effect of tires on
fuel efficiency, safety, and durability.
• The program must include a
national tire fuel efficiency rating
7 Notice
of Upcoming Joint Rulemaking To
Establish Vehicle GHG Emissions and CAFE
Standards; Notice of Intent To Conduct a Joint
Rulemaking, 74 FR 24007 (May 22, 2009).
8 Id. at 24008.
9 Id. at 24009.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
system for replacement tires to assist
consumers in making more educated
tire purchasing decisions.
• NHTSA must specify requirements
for providing information to consumers,
including information at the point of
sale and other potential dissemination
methods, including the Internet.
• NHTSA must also specify the test
methods that manufacturers are to use
in assessing and rating tires to avoid
variation among test equipment and
manufacturers.
• As a part of the consumer
information program, NHTSA must
develop a national tire maintenance
consumer education program, which
must include information on tire
inflation pressure, alignment, rotation,
and treadwear to maximize fuel
efficiency, safety and durability of
replacement tires.
C. Proposal
We solicit comment on all aspects of
this proposal, including the rolling
resistance test procedure, the rating
system and label graphic, and the
requirements for tire manufacturers and
tire retailers for reporting and
disseminating information. Specific
areas where we request comments are
identified elsewhere in this preamble
and in the PRIA. Based on public
comments and other information,
including new data and analysis, the
requirements and specifications in the
final rule could differ from the specific
ones proposed in this document.
1. Test Procedures
This document proposes to require
tire manufacturers to rate the fuel
efficiency of their tires using a test
procedure currently under development
by the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO), ISO 28580: Tyre
Rolling Resistance measurement
method—Single point test and
measurement result correlation—
Designed to facilitate international
cooperation and, possibly, regulation
building. The ISO standard is currently
in Final Draft International Standard
(FDIS) stage, and is expected to be
balloted and finalized by October 2009.
Based on this timeline, the agency
expects this test procedure to be
finalized before publication of the final
rule.10 NHTSA is proposing to specify
the use of the finalized ISO 28580 test
procedure. The agency is also seeking
10 If the ISO 28580 test procedure is not a
finalized by the time of publication of this notice,
interested parties may obtain a copy of the draft by
contacting Mr. Joe Pacuit, U.S. Technical Advisory
Group (TAG) Secretariat to Technical Committee
(TC) 31, Tyres, rims and valves. Mr. Pacuit can be
reached by telephone at (303) 666–8121.
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
comment on the use of other test
procedures as described in section IV of
this notice.
The choice of which test procedure to
specify for measuring rolling resistance
is important because measuring rolling
resistance requires precise
instrumentation, calibration, speed
control and equipment alignment for
repeatable results. As explained in more
detail in this notice, agency research
shows that all of the available test
procedures could meet these
requirements. However, the ISO 28580
test method is unique in that it specifies
a procedure to correlate results between
laboratories and test equipment, which
our research shows is a significant
source of variation. Because other
established test methods lack such a
procedure, NHTSA would have to
develop a new procedure to address this
variation before any of those test
methods could be considered. Further,
the ISO 28580 test procedure is the
specified test method in the proposed
European Union Directive, allowing
manufacturers to do one test to
determine ratings for both proposed
regulations.
As for the safety and durability
ratings, due to the statutory timeline
within which this rulemaking must be
completed, NHTSA is proposing to use
traction and treadwear test procedures
that are already specified under another
tire rating system, the uniform tire
quality grading standards (UTQGS).11
The agency has been examining other
metrics for safety and durability, as well
as possible correlations between tire
fuel efficiency and wet and dry traction,
indoor and outdoor treadwear, and
vehicle fuel economy.12
11 See
49 CFR 575.104 (2008).
Phase 2 research tested 15 models of
replacement tires, as well as the original equipment
tires on a fuel economy test vehicle, to examine
possible correlations between tire rolling resistance
levels and vehicle fuel economy as measured on a
dynometer, wet and dry traction, and indoor and
outdoor treadwear. See National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, NHTSA Tire Rolling
Resistance Rating System Test Development Project:
Phase 2—Effects of Tire Rolling Resistance Levels
on Traction, Treadwear, and Vehicle Fuel Economy
(February 2009). This Phase 2 research report will
be placed in the docket.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
12 NHTSA’s
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
2. Proposed Rolling Resistance Rating
Metric
We are proposing to base a tire’s fuel
efficiency rating on rolling resistance
force (RRF) as measured by the ISO
28580 test procedure. This is in contrast
to basing a fuel efficiency rating on
rolling resistance coefficient (RRC), or
RRF divided by load. The agency is
aware that the proposed European tire
fuel efficiency rating system specifies
tire ratings based on RRC.
NHTSA is proposing to base the
rolling resistance rating on the RRF
metric because such a rating would
provide more discrimination among
different tires throughout the system,
and thus more information to
consumers, than a rating based on RRC.
RRF translates more directly to the fuel
required to move a tire, and based on
the goals of EISA, appears to be a more
appropriate metric.
3. Proposed Label
To convey information to consumers,
this document proposes a label, which
contains an individual tire’s ratings for
fuel efficiency (i.e., rolling resistance),
safety (i.e., traction), and durability (i.e.,
treadwear), and which is similar to a
ratings label that tested well in
consumer research conducted by
NHTSA. NHTSA conducted focus group
studies in which it presented several
labels using different graphics and
scales to relay the ratings. Figure 1
shows the ratings label that NHTSA is
proposing in today’s notice. The graphic
shows all the ratings on a scale of 0 to
100, with 100 being the best rating.
Consumers expressed an understanding
of this 0 to 100 scale, and reacted
positively to the red and green shading,
with red indicating lower/worse ratings
and green indicating higher/better
ratings.13 Other graphics presented in
13 Today’s proposed regulation specifies the
colors on the far ends of the ratings scales as
‘‘primary red’’ (for lowest/worst rating box) and
‘‘primary green’’ (for the highest/best rating box).
An example of the proposed label in color can be
found in the docket for this rulemaking and on
NHTSA’s Web site, https://www.nhtsa.gov. Click on
the link to this notice, which will appear under
‘‘What’s New, Latest Updates, and Features on Our
Site’’ (towards the bottom of the main page).
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
29545
NHTSA’s consumer research are
discussed in section VI.B.3 of this
notice.
NHTSA is seeking comment on an
alternative graphic for the traction rating
scale because consumers expressed
some confusion with the graphic as
presented. The cloud in the symbol for
traction (representing the source of the
rain drops) was confusing for some
consumers who could not make out
what it was or thought it was a cowboy
hat. NHTSA is aware that the consumers
may not fully understand the meaning
of certain points on the ratings scale and
is taking steps, with this rule, to help to
increase understanding. NHTSA is
seeking comment on how that task
might best be accomplished, including
with changes to the label itself.
For the purposes of the final rule, the
agency is also considering the concept
of a combined rating of some sort,
which would convert all three benefit
metrics into one overall rating. The
advantage of such a system for tire
performance ratings would be that it
would simplify the ratings, potentially
relieving consumers of the task of
weighing the ratings for three different
metrics for one tire against the three
ratings for another tire. At the same
time, if the single combined rating were
presented to the exclusion of individual
ratings for each metric, it would obscure
the relative performance of individual
components that might carry different
priorities with different consumers. As
discussed in detail below in section
VI.A.4, an example of such a system
might be expressed as average overall
cost per mile. As explained in greater
detail later in this notice, the agency
seeks comments as to whether such a
combined rating could be developed
and, if so, should be adopted in the final
rule and implemented. The agency
seeks comments on the relative
advantages and disadvantages of a
single combined rating, the three rating
system in our proposal, and a third
approach combining the first two
approaches.
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
4. Proposed Information Dissemination
and Reporting Requirements for Tire
Manufacturers and Tire Retailers
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
For tire manufacturers, NHTSA is
proposing that manufacturers be
required to report various data to the
agency. This is necessary both for
enforcement of the rating system, and
for development of NHTSA’s tire fuel
efficiency Web site, which will contain
a database of tire information with a
calculator tool that allows easy
comparison of fuel savings between
various replacement tires.
Regarding labeling, we are proposing
to require tire manufacturers to print the
tire fuel efficiency graphic (Figure 1) in
color along with any other information
manufacturers include on an existing
paper label on the tire.14 At the
manufacturer’s option they could also
meet the labeling requirement by
14 Manufacturers are required to print UTQGS
information on a paper label pursuant to 49 CFR
575.104(d)(1)(B). Many manufacturers include other
information on this paper label as well. Note that
NHTSA uses the term ‘‘paper label’’ in the
colloquial sense; many labels on tires are actually
made of plastic.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
displaying the tire fuel efficiency rating
graphic as a separate label in full color.
As for requirements for tire retailers,
we are proposing a requirement that the
paper label containing the new rating
information must remain on the tire
until the sale of the tire. The label refers
consumers to the agency’s Web site for
further information about the ratings.
We are further proposing a requirement
that tire retailers must display a poster
that NHTSA would print and distribute
to them which would explain the rating
system and encourage consumers to
compare ratings across tires.
In addition, for tire manufacturers and
retailers that maintain a Web site, the
agency is proposing to require those
Web sites to link to NHTSA’s
comprehensive tire Web site we will be
developing as part of the national tire
maintenance consumer education
program. The agency also seeks
comments on any other information
dissemination requirements that would
ensure that easy-to-understand
information is conveyed in a way that
is most likely to impact consumers’
decisions and, thus, affect their behavior
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and save them and our nation fuel and
money.
5. Consumer Education Program
This document identifies and seeks
comment on various ways that NHTSA
plans to implement a consumer
education program to inform consumers
about the effect of tire properties and
tire maintenance on vehicle fuel
efficiency, safety, and durability. All
tires require proper inflation and
maintenance to achieve their intended
levels of energy efficiency, safety, wear,
and operating performance. NHTSA has
previously addressed the importance of
proper tire inflation to fuel efficiency,
treadwear, and safety in various public
service campaigns. Although NHTSA
has mandated tire pressure monitoring
systems (TPMSs) be installed on new
motor vehicles,15 a TPMS is not a
substitute for proper tire maintenance.
Motorists must be alerted to the fact that
even small losses in inflation pressure
15 See 70 FR 18136 (April 5, 2005); Docket No.
NHTSA–2005–20586–1.
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
EP22JN09.000
29546
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
can reduce tire treadwear life, fuel
efficiency, and operating performance.16
Some of NHTSA’s ideas for consumer
education include informational posters
or brochures that NHTSA would
distribute at trade shows and other
events, and which tire retailers could
display at the point of sale and a
centralized, expansive government Web
site on tires containing a database of all
tire rating information. NHTSA is also
planning to develop a comparative
calculator that would show the amount
of money a consumer would save
annually or over the estimated lifetime
of the tires of varying fuel efficiency
ratings. Using the calculator, a
consumer could select tires to compare,
enter the fuel economy of their vehicle
(miles per gallon or mpg) and the
average number of miles they drive each
year and even the dollar amount they
are paying for fuel and get a calculation
of differences in fuel usage and/or
money saved for the tires under
comparison.
Finally, NHTSA plans to develop and
form new partnerships to distribute
educational messages about tire fuel
efficiency and tire maintenance. NHTSA
will seek to partner with any interested
tire retailers, State or local governments,
as well as manufacturers who share
NHTSA’s goal of promoting the
importance of proper tire maintenance.
NHTSA will also seek to partner with
universities and high schools that may
wish to educate students regarding tire
fuel efficiency or proper tire
maintenance. These various innovative
tools and education measures will assist
consumers in making better-informed
tire purchasing and maintenance
decisions.
E. Lead Time
The annual cost of NHTSA’s proposal
is estimated to be between $18.9 and
$52.8 million. This includes testing
costs of $22,500, reporting costs of
around $113,000, labeling costs of
around $9 million, costs to the Federal
government of $1.28 million, and costs
of between $8.4 and $42 million to
improve tires. In addition, NHTSA
anticipates one-time costs of around $4
million, including initial testing costs of
$3.7 million and reporting start-up costs
of $280,000.
It is hoped that the proposed rule will
have benefits in terms of fuel economy,
safety, and durability. At the very least,
the proposed rule should enable
consumers to make more informed
Recognizing that the deadlines
imposed by EISA indicate a desire to
have information available to consumers
as quickly as possible, NHTSA is
proposing to require tire manufacturers
to meet applicable requirements for all
existing replacement tires within 12
months of the issuance of a final
regulation. That is, within 12 months of
the issuance of a final regulation tire
manufacturers must submit required
data to NHTSA on all existing
replacement tires, and all replacement
tires sold by the manufacturer or
transferred to tire retailers must be
labeled. For new tires introduced after
the effective date of this rule, NHTSA is
proposing to require reporting of
information at least 30 days prior to
introducing the tire for sale, as is
currently required for UTQGS
information.
Regarding the poster NHTSA is
proposing to require in retailers that
have a display room, the agency is
proposing to make this poster available
within 12 months of the issuance of a
final regulation. At that time NHTSA
will publish a Federal Register notice
announcing the availability of the
16 When a tire is under-inflated, the shape of its
footprint and the pressure it exerts on the road
surface are both altered. One consequence of this
alteration can be a reduction in the tire’s ability to
transmit (or generate) braking force to the road
surface. Thus, under-inflated tires may increase a
vehicle’s stopping distance on wet surfaces. 66 FR
38982, 38986 (July 26, 2001). Under-inflated tires
D. Costs and Benefits
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
decisions about these variables, thus
increasing benefits along dimensions
that most matter to them. It is possible
that the rule will help promote
innovation that will benefit consumers
along all three dimensions. Because the
agency cannot foresee precisely how
much today’s proposed consumer
information program would affect
consumer tire purchasing behavior and
cannot foresee the reduction in rolling
resistance among improved tires, the
PRIA estimates benefits using a range of
hypothetical assumptions regarding the
extent to which the tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program affects
the replacement tire market.
Specifically, the PRIA develops
estimates assuming that between 2%
and 10% of targeted tires are improved
and that the average reduction in rolling
resistance among improved tires is
between 5% and 10%. Under these
hypothetical assumptions, the proposal
is estimated to save 7.9–78 million
gallons of fuel and prevent the emission
of 76,000–757,000 metric tons of CO2
annually. The values of the fuel savings
are between $22 and $220 million at a
3 percent discount rate and between $20
and $203 million at a 7 percent discount
rate.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
29547
poster. The agency is proposing that a
tire retailer must have the poster on
display within 60 days of the issuance
of the notice of availability in the
Federal Register. We are proposing that
a tire retailer will be able to comply
with the requirement of displaying the
poster either by downloading and
printing it, in color and with the
specifications from NHTSA’s Web site,
or by contacting the agency and
requesting that we send the retailer a
copy of the poster.
For tire retailers and tire
manufacturers with an Internet
presence, NHTSA is proposing that
those Web sites link to NHTSA’s tire
Web site within 12 months of the
issuance of a final regulation. NHTSA
will provide the direct link to the
comprehensive tire Web site in that
final regulation.
II. Background
A. Contribution of Tire Maintenance
and Tire Fuel Efficiency to Addressing
Energy Independence and Security
1. Tire Fuel Efficiency and Rolling
Resistance
Without the continual addition of
energy, a vehicle will slow down. This
effect is due to many forces, including
aerodynamic drag, driveline losses,
brake drag, and tire rolling resistance.
The first three of these are vehicle
properties; they will not be discussed
further. Rolling resistance is the effort
required to keep a given tire rolling.
That is, rolling resistance is the energy
loss during the continuation of
rotational movement of the tire. As
such, it always opposes the vehicle’s
longitudinal, or forward/backward,
movement. Since this rolling resistance
force (RRF) opposes the direction of
travel of the rotating tire, it directly
reduces the efficiency of a vehicle in
converting the chemical energy in the
fuel to motion of the vehicle. Therefore,
tire rolling resistance is the most
effective metric for rating the ‘‘fuel
efficiency’’ of a tire.
In general, vehicle efficiency affects
the conversion of chemical energy in
motor fuel into mechanical energy and
the transmission of energy to the axles
to drive the wheels. Figure 2 illustrates
the energy uses and losses for a midsize
passenger car. Part of the energy
supplied to the wheels of the vehicle is
lost due to energy converted to heat
within the structure of the tire as well
as friction between the tire and the road,
also increase the rolling resistance of vehicles and,
correspondingly, decrease their fuel economy. Id.
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
29548
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
which creates resistance, decreasing fuel
efficiency.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
2. Relationship Between Tire
Maintenance and Tire Fuel Efficiency
and Vehicle Fuel Economy
Tires with reduced inflation pressure
exhibit more sidewall bending and tread
shearing. This increased deformation
causes increased energy loss by the
flexing of the rubber. Further, tires with
less than optimal inflation pressure
have a larger footprint of the tire on the
road, creating more contact between the
tire and the road, thereby increasing
rolling resistance. Therefore, properly
inflated tires achieve less rolling
resistance and higher fuel efficiency
than under-inflated tires. Moreover, all
tires require proper inflation and proper
maintenance to achieve their intended
levels of efficiency, safety, wear, and
operating performance. Thus, a strong
message urging vigilant maintenance of
17 See https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml;
2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 29.
18 Rolling resistance is, thus, defined as energy
per unit distance, which is the same units as force
(Joules/meter = Newtons). However, unlike force,
rolling resistance is a scalar quantity with no
direction associated with it. National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, The Pneumatic Tire,
DOT HS 810 561, at 477 (February 2006).
19 Id.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
inflation must be a central part of
communicating information on the fuel
efficiency performance of tires to
motorists.20
In addition to proper tire inflation
pressure, combinations of differences in
tire dimensions, design, materials, and
construction features will cause tires to
differ in rolling resistance as well as in
many other attributes such as traction,
handling, noise, wear resistance, and
appearance.21 Thus, when choosing
among replacement tires, consumers
choose among tires varying in price,
style, and many aspects of performance,
including rolling resistance, treadwear
life, and traction. Every year Americans
spend approximately $20 billion
replacing about 200 million passenger
car tires.22 Thus, the tires consumers
purchase will not only affect the
handling, traction, ride comfort, and
appearance of their cars, but also the
fuel economy.23
Fuel economy improvements are a
large part of ensuring a secure energy
future.24 EISA will help reduce
America’s dependence on oil by
reducing U.S. demand for oil by setting
a national fuel economy standard of at
least 35 miles per gallon by 2020—
which will increase fuel economy
standards by 40 percent and save
20 2006
NAS Report, supra note 4, at 5, 97.
at 1.
22 H.R. Rep. No. 109–537, at 3 (June 28, 2006);
2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 1.
23 Most passenger tires are replaced every 3 to 5
years because of wear. Id.
24 See 73 FR 24352, 24360 (May 2, 2008).
21 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
billions of gallons of fuel. In the near
future, per the President’s
announcement, NHTSA and EPA intend
to initiate a joint rulemaking, with
NHTSA proposing CAFE standards
under EPCA, as amended by EISA, and
EPA proposing greenhouse gas
emissions standards under the Clean Air
Act.25 This notice proposes a tire fuel
efficiency rating system and consumer
education program that will contribute
to increases in actual on-road fuel
economy achieved, even for vehicles
currently in service.
Further, improving fuel economy
reduces the amount of tailpipe
emissions of CO2. CO2 emissions are
directly linked to fuel consumption
because CO2 is an ultimate end product
of burning gasoline. The more fuel a
vehicle burns, the more CO2 it emits.
Since the CO2 emissions are essentially
constant per gallon of fuel combusted,
the amount of fuel consumption per
mile is directly related to the amount of
CO2 emissions per mile. Thus,
improvements in fuel economy
necessarily reduce tailpipe emissions of
CO2.26 The need to take action to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, e.g., motor
vehicle tailpipe emissions of CO2, in
order to forestall and even mitigate
climate change is well recognized.27
25 Notice of Upcoming Joint Rulemaking To
Establish Vehicle GHG Emissions and CAFE
Standards; Notice of Intent to Conduct a Joint
Rulemaking, 74 FR 24007 (May 22, 2009).
26 Id. at 24356.
27 IPCC (2007): Climate Change 2007: Mitigation
of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
EP22JN09.001
A tire’s rolling resistance is the energy
consumed by a rolling tire, or the
mechanical energy converted into heat
by a tire, moving a unit distance on the
roadway.18 The magnitude of rolling
resistance depends on the tire used, the
nature of the surface on which it rolls,
and the operating conditions—inflation
pressure, load, and speed.19
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
3. 2006 National Academy of Sciences
Report
In the Consolidated Appropriations
Act of 2004,28 Congress provided
funding through the USDOT/NHTSA to
the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) to develop and perform a
national tire fuel efficiency study and
literature review.29 The NAS was to
assess the feasibility of reducing rolling
resistance in replacement tires and the
effects of doing so on vehicle fuel
consumption, tire wear life and scrap
tire generation, and tire operating
performance as it relates to motor
vehicle safety. Congress asked that the
assessment include estimates of the
effects of reductions in rolling resistance
on consumer spending on fuel and tire
replacement.
In April 2006, the Transportation
Research Board and the Board on
Energy and Environmental Systems,
part of the National Academies’
Division on Engineering and Physical
Sciences, released Special Report 286,
Tires and Passenger Vehicle Fuel
Economy: Informing Consumers and
Improving Performance (2006 NAS
Report).30 The 2006 NAS Report
concluded that reduction of average
rolling resistance of replacement tires by
10 percent was technically and
economically feasible, and that such a
reduction would increase the fuel
economy of passenger vehicles by 1 to
2 percent, saving about 1 to 2 billion
gallons of fuel per year nationwide.31
A reduction in the average rolling
resistance of replacement tires in the
vehicle fleet can occur through various
means. Consumers could purchase more
tires that are now available with lower
rolling resistance, tire designs could be
modified, and new tire technologies that
offer reduced rolling resistance could be
introduced. More vigilant maintenance
of tire inflation pressure may further
this outcome as well.32 The 2006 NAS
Report concluded that consumers, if
III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B.
Metz, O. Davidson, P. Bosch, R. Dave, and L. Meyer
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
28 H.R. Rep. No. 108–401, at 971 (Nov. 25, 2003)
(Conf. Rep.).
29 Ultimately the task was given to the Committee
for the National Tire Efficiency Study of the
Transportation Research Board, a division of the
National Research Council that is jointly
administered by the National Academy of Sciences,
the National Academy of Engineering, and the
Institute of Medicine.
30 Transportation Research Board Special Report
286, Tires and Passenger Vehicle Fuel Economy,
National Research Council of the National
Academies (2006). A copy of this report will be
placed in the docket.
31 Id. at 2–3.
32 Id. at 3.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
sufficiently informed and interested,
could bring about a reduction in average
rolling resistance by adjusting their tire
purchases and by taking proper care of
their tires once in service, especially by
maintaining recommended inflation
pressure.33
The 2006 NAS Report observed that
consumers currently have little, if any,
practical way of assessing how tire
choices can affect vehicle fuel economy.
Recognizing this market failure, the
Report recommended that Congress
authorize and make sufficient resources
available for NHTSA to prompt and
work with the tire industry in gathering
and reporting information on the
influence of passenger tires on vehicle
fuel consumption.34 The 2006 NAS
Report recognized the challenge of
changing consumer preference and
behavior, but recommended
Congressional action nonetheless
because of the potential societal benefits
associated with increasing effective onroad fuel economy by even 1 to 2
percent.35 This ambitious undertaking
must begin with information concerning
the tire’s influence on fuel efficiency
being made widely and readily available
to tire buyers and sellers. The consumer
tire information program mandated by
EISA and proposed in today’s notice
begins this undertaking.
Other countries have also begun
working towards increasing on-road fuel
economy by reducing average rolling
resistance. These countries include
those of the European Union and Japan.
In addition, the State of California has
also initiated a program to increase
vehicle fuel economy using tire
efficiency ratings.
4. California
In 2001, California Senate Bill 1170
authorized the California Energy
Commission (CEC) to conduct a study to
investigate opportunities for increasing
usage of low rolling resistance tires in
California.36 The study concluded that
there was a potential for substantial
vehicle fuel savings from an increase in
the use of properly inflated, low rolling
resistance tires. As a result of this study,
in October 2003, the California State
legislature adopted Assembly Bill No.
844 (AB 844),37 which required the CEC
33 Id.
34 Id.
at 2, 4.
35 Id.
36 See Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 25000.5, 25722–
25723 (2009); 2001 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 912 (S.B.
1170) (West).
37 See Cal. Pub Res. Code §§ 25770–25773; 2003
Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 645 (A.B. 844) (West).
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
29549
to develop a comprehensive fuel
efficient tire program.38
The program would consist of three
phases. In the first phase, the CEC will
develop a database with information on
the fuel efficiency of replacement tires
sold in California, develop a rating
system for the energy efficiency of
replacement tires, and develop a
manufacturer reporting requirement for
the energy efficiency of replacement
tires.39 In the second phase, the CEC
will consider whether to adopt
standards for replacement tires to
ensure that replacement tires sold in the
State are at least as energy efficient, on
average, as original equipment tires.40 In
deciding whether to adopt standards,
the CEC must ensure that a standard:
• Is technically feasible and cost
effective;
• Does not adversely affect tire safety;
• Does not adversely affect the
average life of replacement tires; and
• Does not adversely affect the State
effort to manage scrap tires.41
If standards are adopted, the CEC will
also develop consumer information
requirements for replacement tires for
which standards apply. In the third
phase, the CEC must review and revise
the program at least every three years.42
On June 10, 2009, the Transportation
Policy Committee of the CEC conducted
a workshop regarding the Energy
Commission Fuel Efficient Tire
Program. As part of that workshop, the
CEC staff draft regulation was made
public.43 The draft regulation specifies
testing and reporting requirements for
manufacturers, and describes the
database the CEC will maintain. The
draft regulation defines a ‘‘fuel efficient
tire’’ as a tire with ‘‘a declared fuel
efficiency rating value no higher than
1.15 times the lowest declared fuel
efficiency rating value for all tires in its
38 Specifically, AB 844 required the State Energy
Resources Conservation Board ‘‘to adopt, on or
before July 1, 2007, and implement, no later than
July 1, 2008, a replacement tire fuel efficiency
program of statewide applicability for replacement
tires for passenger cars and light-duty trucks, that
is designed to ensure that replacement tires sold in
the State are at least as energy efficient, on average,
as the tires sold in the State as original equipment
on those vehicles.’’ Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 25772.
39 See id. at § 25771.
40 See id. at § 25772. EISA does not provide
NHTSA with the authority to directly regulate the
fuel efficiency of tires. EISA’s mandates to NHTSA
regarding replacement tire fuel efficiency relate
only to developing ratings and disseminating
information to consumers.
41 See id. at § 25773.
42 Id.
43 See https://www.energy.ca.gov/transportation/
tire_efficiency/documents/#061009 (last
accessed June 15, 2009).
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
29550
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
manufacturers are encouraged to
comply earlier.
5. European Union
Europe is approaching the issue of tire
fuel efficiency from two directions. On
March 10, 2009, the European
Parliament and the Council of the
European Union adopted the European
Commission Proposal for a regulation
concerning new type-approval
requirements for the general safety of
motor vehicles.45 One of the new
requirements in this regulation will
gradually prohibit original equipment
and replacement tires with a rolling
resistance coefficient (RRC) above
certain levels beginning November 1,
2012.
On April 22, 2009, the European
Parliament adopted another
Commission proposal, ‘‘Fuel Efficiency:
Labeling of Tyres.’’ The new regulation
will require original equipment and
replacement tires to be rated for rolling
resistance, wet grip and noise.46 The
rolling resistance rating is determined
using the same test procedure as in ISO
28580: Tyre Rolling Resistance
measurement method—Single point test
and measurement result correlation—
Designed to facilitate international
cooperation and, possibly, regulation
building. The ratings must be provided
to consumers in a label on the tire, and
also in technical promotional literature,
while the measured value for RRC as
determined for the type-approval
regulation must be molded onto the tire
sidewall.
The label design is the same A to G
scale as that used to rate the energy
efficiency of household appliances in
Europe.47 It will apply to tires fitted to
passenger cars as well as light and
heavy duty vehicles. Tire manufacturers
are required to have a ‘‘fuel savings
calculator’’ on their Web sites, while the
European Commission is required to
establish a ‘‘EU tyre labeling Web site’’
by September 2010. The new regulation
will go into effect in 2012, but tire
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
combined tire size designation and load
index.’’ 44
6. Japan
44 Publication #CEC–600–2009–010–SD (posted
May 29, 2009), available at https://
www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-6002009-010/CEC-600-2009-010-SD.PDF (last accessed
June 15, 2009).
45 See https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/
getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-20090092+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN#top
(last accessed Mar. 11, 2009).
46 See https://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/
FindByProcnum.do?lang=2&procnum=COD/2008/
0221 (last accessed Mar. 4, 2009). Mandatory
requirements are also proposed to begin in October
2010 for wet grip and external rolling noise.
47 See Council Directive 1992/75/EEC, 1992 O.J.
(L 297) 16–19 (on the indication by labeling and
standard product information of the consumption of
energy and other resources by household
appliances).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
In late 2008 the Ministry of Economy,
Trade and Industry (METI) and the
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
Transport and Tourism (MLIT)
announced a decision to establish a fuel
efficient tire program.48 The stated
objectives are to include standards for
measuring rolling resistance, providing
information to consumers, and
consideration of ways to ensure proper
tire pressure management (either
through tire pressure monitoring
systems or consumer education). Japan
has been participating in the
development of ISO 28580.
B. Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007 Mandated Consumer Tire
Information Program
The legislation that eventually
became section 111 of EISA mandating
the tire fuel efficiency consumer
education program was originally
introduced by itself in the U.S. House of
Representatives as H.R. 5632 49
following the recommendations in the
2006 NAS Report.50 The bill was
introduced on June 16, 2006, and on
June 28, 2006, the House Committee on
Energy and Commerce reported on a
slightly amended version of the bill.51 It
was never acted upon by the 109th
Congress, but it was inserted into a
comprehensive energy bill as the 110th
Congress began to develop it in May
2007.
The Motor Vehicle Information and
Cost Savings Act, which was enacted in
1972, mandated a Federal program to
provide consumers with accurate
information about the comparative
safety and damageability of passenger
cars. These requirements were codified
in Chapter 323 of title 49 of the United
States Code (U.S.C.). EISA added
section 32304A to title 49 U.S.C.,
Chapter 323, which gives authority to
the Department of Transportation (DOT)
to establish a new consumer tire
information program to educate
consumers about the effect of tires on
48 See https://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/data/
20081226_01.html (last accessed Mar. 10, 2009).
49 H.R. 5632, 109th Cong. (2d Sess. 2006).
50 Previous attempts to establish a national tire
fuel efficiency program can be found in proposed
amendments to various energy bills in prior years.
See e.g., S. Amdt. 3083, 108th Cong., 150 Cong. Rec.
S4710 (2004) (proposing to amend S. 150); S. Amdt.
1470, 108th Cong., 149 Cong. Rep. S10707 (2003)
(proposing to amend S. 14). These amendments
proposed regulating the fuel efficiency of tires in
addition to a tire fuel efficiency grading system and
consumer information program, and were not
adopted.
51 See H.R. Rep. No. 109–537 (2006).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
automobile fuel efficiency, safety, and
durability. The DOT has delegated
authority to NHTSA at 49 CFR 1.50.
We have summarized below the
requirements of title 49 U.S.C. 32304A,
the consumer tire information program
provision enacted by EISA. We request
comment on how effectively our
proposal is likely to be in achieving the
goals of EISA. For example, what
methodologies and assumptions should
be used in establishing and
implementing the new rating system?
What is the most effective way to engage
and educate consumers regarding the
proposed rating system?
1. Tires Subject to the Consumer
Information Program
The national tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program
mandated by EISA and proposed in this
notice is applicable ‘‘only to
replacement tires covered under section
575.104(c) of title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations’’ (CFR), as that regulation
existed on the date of EISA’s
enactment.52 Section 575.104 of title 49
CFR is the Federal regulation that
requires motor vehicle and tire
manufacturers and tire brand name
owners to provide information
indicating the relative performance of
passenger car tires in the areas of
treadwear, traction, and temperature
resistance. This section of NHTSA’s
regulations specifies the test procedures
to determine uniform tire quality
grading standards (UTQGS), and
mandates that these standards be
molded onto tire sidewalls.
Title 49 CFR, section 575.104 applies
only to ‘‘new pneumatic tires for use on
passenger cars * * * [but] * * * does
not apply to deep tread, winter-type
snow tires, space-saver or temporary use
spare tires, tires with nominal rim
diameters of 12 inches or less, or to
limited production tires as defined in
[49 CFR 575.104(c)(2)].’’ 53 Accordingly,
today’s proposed tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program applies
only to replacement passenger car tires
with the same exclusions as the UTQGS
regulation.
2. Mandate To Create a National Tire
Fuel Efficiency Rating System
EISA requires NHTSA to ‘‘promulgate
rules establishing a national tire fuel
efficiency consumer information
program for replacement tires designed
for use on motor vehicles to educate
consumers about the effect of tires on
automobile fuel efficiency, safety, and
52 49
53 49
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
U.S.C. 32304A(a)(3).
CFR 575.104(c)(1).
22JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
durability.’’ 54 EISA specifies that the
regulations establishing the program are
to be promulgated not later than
December 19, 2009.55
Section 111 of EISA specifically
mandates ‘‘a national tire fuel efficiency
rating system for motor vehicle
replacement tires to assist consumers in
making more educated tire purchasing
decisions.’’ 56 However, NHTSA may
‘‘not require permanent labeling of any
kind on a tire for the purpose of tire fuel
efficiency information.’’ 57
The only Committee Report
commenting on the legislation that
eventually became section 111 of EISA
explained that need for this program
was established by the 2006 NAS
Report, which concluded that if
consumers were sufficiently informed
and interested, they could bring about a
reduction in average rolling resistance
(and thus an increase in average on-road
fuel economy) by adjusting their tire
purchases and by taking proper care of
their tires once in service.58 Thus,
NHTSA reviewed conclusions and
recommendations in the 2006 NAS
Report regarding how best to inform
consumers using a tire fuel efficiency
rating system.
Specifically, the 2006 NAS Report
concluded that rolling resistance
measurement of new tires can be
informative to consumers, especially if
they are accompanied by reliable
information on other tire characteristics
such as treadwear rate and traction.59
The 2006 NAS Report further stated that
consumers benefit from the ready
availability of easy-to-understand
information on all major attributes of
their purchases, and that tires are no
exception. A tire’s influence on vehicle
fuel is an attribute that is likely to be of
54 49
U.S.C. 32304A(a)(1).
was signed into law on December 19,
2007. EISA specifies that ‘‘[n]ot later than 24
months after the date of enactment * * * [NHTSA]
shall, after notice and opportunity for comment,
promulgate rules establishing a national tire fuel
efficiency consumer information program for
replacement tires designed for use on motor
vehicles to educate consumers about the effect of
tires on automobile fuel efficiency, safety, and
durability.’’ 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(1).
56 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(2)(A).
57 Id. at § 32304A(d).
58 H.R. Rep. No. 109–537, at 3 (2006).
59 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 4. The 2006
NAS Report specifically noted that ‘‘[i]deally,
consumers would have access to information that
reflects a tire’s effect on fuel economy averaged over
its anticipated lifetime of use, as opposed to a
measurement taken during a single point in the
tire’s lifetime, usually when it is new.’’ Id.
However, ‘‘[n]o standard measure of lifetime tire
energy consumption is currently available, and the
development of one deserves consideration. Until
such a practical measure is developed, rolling
resistance measurements of new tires can be
informative to consumers * * *’’ Id.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
55 EISA
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
interest to many tire buyers.60 NHTSA
has attempted to keep these key
observations in mind in the
development of this proposal.
3. Communicating Information to
Consumers
EISA specifies that this rulemaking to
establish a national tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program must
include ‘‘requirements for providing
information to consumers, including
information at the point of sale and
other potential information
dissemination methods, including the
Internet.’’ 61 While there is little to no
legislative history of EISA itself, the
legislation that eventually became
section 111 of EISA was originally
introduced in June 2006 with this
identical requirement.62
On June 28, 2006, the House
Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported on a slightly amended version
of the bill and noted that ‘‘[t]he bill [ ]
would require tire retailers to provide
consumers with information on the tire
fuel efficiency rating of motor vehicle
tires at the point of sale.’’ 63 Thus,
NHTSA believes that the suggestion of
point of sale requirements indicates that
Congress intended NHTSA’s authority
to establish information dissemination
requirements to be broad enough to
include requirements for both tire
manufacturers, which by statute
includes importers,64 and tire dealers/
retailers and distributors.
4. Specification of Test Methods
Section 111 of EISA also mandates
that this rulemaking to establish a
national tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program include
‘‘specifications for test methods for
manufacturers to use in assessing and
rating tires to avoid variation among test
equipment and manufacturers.’’ 65 See
section IV of this notice for a discussion
of NHTSA’s research and rationale
regarding today’s proposal of ISO 28580.
We note that the 2006 NAS Report,
the recommendations from which
formed the basis for the legislation that
60 2006
NAS Report, supra note 4, at 4.
U.S.C. 32304A(a)(2)(B).
62 See H.R. 5632, 109th Cong. (2d Sess. 2006).
63 See H.R. Rep. No. 109–537, at 5 (2006).
64 See 49 U.S.C. 32101(5) (defining manufacturer
as ‘‘a person (A) manufacturing or assembling
passenger motor vehicles or passenger motor
vehicle equipment; or (B) importing motor vehicles
or motor vehicle equipment for resale.’’). For
purposes of the statute, the importer of any tire is
a manufacturer. An importer is responsible for
every tire it imports and is subject to civil penalties
in the event of any violations. The U.S. Customs
and Border Protection may deny entry at the port
to items that do not conform to applicable
requirements.
65 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(2)(C).
61 49
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
29551
became section 111 of EISA, indicated
that ‘‘[a]dvice on specific procedures for
measuring and rating the influence of
individual passenger tires on fuel
economy and methods of conveying this
information to consumers [was] outside
the scope of this study.’’ 66 Accordingly,
after publication of the 2006 NAS
Report and in anticipation of
Congressional legislation based off its
recommendations, NHTSA embarked on
a large-scale research project in July
2006 to evaluate existing tire rolling
resistance test methods.67
5. Creating a National Consumer
Education Program on Tire Maintenance
Section 111 of EISA further directs
NHTSA to establish in this rulemaking
‘‘a national tire maintenance consumer
education program including,
information on tire inflation pressure,
alignment, rotation, and treadwear to
maximize fuel efficiency, safety, and
durability.’’ 68 NHTSA already has some
information regarding tire maintenance
on its https://safercar.gov Web site.69
The 2006 NAS Report, the
recommendations from which formed
the basis for the legislation that became
section 111 of EISA, noted that
consumers benefit from the ready
availability of easy-to-understand
information on all major attributes of
their purchases, and that replacement
tires’ influence on vehicle fuel economy
is an attribute that is likely to be of
interest to many tire buyers.70 NHTSA
has focused on these principles in
developing today’s proposal and seeks
comment on the best way to make the
information in this program both of
interest to consumers and easy to
understand. The 2006 NAS Report
further noted that ‘‘industry cooperation
is essential in gathering and conveying
tire performance information that
consumers can use in making tire
purchases.’’ 71 NHTSA agrees that
cooperation with the tire manufacturer
and tire retailer industries, as well as
other interested parties will be vital to
the success of this program. The agency
has held initial consultations with
various groups of industry and the
environmental community, as well at
66 2006
NAS Report, supra note 4, at 4.
NHTSA Tire Rolling Resistance Rating
System Test Development Project: Phase 1—
Evaluation of Laboratory Test Protocols (October
2008). The research reports from this Phase 1
research will be placed in the docket.
68 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(2)(D).
69 See generally https://www.safercar.gov/portal/
site/safercar/menuitem.13dd5c887c7e1358
fefe0a2f35a67789/?vgnextoid=0e0aaa8c16e35
110VgnVCM1000002fd17898RCRD.
70 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 96.
71 Id.
67 See
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
29552
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
other Government agencies, to seek their
views.
6. Consultation in Setting Standards
Section 111 of EISA provides that
NHTSA is to consult with the
Department of Energy (DOE) and
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
‘‘on the means of conveying tire fuel
efficiency consumer information.’’ 72
One of the recommendations of the 2006
NAS Report, which formed the basis for
the legislation that became section 111
of EISA, stated that NHTSA should
consult with the EPA ‘‘on means of
conveying the information and ensure
that the information is made widely
available in a timely manner and is
easily understood by both buyers and
sellers.’’ 73 NHTSA and EPA will fulfill
the statutory consultation requirement
in a way that best serves the goals of
EISA.
NHTSA consulted with
representatives of DOE, EPA, and the
Federal Trade Commission 74 who work
in consumer information and rating
programs. These agencies provided
feedback on NHTSA’s draft proposal
which included valuable comments and
insight based on their experiences
communicating information on the
energy efficiency of consumer products.
7. Application With State and Local
Laws and Regulations
Section 111 of EISA contains both an
express preemption provision and a
savings provision that address the
relationship of the national tire fuel
efficiency consumer information
program to be established under that
section with State and local tire fuel
efficiency consumer information
programs. Section 111 provides:
Nothing in this section prohibits a State or
political subdivision thereof from enforcing a
law or regulation on tire fuel efficiency
consumer information that was in effect on
January 1, 2006. After a requirement
promulgated under this section is in effect,
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
72 49
U.S.C. 32304A(b). In addition, Executive
Order No. 13432 provides that a Federal agency
undertaking a regulatory action that can reasonably
be expected to directly regulate emissions, or to
substantially and predictably affect emissions, of
greenhouse gasses from motor vehicles, shall act
jointly and consistently with other agencies to the
extent possible and to consider the views of other
agencies regarding such action.
73 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 4.
74 The Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
developed the EnergyGuide label to enable
consumers to compare the energy use of different
models as consumers shop for an appliance. See
https://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/homes/
rea14.shtm (last accessed June 3, 2009). Section
321(b) of EISA directs the FTC to consider the
effectiveness of current lamp disclosures and to
consider whether alternative labeling disclosures
would be more effective in helping consumers make
purchasing decisions.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
a State or political subdivision thereof may
adopt or enforce a law or regulation on tire
fuel efficiency consumer information enacted
or promulgated after January 1, 2006, if the
requirements of that law or regulation are
identical to the requirement promulgated
under this section. Nothing in this section
shall be construed to preempt a State or
political subdivision thereof from regulating
the fuel efficiency of tires (including
establishing testing methods for determining
compliance with such standards) not
otherwise preempted under this chapter.75
NHTSA seeks public comment on the
scope of Section 111 generally, and in
particular on whether, and to what
extent, Section 111 would or would not
preempt tire fuel consumer information
regulations that the administrative
agencies of the State of California may
promulgate in the future pursuant to
California’s Assembly Bill 844.
8. Compliance and Enforcement
Section 111 of EISA added a new subprovision to 49 U.S.C. 32308 (General
prohibitions, civil penalty, and
enforcement) which reads as follows:
Any person who fails to comply with the
national tire fuel efficiency information
program under section 32304A is liable to the
United States Government for a civil penalty
of not more than $50,000 for each violation.
9. Reporting to Congress
EISA also requires that NHTSA
conduct periodic assessments of the
rules promulgated under this program
‘‘to determine the utility of such rules
to consumers, the level of cooperation
by industry, and the contribution to
national goals pertaining to energy
consumption.’’ 76 NHTSA must
‘‘transmit periodic reports detailing the
findings of such assessments to the
Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the
House of Representatives Committee on
Energy and Commerce.’’ 77
III. Which Tires Must Be Rated?
A. Passenger Car Tires
As explained above in section II.B.1 of
this notice, EISA specifies that the tire
fuel efficiency requirements are to
‘‘apply only to replacement tires
covered under [NHTSA’s UTQGS
regulation].’’ 78 Title 49 CFR, section
575.104 applies only to ‘‘new pneumatic
tires 79 for use on passenger cars’’ with
75 49
76 49
U.S.C. 32304A(e).
U.S.C. 32304A(c).
77 Id.
78 49
U.S.C. 32304A(a)(3).
term pneumatic tires is a broad one that
essentially means air-filled tires. Section 571.139 of
title 49 CFR (or FMVSS No. 109, New Pneumatic
Radial Tires for Light Vehicles) defines pneumatic
tire broadly as ‘‘a mechanical device made of
rubber, chemicals, fabric and steel or other
79 The
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
some exclusions of particular types of
tires.80 All terms in 49 CFR part 575 are
as defined by statute or in 49 CFR part
571, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSS).81 Section 571.139
of title 49 CFR (or FMVSS No. 139, New
Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light
Vehicles) defines ‘‘passenger car tire’’ as
‘‘a tire intended for use on passenger
cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles,
and trucks, that have a gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds
or less.’’
Accordingly, today’s proposed tire
fuel efficiency consumer information
program applies only to replacement
passenger car tires, or tires intended for
use on passenger cars, multipurpose
passenger vehicles, and trucks, that
have a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.
These tires often have a tire size
designation beginning with a ‘‘P,’’
indicating that they are for use on
passenger cars. However, they may be
designated without the P, sometimes
referred to as ‘‘hard metric’’ sizes. Note
that even though they are classified as
light trucks by NHTSA, many smaller
sport utility vehicles (SUVs), pickups,
and vans are equipped with passenger
car tires.82 The kinds of light- and
medium-duty trucks used in
commercial service, including full-size
pickups and vans, have a GVWR of
more than 6,000 pounds. These vehicles
are usually equipped with tires having
the letters ‘‘LT’’ molded into the
sidewall.83 EISA excludes replacement
LT tires from the tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program.84
NHTSA’s research included testing of
LT tires even though we are not
authorized to regulate them through this
tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program because NHTSA’s
Phase 1 research was initiated in July
2006, subsequent to the release of the
2006 NAS Report.85 LT tires represented
approximately 16.7 percent of the U.S.
materials, which, when mounted on an automotive
wheel, provides the traction and contains the gas
or fluid that sustains the load.’’ By contrast, a nonpneumatic tire is a ‘‘mechanical device which
transmits * * * the vertical load and tractive forces
from the roadway to the vehicle, generates the
tractive forces that provide the directional control
of the vehicle and does not rely on the containment
of any gas or fluid for providing those functions.’’
49 CFR 571.129, New Non-pneumatic Tires for
Passenger Cars.
80 49 CFR 575.104(c)(1).
81 49 CFR 575.2, Definitions.
82 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 14.
83 Id.
84 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(3).
85 Specifically, of the 25 different models of tires
tested in NHTSA’s Phase 1 research, 16 tire models
were passenger, 9 were light truck tire models; one
of the passenger car tires was the ASTM F2493–06
P225/60R16 97S Standard Reference Test Tire
(SRTT).
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
replacement tire market in 2007,86 and
the LT tires studied had nearly twice the
rolling resistance as the group of
passenger car tires studied.87 NHTSA
notes that it expects test data to be
available for many LT tires, as these
tires are covered by the Europe and
California programs. Nothing in this
regulation would prohibit
manufacturers from voluntarily rating or
reporting data for LT or other excluded
tires, as required for covered tires.
C. Tires Within a Tire Model
Tire manufacturers may have different
brands, and within each brand different
tire models (or tire lines),89 and tire
models are often available in different
sizes. For example, Michelin is the
manufacturer for the Michelin,
BFGoodrich and Uniroyal brands. A
popular Michelin brand model is the
Pilot, but other models include the
Energy or the HydroEdge. And each of
these brands is available in different tire
sizes, for example a 185/65R14 or a 215/
70R15. See Figure 3. The model of tire
(Pilot) then may be available in several
performance levels. In the case in Figure
3 there are 3 different speed ratings for
the Pilot model. Performance ratings
may also include All-Season,
Competition, Touring, Grand Touring,
etc. Each of these tires may also have
different treadwear, traction,
temperature and warranty ratings. These
models are then available in different
tire sizes, for example an Exalto A/S is
available in 185/60R14 to 235/40R17.
Whereas a Pilot Sport A/S Plus is
available in sizes 205/55R16 to 245/
45R20, and the Pilot Sport PS2 is
available in sizes 225/55R16 to 295/
25R22.
In passenger car tire sizes (e.g., 185/
65R14), the first three numbers indicate
the nominal width of the tire, i.e., width
in millimeters from sidewall edge to
sidewall edge (185). In general, the
larger the nominal width, the wider the
tire. The second two numbers in the size
designation indicate the ratio of tire
height to tire width, or the aspect ratio
(65). For aspect ratio, numbers of 70 or
lower indicate a short sidewall for
improved steering response and better
overall handling on dry pavement. The
‘‘R’’ indicates that this particular tire is
a radial tire, as opposed to bias ply
construction, which is indicated by a
‘‘D’’ in the size specification. Radial ply
construction of tires has been the
86 Rubber Manufacturers Association, Preliminary
2008 Factbook, see https://www.rma.org/
publications/market_information/
index.cfm?CFID=23483353&CFTOKEN=70640000.
87 See NHTSA Rolling Resistance Rating System
Test Development Project: Phase 1—Evaluation of
Laboratory Test Protocols (October 2008). A copy of
this report and other research reports relied on in
this proposal will be placed in the docket.
88 49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B).
89 For purposes of the tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program, the phrase ‘‘tire
line’’ and ‘‘tire model’’ can be used interchangeably.
The agency will generally use the word ‘‘model’’ to
refer to a particular line of tires.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
EP22JN09.002
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
B. Replacement Tires
Another issue is how to define
‘‘replacement tire’’ for purposes of this
program. While most UTQGS
requirements apply to all passenger car
tires, whether sold as original
equipment with a new automobile (OE
tires) or as a replacement tire, some
apply only to replacement tires. For
example, the requirement for a paper
label on the tire tread excludes tires
‘‘sold as original equipment on a new
vehicle.’’ 88 NHTSA is proposing a
definition of replacement tires for the
purposes of the tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program using
this language. The agency believes the
definition needs to be in terms of the
actual sale of the tire, not the intention
when manufactured. NHTSA
understands that some tires that are
manufactured for the OE tire market
could be sold as replacement tires,
either because the vehicle manufacturer
does not purchase all that are
manufactured for that purpose, or
because the vehicle manufacturer sells
excess stock.
29553
29554
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
industry standard for the past 20 years.
The last two numbers in the size
designation indicate the rim diameter
code (14), or the wheel or rim diameter
in inches. A change in any of these three
numbers indicates a different size
specification for a replacement tire.
Research done for the California
Energy Commission (CEC) to evaluate
test facility capacity to conduct rolling
resistance testing indicated that there
are well over 20,000 different brand/
model/size combinations (or SKUs) 90 of
replacement passenger car tires sold in
the United States.91 The CEC research
also indicated that it could take up to
2.7 years to test one tire of each SKU
once.92 Additionally, a tire
manufacturer has the ability to estimate
with relative accuracy the rolling
resistance test value of a tire with a
given size specification if it knows the
rolling resistance test value of a tire in
the same model line (i.e., the ability to
extrapolate test values for certain SKUs
from knowing the actual test values of
other SKUs). Tire manufacturers have
this same ability to extrapolate for
UTQGS traction test values and UTQGS
treadwear test values by having actually
traction and treadwear test values of
other, similar tires of different SKUs.
For these reasons, NHTSA tentatively
concludes that it is not reasonable or
necessary to require a physically-tested
value of rolling resistance, traction, or
treadwear test value for every
90 An SKU, or stock keeping unit, is a specific
market brand and tire design and size combination.
A different SKU can also be indicated by a different
specified load rating or speed rating for a particular
tire. Specifically, NHTSA is proposing to define
stock keeping unit as ‘‘the alpha-numeric
designation assigned by a manufacturer to uniquely
identify a tire product. This term is sometimes
referred to as a product code, a product ID, or a part
number.’’ See section XIII (Regulatory Text) of this
notice.
91 The CEC research estimated 20,708 different
replacement passenger car tire SKUs and 3,296
replacement LT tire SKUs. This research was done
by Smithers Scientific Services, Inc. (Smithers) and
was presented at a CEC staff workshop on February
5, 2009. This presentation is available through the
CEC’s Web site and also will be available in this
docket. See https://www.energy.ca.gov/
transportation/tire_efficiency/documents/
index.html (last accessed Feb. 11, 2009).
92 The Smithers’ research conducted for CEC was
estimating various scenarios for testing three of
each different replacement passenger and LT tire
SKU (because California’s tire fuel efficiency
program covers passenger car and LT replacement
tires). The eight different scenarios varied workdays
per year, percent capacity available, and hours per
day of test operation. Based on estimates of test
capacities, the CEC research estimated average test
years required to test three tires of each SKU to be
between 0.7 and 8.2 years. Thus, for the purposes
of testing one of each different replacement
passenger car tire SKU, we estimate this would take
a maximum of 8.2/3 years, or 2.7 years.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
combination of tire model, construction,
and size (SKU).
However, consumers researching tires
should be able to compare tire models
and sizes with some reliability. In
NHTSA’s testing, tires of a size 225/
60R16, but manufactured by different
companies, and having various
performance ratings (e.g., speed rating,
all-season specification) had rolling
resistance values ranging from 9.8 to
15.2 pounds.93 Rolling resistance can
also vary widely across different sized
tires in a brand. In data reported by the
CEC, passenger car tires of the same
brand and model with different sizes
ranged in rolling resistance from 7.5 to
22.8 pounds.94
For these reasons, NHTSA is
proposing to require each SKU, or each
size within each model of each brand,
to be rated separately for fuel efficiency
(using a rolling resistance test value),
safety (using a UTQGS traction test
value), and durability (using a UTQGS
treadwear test value). Tire
manufacturers may use their judgment
to determine how many and which tires
they must test to be able to accurately
report rolling resistance ratings. A tire
manufacturer will be responsible for the
accuracy of the ratings they place upon
the tire label and otherwise
communicate to consumers. That is, for
compliance purposes, NHTSA will test
any rated tire according to the test
procedures specified in the regulation
(regardless of whether or not the tire
manufacturer has tested this tire), and if
the rolling resistance, traction, or
treadwear test value falls outside of
NHTSA’s specified tolerance range, the
agency will consider that rating a
noncompliance. See discussion of
tolerances in section XI of this notice.
For data reporting purposes, a
manufacturer must calculate a test
procedure value for rolling resistance,
traction, and treadwear, although it is
not required to conduct the specific test
in the regulation. The proposed
specified test procedures merely
indicate the procedures NHTSA will use
to test and rate a replacement tire for
compliance purposes. A tire
manufacturer is free to reasonably
estimate the test values it reports.
NHTSA requests comment on the
appropriateness of using interpolated
93 See NHTSA Rolling Resistance Rating System
Test Development Project: Phase 1—Evaluation of
Laboratory Test Protocols (October 2008). A copy of
this report and other research reports relied on in
this proposal will be placed in the docket.
94 To examine California’s rolling resistance test
data, please contact Ray Tuvell of the California
Energy Commission. See https://www.energy.ca.gov/
transportation/tire_efficiency/ (last
accessed Feb. 13, 2009).
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
values (for instance a rating for a P215/
60R16 value calculated from tested
values for a P205/60R16 and a 225/
60R16) and extrapolated values (for
instance the effect of changes in tread
pattern for a specific tire construction of
known rating) to provide tire ratings.
D. Tires Excluded
NHTSA’s UTQGS regulation excludes
‘‘deep tread, winter-type snow tires,
space-saver or temporary use spare tires,
tires with a nominal rim diameter of 12
inches or less, [and] limited production
tires.’’ 95 49 CFR 575.104(c)(1). Since
EISA specifies that the tire fuel
efficiency requirements are to ‘‘apply
only to replacement tires covered under
[NHTSA’s UTQGS regulation],’’ these
exclusions are included in today’s
proposed regulation.96
NHTSA’s research included testing of
two different snow tire models.97 The
two snow tire models tested were
within the range of rolling resistance
force values of all-season and summeronly passenger tires of the same size.
Therefore the specific exclusion of
winter-type tires, which represented 4.5
percent of the U.S. replacement tire
market in 2007 98 should not impede the
effectiveness of the rating system in
reducing U.S. passenger vehicle fuel
consumption.
NHTSA requests comments on
whether it should include in the
manufacturer reporting requirement (see
95 For UTQGS, a limited production tire is
defined as ‘‘a tire meeting all of the following
criteria, as applicable:
(i) The annual domestic production or
importation into the United States by the tire’s
manufacturer of tires of the same design and size
as the tire does not exceed 15,000 tires;
(ii) In the case of a tire marketed under a brand
name, the annual domestic purchase or importation
into the United States by a brand name owner of
tires of the same design and size as the tire does
not exceed 15,000 tires;
(iii) The tire’s size was not listed as a vehicle
manufacturer’s recommended tire size designation
for a new motor vehicle produced in or imported
into the United States in quantities greater than
10,000 during the calendar year preceding the year
of the tire’s manufacture; and
(iv) The total annual domestic production or
importation into the United States by the tire’s
manufacturer, and in the case of a tire marketed
under a brand name, the total annual domestic
purchase or purchase for importation into the
United States by the tire’s brand name owner, of
tires meeting the criteria of paragraphs (c)(2)(i), (ii),
and (iii) of this section, does not exceed 35,000
tires.’’ 49 CFR § 575.104(c)(2).
96 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(3).
97 See NHTSA Rolling Resistance Rating System
Test Development Project: Phase 1—Evaluation of
Laboratory Test Protocols (October 2008). A copy of
this report and other research reports relied on in
this proposal will be placed in the docket.
98 Rubber Manufacturers Association, Preliminary
2008 Factbook, see https://www.rma.org/
publications/market_information/
index.cfm?CFID=23483353&CFTOKEN=70640000.
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
section VII.D.1) a requirement that each
manufacturer include with its reports a
list of all tire models and sizes that it
is claiming are excluded from today’s
proposed requirements (49 CFR
575.106). In particular, the limited
production exclusion is not obvious just
by examining the tire, and this would
allow NHTSA to quickly verify whether
or not the lack of a label was an
enforcement concern. The agency may
include such a reporting requirement in
the final regulation.
IV. Rolling Resistance Test Procedure
A. Rolling Resistance
As explained above, rolling resistance
is simply the manifestation of all of the
energy losses associated with the rolling
of a tire under load.99 Accordingly, in a
laboratory, rolling resistance is
measured by running a tire under load
on a test wheel (referred to as
‘‘roadwheel’’). The energy consumed in
driving the tire is measured and the
energy recovered from the tire is
measured by the test equipment. The
difference is the heat energy lost which
is the measure of rolling resistance. The
smaller the difference, the more fuel
efficient the tire. NHTSA is only
interested in the force required to
maintain a steady state of movement,
i.e., speed. Therefore the steady state, or
constant, speed test methods are the
only ones considered by NHTSA.
B. Possible Test Procedures Available
To Measure Rolling Resistance
As mentioned previously, subsequent
to the recommendations for
Congressional action issued in the 2006
NAS Report, NHTSA began a research
program to evaluate five existing or
proposed test methods to measure the
rolling resistance of light vehicle tires,
and to examine correlations between
tire rolling resistance levels and tire
safety performance (Phase 1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
99 National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, The Pneumatic Tire, DOT HS 810
561, at 483 (February 2006).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
Research).100 The five test methods
examined in NHTSA’s Phase 1 Research
included four established and one draft
tire rolling resistance test procedure.
The five test methods were as follows:
• Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE) J1269—Sep 2006–09; Rolling
Resistance Measurement Procedure for
Passenger Car, Light Truck and Highway
Truck and Bus Tires (Multi Point).
• SAE J1269—Sep 2006–09; Rolling
Resistance Measurement Procedure for
Passenger Car, Light Truck and Highway
Truck and Bus Tires (Single Point).
• SAE J2452—Jun 1999; Stepwise
Coastdown Methodology for Measuring
Tire Rolling Resistance (Multi Point).
• ISO 18164:2005(E); Passenger car,
truck, bus and motorcycle tyres—
Methods of measuring rolling resistance
(Multi Point).
• ISO 28580; Tyre Rolling Resistance
measurement method—Single point test
and measurement result correlation—
Designed to facilitate international
cooperation and, possibly, regulation
building (Single Point).
The SAE is an international standards
organization providing voluntary
industry standards.101 The ISO is a
worldwide federation of national
standards bodies that prepares
standards through technical committees
comprised of international
organizations, governmental and nongovernmental, in liaison with ISO.102
The standards and test methods
published by these bodies are
proprietary and protected under U.S.
copyright law. Parties who need to or
wish to conduct the actual tests
themselves may obtain a copy of the
100 See NHTSA Rolling Resistance Rating System
Test Development Project: Phase 1—Evaluation of
Laboratory Test Protocols (October 2008). A copy of
this report and other research reports relied on in
this proposal will be placed in the docket.
101 SAE International, 400 Commonwealth Drive,
Warrendale, PA 15096–0001, Tel (877) 606–7323,
https://www.sae.org.
102 ISO Central Secretariat, 1, ch. de la VoieCreuse, Case postale 56, CH–1211 Geneva 20,
Switzerland, Telephone +41 22 749 01 11, Fax +41
22 733 34 30, https://www.iso.org.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
29555
standards by contacting either SAE or
ISO.
NHTSA’s Phase 1 Research used 600
tires of 25 different model/size
combinations to evaluate the five rolling
resistance test methods at two different
laboratories.103 Tires of each model
were purchased with identical or
similar build dates and were tested
multiple times in each test method, and
multiple times at each laboratory.
Figure 4 shows a typical laboratory
test machine (used for all five test
methods evaluated) for measuring
rolling resistance. In this test a tire and
rim are mounted on the machine. The
tire is held against the roadwheel by an
actuating cylinder aligned with the
center of the roadwheel. A drive motor
coupled to the roadwheel rotates the
roadwheel. Consequently, the
roadwheel drives the tire through
friction at the contact patch. The tire’s
rolling resistance retards the
roadwheel’s rotation speed. This effect
is then measured using any combination
of the forces, torques, speeds, or
acceleration of the roadwheel. Then the
rolling resistance is calculated from the
measured quantities.104
A tire’s rolling resistance is the energy
consumed by a rolling tire, or the
mechanical energy converted into heat
by a tire, moving a unit distance on the
roadway.105 The magnitude of rolling
resistance depends on the tire used, the
nature of the surface on which it rolls,
and the operating conditions—inflation
pressure, load, and speed.106
103 This study looked at both Passenger car (P)
tires and Light Truck (LT) tires. However, EISA
limits the applicability of this rulemaking to P tires
only.
104 National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, The Pneumatic Tire, DOT HS 810
561, at 514–515 (February 2006).
105 Rolling resistance is, thus, defined as energy
per unit distance, which is the same units as force
(Joules/meter = Newtons). However, unlike force,
rolling resistance is a scalar quantity with no
direction associated with it. National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, The Pneumatic Tire,
DOT HS 810 561, at 477 (February 2006).
106 Id.
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Four measurement methods of energy
loss are in common use and prescribed
in test procedures, although not all of
the methods are included in every
standard.107 The methods described in
the test standards include the following:
measurement of the resistive force at the
tire spindle while rolling at constant
speed (force method), measurement of
the resistive torque on the roadwheel
hub at constant speed (torque method),
measurement of the electrical power
used by the motor to keep the
roadwheel rotating at a constant speed
(power method), and measurement of
deceleration when the driving force at
the roadwheel is discontinued
(deceleration method).108 The two
methods evaluated in NHTSA research
were the force and torque methods.
Therefore deceleration and power
methods are not discussed further in
this notice.
107 The proposed test procedure, ISO 28580, has
provisions to use all four methods to measure the
energy loss.
108 National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, The Pneumatic Tire, DOT HS 810
561, at 515 (February 2006).
109 Lightly loaded is not a specific number of
pounds, but just enough load to keep the tire in
contact with the roadwheel, so that the speed of the
tire is equal to the speed of the roadwheel surface
so there is no slippage.
110 As the machinery ramps up the tire speed to
the specified test speed, the force values measured
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
Force Method
The force method measures the force
at the tire spindle. See Figure 5. The
roadwheel is brought up to the specified
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
test speed and the tire is warmed up
(warm-up) to an equilibrium
temperature. The tire is then lightly
loaded 109 to measure the losses caused
by the spindle holding the tire and
aerodynamic losses from the tire
spinning. This force measurement is
referred to as the skim load value. The
tire is then loaded to the test load and
successive readings of the resistive force
at the tire spindle while rolling at
constant speed are taken until
consistent force values are obtained.110
bounce around at first. An accurate measurement
can only be taken when the tire is moving at a
constant speed and is a constant temperature. Thus,
there is a slight delay from ramping up to the
specified test speed, and the measurement of an
accurate and steady force reading.
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
EP22JN09.003
29556
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
29557
then lightly loaded to measure the
losses caused by the spindle holding the
tire and aerodynamic losses from the
tire spinning (skim load value). The tire
is then loaded to the test load and
successive readings of the resistive
torque on the roadwheel hub at constant
speed are taken until consistent force
values are obtained.
The values measured for skim and
loaded torque must be processed to
determine the force (RRF). The skim
must be subtracted from the loaded
torque value divided by the radius of
the roadwheel to determine the tire’s
contribution to the total loss. The result
is Rolling Resistance Force (RRF).
specifying a test method that avoids
variation among laboratories/machines.
NHTSA also sought to examine possible
tradeoffs between improved rolling
resistance and tire safety. The purposes
of the NHTSA Phase 1 Research was to:
C. NHTSA Research Results
Some of the technical challenges
involved in selection of a test procedure
to measure rolling resistance include
111 A color version of Figure 6 will be placed in
the docket.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
EP22JN09.005
Torque Method
The torque method measures the
energy, or torque, required to maintain
the rotation of the roadwheel. The
roadwheel is connected to the motor
through a ‘‘torque cell.’’ See Figure 6.111
The roadwheel is brought up to speed
and the tire is warmed up (warm-up) to
an equilibrium temperature. The tire is
EP22JN09.004
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
The reported force value is equal to
the measured force at the spindle minus
the skim load value, thereby
determining the actual Rolling
Resistance Force (RRF) value of the tire.
This force is trying to slow down the
rotation or travel of the roadwheel due
to the energy loss.
29558
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
• Benchmark the current rolling
resistance levels in modern passenger
vehicle tires in terms of actual rolling
force, rolling resistance coefficient, as
well as indexed against the ASTM
F1493–06 Standard Reference Test Tire
(SRTT).
• Analyze the effect of the input
variables on the testing conditions for
non-linear response.
• Select a test procedure that would
be best for a regulation.
• Examine the variability of the
rolling resistance results from lab to lab,
machine to machine.
• Evaluate the effects of first test on
a tire versus second test on the same
tire.
As discussed above, there can be up
to four methods specified for
measurement of tire rolling resistance:
force method, torque method, power
method, and deceleration method. Of
these, the force and torque methods are
the most commonly used. One test
laboratory used in NHTSA’s Phase 1
Research evaluated all five rolling
resistance procedures on one ‘‘force
measurement method’’ test machine.
The second test laboratory evaluated
SAE J2452 on one ‘‘torque measurement
method’’ test machine and the other
four methods on a second ‘‘force
measurement method’’ test machine. In
NHTSA’s Phase 1 Research, all work
was done using machines with 1.707
meter (67.23 inch) roadwheels with grit
surface, which is typical for the United
States.112
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) 113
was carried out on the data using the
General Linear Models procedure of
SAS software to evaluate the effects on
measured rolling resistance of tire type,
lab-to-lab variability, inflation
maintenance, and repeat testing on the
same tire. For all of the variables
analyzed, individual tire type had the
most significant effect on the statistical
model.
NHTSA’s evaluation indicated that all
five of the rolling resistance test
methods had very low variability and
could be cross-correlated to provide the
same information about individual tire
types.114 The rank ordering of tire types
112 Internationally some laboratories use a 2 meter
(78.34 inch) roadwheel, often with a bare steel
surface.
113 The term analysis of variance refers to the
method of determining if an independent variable,
such as tire type, has a significant effect on the
dependent variable (rolling resistance) by
comparing the magnitude of the variation between
the means for different groups of independent
variables to the variation estimated for random
error.
114 For this program, each manufacturer will
‘‘self-certify’’ the ratings for its tires. The test
procedure specified in this proposal is what
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
was essentially the same for each of the
test methods evaluated. There was a
significant and consistent difference in
the data generated by the two
laboratories/machines used in this
study. Therefore, development of a
method to account for lab-to-lab
variability is required, either by (1) the
use of lab-to-lab correlation equation,
based on a reference laboratory, or (2)
the use of a Standard Reference Test
Tire (SRTT), to normalize data across
labs.
NHTSA also examined differences
resulting from the method of inflation
maintenance, specifically whether
inflation pressure was capped 115 or
regulated.116 The pressure rise in the
tire during testing using a capped
inflation procedure reduced the rolling
resistance compared to maintaining the
pressure at a constant pressure during
the test. Therefore, the choice of a test
that uses capped inflation pressure for
some or all of the test points should
provide a more accurate representation
of in-service behavior.
Finally, NHTSA analyzed the effect of
repeating tests on the same tire and
found that this had little to no effect on
test results. Therefore, repeat testing of
the same SRTT for lab-to-lab data
alignment appears to be viable.
To minimize variability when
evaluating the five test methods, tires of
each model were purchased with
identical or similar build dates.
Therefore, the variability of an
individual tire model’s rolling
resistance over a long duration of build
dates, or for a single model built at
different plants, has not been evaluated
by NHTSA.
even a different number of test points in
the set of conditions. The goal of multipoint testing is to allow the use of
statistical techniques to reduce rolling
resistance force measurement variability
and to allow prediction of the effect of
changes in inflation pressure, tire load
and speed on rolling resistance force.
The term ‘‘single-point’’ refers to a
method that uses a single set of test
conditions. These conditions are
designed to be near the average
conditions that a tire would see in its
intended service.
NHTSA’s evaluation showed that all
of the rolling resistance test methods
have very low variability and all
methods can be cross-correlated to
provide the same information about
individual tire types. The rank ordering
of tire types was essentially the same for
each of the rolling resistance test
methods evaluated. Equations were
derived to accurately convert data from
any one test to the expected data from
any other test. NHTSA’s research has
shown that both types of tests
essentially produce the same rating if
results are normalized as a percentage of
RRF measured at each lab for the 16inch SRTT.117 Single-point tests are less
expensive and shorter than multi-point
test methods. Additionally, with singlepoint tests, data from any method can be
correlated to data from any other
method. Accordingly, NHTSA
tentatively concludes that a singlepoint, rather than a multi-point, test will
better serve the purposes of this
program. The agency seeks comments,
however on the benefits or drawbacks of
using single-point versus multi-point
test methods.
D. Why Select a Single-Point Test
Instead of Multi-Point?
The term ‘‘multi-point’’ refers to a
method that uses more than one set of
conditions to test a tire, usually varying
speed, pressure, and/or load. Passenger
car and light truck tires generally have
different test conditions and can have
E. Why Select ISO 28580 Instead of
Other Tests?
Between the two single-point tests,
NHTSA is proposing to specify the ISO
28580 test procedure. The ISO 28580 is
a draft test method that is now at the
final draft international standard (FDIS)
stage, and is expected to be balloted and
finalized by late April or early May
2009. Since the ISO test is currently
being balloted for a final standard, we
anticipate only editorial changes at this
stage. The differences between the
single-point ISO 28580 draft test
procedure and the SAE 1269 singlepoint test procedure are detailed in
documents available in the docket.118 If
NHTSA will use for compliance testing, using the
proposed tolerance bands as discussed later in this
notice (section XI). Even if rolling resistance test
data were gathered using other test methods,
NHTSA’s research shows that equations can
translate the data to the test procedure specified in
this rule.
115 Capped inflation is achieved by inflating the
tire to the required pressure prior to testing, while
the tire is at ambient temperature of the test area,
and then sealing the air in the tire during testing
with a valve, cap or some other seal.
116 Regulated inflation pressure is achieved by
inflating the tire to the required pressure
independent of its temperature, and maintaining
this inflation pressure during testing. This is
usually performed by using a regulated air (gas)
supply external to the spindle, or axle, and
connected with a low friction rotary union.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
117 See NHTSA Rolling Resistance Rating System
Test Development Project: Phase 1—Evaluation of
Laboratory Test Protocols (October 2008). A copy of
this report and other research reports relied on in
this proposal will be placed in the docket.
118 See National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Tire Rolling Resistance for Light
Vehicles, I: Selection of Tires and Tests for Rating
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
the ISO 28580 test procedure is not a
finalized ISO standard by the time of
publication of this notice, interested
parties may obtain a copy of the draft by
contacting Mr. Joe Pacuit, U.S. TAG
Secretariat to TC 31, Tyres, rims and
valves. Mr. Pacuit can be reached by
telephone at (303) 666–8121.
One significant difference between
the ISO and SAE single-point tests is
that ISO 28580 includes a procedure
which uses two reference tires to
correlate any laboratory/machine to a
master laboratory. NHTSA’s research
showed significant difference between
the two laboratories used, and therefore
addressing this variation is a significant
advantage for the draft ISO standard.
Use of the SAE J1269 single-point test
would require NHTSA to develop its
own procedure to address lab-to-lab
variation, and there is insufficient time
to complete that work before December
2009, the Congressionally-mandated
deadline for this program.
While there are larger numbers of tires
tested using the SAE J1269 procedure in
the databases NHTSA had access to,
NHTSA does not see this as an
impediment to adopting the ISO test.
NHTSA’s research shows that the
results from either method can be crosscorrelated to provide the same
information. Specification of the ISO
28580 single-point test may also allow
manufacturers to do one test to comply
with both European and U.S.
regulations.
Additionally, the ISO 28580 singlepoint test uses capped inflation
pressure, which NHTSA believes will
provide a more accurate representation
of in-service behavior. NHTSA seeks
comment on the specification of the ISO
28580 single-point test, as opposed to
the SAE single-point test and all other
rolling resistance test methods.
Two optional parameters must be
specified for the ISO 28580 single-point
test: the method(s) of measurement, and
the type of surface on the roadwheel
(i.e., textured or bare steel). NHTSA is
proposing to allow only the force or
torque method during the test
procedure, as they are the only two
types of machines available to NHTSA
in the U.S.
The agency is proposing to specify the
use of an 80-grit surface on the
roadwheel, instead of a bare steel
roadwheel, to avoid potential problems
with slippage. The grit surface is the
most common surface used in the
laboratories available to NHTSA.
System Development, presented to California
Energy Commission (Feb. 5, 2009) (also available at
https://www.energy.ca.gov/transportation/
tire_efficiency/documents/2009-02-05_workshop/
presentations/index.php).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
NHTSA in its research found that the
use of the 80-grit surface produced a
slightly higher test measurement than
using the bare steel surface. The lab
correlation (alignment) procedure may
account for this difference and correlate
results from the two different test
conditions. However, there was some
evidence of potential problems for
smooth steel-surfaced roadwheels in
NHTSA Phase 1 testing.119 In that
testing, the rolling resistance of deep-lug
tires exhibited a relatively linear
behavior on grit surfaces over a range of
test loads but dropped off consistently
at high loads on smooth steel
roadwheels. This was attributed to
slippage of the deep lug tires on the
smooth surface. Since the discrepancy
in results between a smooth and steel
roadwheel could lead to rating
compliance disputes, we are proposing
the grit surface since it is more
repeatable.
NHTSA seeks comment as to whether
the lab correlation (alignment)
procedure will, in fact, account for
differences between measurements
made using an 80-grit surface on the
roadwheel and a properly microtextured steel-surfaced roadwheel.
V. Proposed Rolling Resistance Rating
Metric
The output of the rolling resistance
test machines is used to calculate the
rolling resistance force (RRF) in pounds
of force (lbf) or Newtons (N) at the
interface of the tire and drum, or the
force at the axle in the direction of
travel required to make a loaded tire
roll. Rolling resistance is often
expressed and reported in terms of
Rolling Resistance Coefficient (RRC)
(N/kN, kg/tonne, lbf/kip), which is the
rolling resistance force divided by the
test load on the tire.120 Since rolling
resistance changes with the load on the
tire, this makes direct comparisons
between the tires tested at different
loads difficult. The pending European
rating system uses RRC as the metric for
a rolling resistance rating/score.
However, NHTSA is proposing to base
the U.S. tire fuel efficiency rating on the
RRF metric. NHTSA has tentatively
concluded that a rating based on RRF is
more descriptive and would provide
more information to consumers, than a
rating based on RRC. We request
comment on the differences between
119 We note that these wheels did not have the
micro-texture required by ISO 28580 for steelsurfaced roadwheels.
120 Most test procedures specify test load as a
percentage of the maximum load rating of the tire
being tested. For example, the ISO 28580 test
procedure specifies a load of 80% of the maximum
sidewall load.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
29559
basing a rolling resistance rating system
on RRF versus on RRC, and which is
more appropriate for the purposes of our
statutory mandate under EISA.
One application of rolling resistance
information is a vehicle manufacturer
selecting which tires to use for original
equipment (OE) fitment. This has been
the primary application to date, in large
part because information on rolling
resistance has been less available to
consumers. RRC is appropriate to this
application, as a specific vehicle model
will be operated with a nominal vertical
load on a tire, but a range of tire sizes
with varying load capacities are
available for OE fitment. Another
application, and the one under
consideration in this proposed rule, is a
consumer looking to replace the tires on
their vehicle.121 NHTSA is concerned
about the use of RRC for consumers who
are looking to replace tires on their
vehicle.
A rating system based on either RRC
or RRF would allow a consumer to rank
order tires for their vehicles based on
their fuel efficiency, and the relative
ranking stays the same under either RRF
or RRC. Since RRF is a measure of the
energy consumed by the tire near the
normal operating conditions of the tire
in its intended use, numerical
differences in RRF correlate well to
amount of fuel used. By contrast,
because conversion to RRC compresses
the range of data, numerical differences
in RRC do not correlate as well to the
amount of fuel used. Since reducing fuel
use is the purpose of this program, we
are proposing to use the metric that best
correlates to fuel use.
Specifically, when NHTSA compared
some possible tire choices for three
different vehicles (a Chevrolet Impala, a
Chevrolet Silverado, and a Toyota
Corolla), we found that a 10 point
improvement in a 0 to 100 rating system
based on RRF corresponds to a similar
amount of fuel saved, no matter what
tire size is being selected. By contrast,
a 10 point improvement in a 0 to 100
rating system based on RRC results in a
small amount of fuel savings for a small
car and a larger amount of fuel savings
for a large car. Thus, a consumer would
not be able to place the same value on
a specific level of improvement when
purchasing tires for different vehicles in
a rating system based on RRC. The
details of the agency’s examination of
low, high, and midrange rolling
resistance tires for these three vehicles
121 What we will be talking about is the majority
of purchases, which are for the same size tire that
is currently on the vehicle. This discussion does not
address the situation where a consumer has decided
to change the size of their tires and/or change from
P metric tires to LT tires for other purposes.
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
29560
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
is provided in Appendix A of this
notice.
The goals of the tire fuel efficiency
rating system may fail to be met if the
overall system is not intuitive to
consumers. Consumers would
presumably use the system to purchase
tires for their current and subsequent
vehicles, and consumers may have
multiple vehicles in their family for
which they purchase tires. Consumers
may be confused by a tire fuel efficiency
rating system where differences between
ratings for different tire sizes represent
different quantities of fuel saved, as they
would in a rating system based on RRC.
NHTSA is concerned that, under a
rating system based on RRC, a consumer
who purchases tires for different
vehicles would notice these differences
in fuel savings for the same difference
in ratings, and as a result, question the
validity of the ratings.
In contrast a rating system based on
RRF preserves the concept that
differences in ratings correspond to the
same amount of fuel savings across tire
sizes. Thus, consumers would find a
rating system based on RRF more
intuitive since a given change in rating
will consistently relate more closely to
an amount of fuel saved. For a rating
system based on RRF, the agency would
be able to state a general rule of thumb
that, e.g., for every 10,000 miles you
drive a difference of 20 on the rating
scale equates to X gallons of fuel saved,
which could easily be converted into
dollars saved by a better rated tire.
NHTSA believes that such direct
expressions of money saved are likely to
be more effective in informing consumer
purchasing decisions. A rating system
based on RRC would not be able to have
such an understandable and useful rule
of thumb because it would differ
depending on the test load of the tire.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency is
proposing that the tire fuel efficiency
rating be based on RRF.
VI. Proposed Rating System
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
A. What Should We Convey to
Consumers in a Rating System?
1. Fuel Efficiency
As explained above in section II.A.1,
NHTSA is proposing to communicate
tire fuel efficiency information in the
form of a rolling resistance rating,
because rolling resistance corresponds
to the amount of fuel used in the form
of mechanical energy dissipated to
move the tire. Tire rolling resistance is
the most effective metric for rating the
‘‘fuel efficiency’’ of a tire because rolling
resistance force (RRF) measures the
energy loss that opposes the direction of
travel of the rotating tire and, thus, it
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
directly reduces the efficiency of a
vehicle in converting the chemical
energy in the fuel to motion of the
vehicle.
Based on the rolling resistance force
test value measured using the ISO 28580
test procedure, the fuel efficiency rating
of a given replacement passenger car tire
is calculated using the formula specified
by NHTSA, which is discussed in
section VI.B.1 below.
2. Safety
i. Potential Safety Consequences
There is a growing appreciation but
still a limited understanding of how tire
traction, wear resistance, and rolling
resistance relate to the practical
outcomes of vehicle fuel consumption,
crash incidence, and tire service life.
One of the past concerns about rolling
resistance is that traction and/or
treadwear are negatively impacted by
changes made to improve rolling
resistance.
As part of the research in support of
this rulemaking, NHTSA performed and
analyzed additional testing with the
tires that were used to evaluate the
rolling resistance test methods. This
testing included UTQGS traction and
treadwear testing, additional wet and
dry traction testing on an outdoor track,
indoor dry traction and treadwear
testing, and EPA dynamometer fuel
economy testing.122 This research, with
one exception discussed below, did not
show that this tradeoff is a given and
must occur. However, it may cost more
to maintain traction or treadwear with
an improvement in rolling resistance.
By putting information on all three
parameters on a label, a consumer
would factor any possible tradeoffs
between rolling resistance, traction, and
treadwear, and/or cost differences
between tires. That is, with all three
ratings on one label, a consumer could
see whether they were opting for a
decrease in traction and treadwear to
gain improved rolling resistance.
Technical literature extensively
indicates that the tradeoff between fuel
economy and safety performance can be
significantly reduced or eliminated with
advanced compounding technologies,
which are usually more expensive and
proprietary. However, many aspects of
the tire’s construction and manufacture
affect how much tradeoff remains, and
the results of implementing silica tread
technology will vary between
122 See NHTSA Tire Rolling Resistance Rating
System Test Development Project: Phase 2—Effects
of Tire Rolling Resistance Levels on Traction,
Treadwear, and Vehicle Fuel Economy (February
2009). The research reports from this Phase 2
research will be placed in the docket.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
manufacturers (which ranges from
manufacturers who have decades of
experience with the technology to
manufacturers who have none). It is
hoped that increased consumer
awareness may help to spur
technological innovation to promote
simultaneous improvements along
several dimensions. At least for the near
future, however, the agency cannot
guarantee that there will not be a
tradeoff between fuel efficiency and
safety.
Therefore, NHTSA is concerned about
the potential negative safety
consequences that may occur if
consumers, motivated by potential fuel
savings, begin to purchase tires with
better rolling resistance ratings but are
unwilling to spend additional money to
also maintain wet traction levels.
Despite having the wet traction rating
on the same sticker, some manufacturers
may defer the use of the more expensive
silica tread technologies and instead
optimize tires to lower rolling resistance
and treadwear (another important
purchase motivator) at the expense of
wet traction in order to gain a price
advantage. This may be especially
prevalent in the lower-cost segments of
the market.
A survey of the current marketplace
was undertaken to estimate what
information consumers currently have
for choices in wet traction, price, and,
where available, rolling resistance
performance of tires. From the NHTSA
ratings in https://safercar.gov and tires
available at TireRack.com,
approximately 20 percent of tires
currently have traction ratings of AA, 70
percent have ratings of A, and 10
percent have ratings of B. There were no
C-rated tires for on-road passenger
vehicle use. From the NHTSA data and
the data from the California Energy
Commission and Consumer Reports
magazine, it appears that tire makers
design most tires with AA wet traction
rating for flag-brand and highperformance tires with correspondingly
high average selling prices. Data for
rolling resistance, wet traction, and list
price performance indicate that tires
with both A-traction rating and low
rolling resistance performance are
available at all list price levels.
ii. Test Procedure
Whereas rolling resistance is a
standard measurement for
characterizing and comparing tire
energy performance, less comprehensive
data exist in the public domain for
accurate characterizations of tire
traction. There are different methods of
evaluating traction. For example, the
UTQGS rating and the European wet
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
grip rating use different test procedures
which do not evaluate the same
elements.
The test procedure specified in the
UTQGS rating systems for traction is the
only metric for which consistent data
are widely available for a range of tires.
Accordingly, NHTSA is currently
proposing to use the traction test
procedure specified in the agency’s
UTQGS regulation to rate tires for safety
on the same scale and label as fuel
efficiency via rolling resistance rating.
See 49 CFR 575.104(f). The UTQGS
traction test procedure measures a tire’s
coefficient of friction when it is tested
on wet asphalt and concrete surfaces.
The subject tire is placed on an
instrumented axle of a skid trailer,
which is pulled behind a truck at 40
miles per hour (mph) on wet asphalt
and concrete surfaces. The trailer’s
brakes are momentarily locked, and
sensors on the axle measure the
longitudinal braking forces as it slides
in a straight line. The coefficient of
friction is then determined as the ratio
of this sliding force to the tire load.
The UTQGS traction rating procedure
specifies that the traction coefficients
for asphalt and for concrete are to be
calculated using the locked-wheel
traction coefficient on the tire, or sliding
coefficient of friction. Because it uses
the sliding coefficient of friction, this
test procedure indicates the traction or
wet pavement behavior for a vehicle
that is not equipped with anti-lock
brakes (ABS) or electronic stability
control (ESC). A vehicle equipped with
ABS or ESC reacts to braking and
sliding in a more sophisticated way.
ABS prevents wheel lock-up by
pumping the vehicle’s brakes repeatedly
during braking events. ESC may
automatically perform activation of the
brakes on individual wheels in an
attempt to slow down a vehicle and
point it in a different direction if the
system senses a directional loss of
control. NHTSA’s tire testing research
showed that for a tire with a given
rolling resistance, vehicles equipped
with ABS or ESC will exhibit safer
behavior on wet pavement (i.e., better
traction) than the sliding coefficient of
friction traction measurement would
indicate in the UTQGS traction test
procedure.
The peak coefficient of friction is a
metric that would better indicate
traction performance for vehicles
equipped with these advanced braking
and handling systems. This is because
as soon as ABS causes the vehicle to
reapply the brakes (and also during ESC
system activation), the tires are
constantly operating at or near peak
coefficient of friction. Thus, since most
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
new cars offer ABS as either standard or
optional equipment, and ESC is being
mandated on new light vehicles via a
phase-in, NHTSA is proposing to base
the traction rating for purposes of the
tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program on the peak
coefficients of friction as measured on
the asphalt and concrete surfaces
specified in the UTQGS traction test
procedure.123 The machinery that
conducts this test already measures
peak coefficient of friction, so there is
no new measurement that needs to be
taken.
However, recognizing that the median
age for the U.S. passenger car fleet is 9.4
years,124 NHTSA requests comments on
whether it is premature to suggest
moving to an ABS–ESC focused rating
based on new vehicles. Within the
agency’s Phase 2 data, tires of the same
size had as much as 30 percent
difference in wet slide numbers over the
range of rolling resistance values. From
the 40 mph wet slide friction numbers,
a 30 percent difference in wet slide
number translates into an increase of 27
feet (13 percent) in calculated wet
stopping distance for a non-ABS
equipped vehicle. Therefore, it may be
necessary to address both peak and slide
friction numbers, at least for the near
term. The agency has considered a
safety rating taken from the average of
the four friction numbers (peak & slide
on asphalt & concrete), all of which can
be collected during the same test. The
agency requests comments on whether it
should instead consider a composite
test, and if the four friction numbers
should be weighted equally or
differently.
The tire label mandated by Europe in
ECE Regulation 117 includes the wet
grip test. However, NHTSA would need
to do its own evaluation of that test
before specifying it in our regulation.
NHTSA seeks comments on other ways
to rate replacement tires for safety.
3. Durability
The rolling resistance, traction, and
wear characteristics of tires are not
independent of one another. The tread
has a major influence on rolling
resistance because it contains much of
the rubber in the tire that causes energy
123 The phase-in electronic stability control (ESC)
requires 100 percent of the fleet to be equipped
with ESC by model year 2011, i.e., by September
2010. 72 FR 17236, 17291. Since an anti-lock
braking system (ABS) provides many of the
components necessary for ESC, NHTSA believes
that most manufacturers will likely equip vehicles
with ABS as they equip them with ESC. See id. at
17256, n. 49.
124 See https://usa.polk.com/News/LatestNews/
News_20080215_scrappage.htm (last accessed Mar.
10, 2009).
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
29561
loss. The same tread deformation
contributes to the tire’s traction
capabilities. A loss in traction capability
because of treadwear is the main reason
for tire replacement.125
NHTSA tentatively concludes that the
durability of a tire refers to how long a
tire is going to last, that is, how long it
is going to maintain sufficient tread
depth for the safe operation and
maintain the strength the tire had when
it was initially purchased. A treadwear
rating measures a tire’s wear rate
compared with that of control tires.
Treadwear life, therefore, corresponds to
treadwear durability of a tire. NHTSA
seeks comments, however, on other
potential ways to communicate
durability.
The UTQGS rating systems for
treadwear is the only metric for which
consistent data are widely available for
a range of passenger car tires.
Accordingly, NHTSA is proposing to
specify the UTQGS treadwear procedure
to rate tires for durability on the same
scale and label as fuel efficiency via
rolling resistance rating. See 49 CFR
575.104(e). Based on the UTQGS rating
for treadwear as calculated under 49
CFR 575.104(d)(2)(i), the durability
rating of a given replacement passenger
car tire on a scale of 0 to 100 is
calculated by dividing the UTQGS
treadwear rating by ten, as explained in
further detail below.
NHTSA acknowledges the limits of
the existing UTQGS system.126 Very few
participants in the focus groups were
aware of these ratings. In a roundtable
discussion sponsored by the California
Energy Commission dealers uniformly
dismissed the system as not providing
valuable or reliable information. In fact,
those dealers expressed skepticism
about tire fuel efficiency ratings if they
were ‘‘just another UTQGS rating.’’
However, given the statutory deadline
for NHTSA to establish this program,
NHTSA believes that modified UTQGS
ratings for traction and treadwear are
the only viable options at this time to
fulfill the statutory requirement that this
consumer information program educate
consumers about tires’ relationships to
fuel efficiency, safety, and durability.
NHTSA seeks comment, however, on
other test methods that could be easily
used to establish metrics for safety or
durability ratings. As noted above, as
part of the research in support of this
rulemaking, NHTSA performed and
analyzed additional testing with the
tires that were used to evaluate the
rolling resistance test methods. NHTSA
125 2006
NAS Report, supra note 4, at 58.
UTQGS is discussed in more detail later
in this notice.
126 The
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
29562
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
did some indoor treadwear testing in
our research program, but merely to
provide some comparative information,
not to substitute a different test
protocol. NHTSA will, however,
consider future revisions if information
suggests those revisions would enhance
the program.
4. Overall Rating
For the purposes of the final rule, the
agency is also considering the concept
of a combined rating of some sort,
which would convert all three benefit
metrics into one overall rating. NHTSA
notes that in considering how to revise
and improve its New Car Assessment
Program (NCAP), it sought public
comment on the roughly parallel notion
of simplifying inter-vehicle comparisons
and purchase decision making by
consumers by combining the individual
safety ratings for different crash modes
into a single overall rating. Ultimately,
the agency adopted plans to develop
and implement such a summary rating.
The advantage of such a system for
tire performance ratings would be that
it would simplify the ratings, potentially
relieving consumers of the task of
weighing the ratings for three different
metrics for one tire against the three
ratings for another tire. At the same
time, if the single combined rating were
presented to the exclusion of individual
ratings for each metric, it would obscure
the relative performance of individual
components that might carry different
priorities with different consumers.
Ideally, the goal would be to express
the combined rating in terms that are
readily understandable and of practical
value to the average consumer. The
following example attempts to do this
by combining the three ratings into a
single absolute (as opposed to relative)
cost per mile figure reflecting the full
cost of buying and using a tire. The inuse costs of a tire would be based on
each of the ratings and the useful life of
the tire, reflecting the real-world
significance of each of the ratings.
• The in-use cost of the fuel
efficiency rating would reflect money
spent on fuel consumed.
• The in-use cost of the durability
rating would reflect money spent on
purchasing replacement tires more or
less frequently.
• The in-use cost of the safety rating
would reflect money spent on tractionrelated crashes.
Implementing such a combined rating
would face several hurdles, especially
regarding the safety rating. For example,
how would the safety of any particular
tire be measured and what baseline
would it be measured against? Further,
in order to attempt to convert the safety
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
(traction) rating into stopping distance,
potentially costly and time consuming
testing for the wide variety of tires
would be necessary. An example of
such a combined rating for tires might
be one expressed in terms of average
overall cost/mile.
The agency seeks comments as to
whether such a combined rating could
be developed and, if so, should be
adopted in the final rule and
implemented. The agency seeks
comments on the relative advantages
and disadvantages of a single combined
rating, the three rating system in our
proposal, and a third approach
combining the first two approaches.
B. How Should We Convey Ratings
Information to Consumers?
In support of this rulemaking, NHTSA
contracted with a strategic
communications firm to conduct
consumer focus groups to review
possible labels and other informational
materials. Two focus groups were
conducted in three locations, with a
total of 54 participants. During the focus
groups the participants discussed
vehicle safety and fuel economy in
general, their tire purchase process,
their interest in information about tire
fuel efficiency and how they might use
it in the tire purchase decision process,
and their reaction to five possible label
designs.127 NHTSA anticipates
conducting additional consumer testing.
The agency seeks comment on our focus
group consumer testing and the scope,
content, and methodology of future
consumer testing.
The tested label designs consisted of
different combinations of elements of
existing vehicle and/or energy rating
schemes. Specifically the designs were
developed as different combinations of
a red-to-green shaded color scheme as in
the European energy labels, stars,
numbers, and/or letter grades. One
design had a vertical orientation of the
rating scale similar to the European
label. One design used a 3-axis radar
chart. Based on the feedback in the
focus groups, NHTSA is proposing to
express ratings for tire fuel efficiency
(i.e., rolling resistance), safety (i.e.,
traction), and durability (i.e., treadwear)
on a scale of 0 to 100, with 100 being
127 See NHTSA Rolling Resistance Focus Group
Report (January 2008). A copy of this report and
other research reports relied on in this proposal will
be placed in the docket. In reviewing these findings,
it is important to remember that qualitative
research, by design, is not meant to be projectable
within accurate statistical ranges. Focus groups
allow for the understanding and investigation of
group consensus, not individual reactions.
Qualitative research offers insight into the thematic
and directional information of the participants.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the best rating, and zero being the worst
rating.
NHTSA’s proposal differs from the
European tire fuel efficiency rating
system. The European tire label divides
the fuel efficiency rating into seven
bins, or seven ranges of rolling
resistance scores, each range (or bin)
represented by a letter, A through G.
This is the same letter rating the system
used in Europe for rating the energy
efficiency of household appliances,128
and is already well known by
consumers in Europe. In contrast, U.S.
consumers do not have a preexisting
association between letter grades and
energy efficiency ratings. Thus, NHTSA
is proposing the ratings scales that
tested best in the agency’s consumer
research.
NHTSA’s proposal also differs from
manufacturer suggestions that NHTSA
develop a rating based on five bins,
similar to NHTSA’s New Car
Assessment Program (NCAP).129 In the
focus groups, most of the label designs
showed ratings based in bins. The
reason for NHTSA’s proposal is that
participants overwhelmingly preferred
the design that showed a numerical
rating on a scale of 0 to 100.
Last, NHTSA’s proposal differs from
the EPA’s Energy Star program. In large
part this is because of participants’
preference for greater discrimination in
the rating. In addition, NHTSA’s
proposal to require manufacturers to
report actual test data will allow for the
use of such test data to provide
additional useful comparative
information as discussed later in this
notice when NHTSA discusses its
planned consumer education program.
See section VIII.
In consumer testing, NHTSA used
both stars (as in the NCAP program) and
letter grades (as in the European
proposal) representing fuel efficiency
grades given based on which range of
rolling resistance values, or bin, the tire
fell within. While both of these were
understood by the participants, the
numerical scale giving an individual
score for a tire in each category of rating
was preferred. Most consumers
indicated that they preferred the greater
precision of the 0 to 100 rating scale
than a 5-point grading scale.130 A
specific score gives consumers a greater
ability to discriminate between tires.
In NHTSA’s research, consumer focus
groups also expressed a clear preference
to have fuel efficiency, traction, and
128 See
Council Directive 1992/75/EC, 1992 O.J. (L
297).
129 See https://www.safercar.gov/; 73 FR 40016
(July 11, 2003).
130 NHTSA Rolling Resistance Focus Group
Report, at 7–8 (January 2008).
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
treadwear ratings appear on identical
scales, i.e., they expressed distaste for
the sample ratings graphic that
displayed fuel efficiency on a 0 to 100
scale, traction using letter grades, and
treadwear on a different scale. It is true
that consumer preferences are not
necessarily conclusive on appropriate
design. What matters is what design is
most helpful in facilitating choice, and
judgments in focus groups may not be
conclusive on that question. But with
reference to the goal of ensuring both
simplicity and transparency, NHTSA is
proposing to require all three ratings be
expressed on a scale of 0 to 100. As
noted, NHTSA invites comments on
how to ensure that these ratings are as
meaningful as possible to consumers.
One of the labels tested included an
overall rating, which was generally
well-received. Some participants raised
their concern that the overall rating was
an average of the three factors (fuel
efficiency, traction and tread wear),
treating them as if they were equally
important when in fact few consumers
consider them equally important in
their own purchase decision. In the end,
most felt the overall rating was still
useful, as long as each dimension on the
label had a rating, as then consumers
could separately weigh the factors that
were important to them, if necessary.
As noted above, NHTSA is not
proposing any regulatory text for an
overall rating in today’s notice; however
we are considering how we might do
this for the final rule. NHTSA shares the
focus group participants’ concern that
an overall rating not just be an average,
but instead somehow reflect the relative
value on some common scale of the
three ratings. As discussed above in
section VI.A.4, an example of such a
system might be expressed as average
overall cost per mile. The advantage of
such a system would be that it would
simplify the ratings. However, at the
same time, it would obscure the relative
performance of individual components
which might carry different priorities
with different consumers.
In addition, the agency is uncertain as
to whether such a combined rating
would be practicable. Developing a costper-mile estimate would require
addressing the myriad of complications
expressed in the Fuel Economy, Safety,
and Durability sections above. For
example, how would the safety of any
particular tire be measured and against
which baseline would it be measured?
The agency cannot identify poor tire
traction as the cause of a crash, but may
be able to estimate potential benefits or
disbenefits from modified stopping
distances that result with different
traction ratings. How would potential
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
safety impacts be valued? Should values
include estimates of the value of life and
degradation in quality of life, or just the
economic impacts that result from death
and injury and property damage? Since
these estimates would represent average
impacts spread across society, would
they be meaningful to individual tire
purchasers?
As noted above, the agency requests
comments as to whether such a
combined rating could be developed
and, if so, should be adopted in the final
rule and implemented. The agency
seeks comments on the relative
advantages and disadvantages of a
single combined rating, the three rating
system in our proposal, and a third
approach combining the first two
approaches. NHTSA requests comments
on the concept of an overall rating,
including the more detailed discussion
of how to value these ratings later in
this notice or other ideas of how to
combine ratings for an overall rating.
29563
i. Fuel Efficiency
As explained above, based on the
feedback in the focus groups, NHTSA is
proposing to express a tire fuel
efficiency rating on a scale of 0 to 100,
with 100 being the lowest rolling
resistance or best rating, and zero being
the highest rolling resistance or worst
rating. This integer fuel efficiency rating
from 0 to 100 (RFE) can be calculated
from an ISO 28580 test value of rolling
resistance force (RRF) as follows:
RFE = (RRFmax ¥ RRF) * 100/(RRFmax ¥
RRFmin)
where RRFmax is the highest rolling
resistance the agency believes should be
represented on the fuel efficiency rating
scale and where RRFmin is the lowest
rolling resistance the agency believes
should be represented on the fuel
efficiency rating scale.
Regarding these minimum and
maximum RRF values that define the
bounds of the fuel efficiency scale,
NHTSA’s testing research combined
with a RRF dataset that California
shared with the agency showed RRF test
values of replacement passenger car
tires ranging from 7.5 to 22.8 poundsforce (lbf). We are, therefore, proposing
a rolling resistance force scale ranging
from 5 lbf to 25 lbf, where 25 is the
highest rolling resistance and thus, the
replacement tire with the worst fuel
efficiency,131 representing a zero on the
fuel efficiency rating scale. The agency
is proposing this range because the high
end of the rolling resistance scale range
should be set at close to the level of the
current worst performing tires, since we
should not expect tires developed
subsequent to this program to get worse
fuel efficiency. Allowing for the
existence of some tires with higher
rolling resistance test values than the
selection of replacement tires tested by
NHTSA and California, we moved up
the estimate of highest rolling resistance
force to 25 (from 22.8).
Regarding the low rolling resistance
end of the rating scale, even though the
combined dataset had tires with an RRF
as low as 7.5 lbf, NHTSA is proposing
to set this 100 end of the scale based on
an RRF of 5.0 lbf, because we believe it
is possible to construct tires with
improved rolling resistance and the
rolling resistance scale should allow
sufficient room to express that
improvement. NHTSA’s research has
found that while tire construction need
not sacrifice traction or treadwear for
improved rolling resistance,
maintaining the same traction and
treadwear while increasing the fuel
efficiency of a given tire typically
entails higher costs. See safety
discussion above in section VI.A.2 of
this notice. The agency wants to allow
for such future technological innovation
in the fuel efficiency rating scale.132
Based on NHTSA’s proposed rolling
resistance force scale of all replacement
passenger car tires, a tire fuel efficiency
rating would be calculated by the
following formula:
RFE = (25 ¥ RRF) * 100/(25 ¥ 5) = (25
¥ RRF) * 5
Using this fuel efficiency rating formula,
the tires tested by NHTSA and
California would fall between 11 and 88
on the 0 to 100 fuel efficiency rating
scale. NHTSA seeks comments on this
and other possible constructions of the
fuel efficiency rating.
As mentioned above, one of the
reasons the agency is basing the fuel
efficiency rating on RRF rather than
RRC is because it allows the program to
readily provide consumers with a
statement such as ‘‘a difference of X on
the fuel efficiency rating scale equates to
Y gallons of fuel saved.’’ We have
calculated that for the proposed fuel
efficiency rating scale, a general rule of
thumb is that for every 10,000 miles you
drive, a difference of five on the scale
equates to three gallons of fuel saved
when you purchase four tires and a
difference of ten on the scale equates to
six gallons of fuel saved.
131 Note that higher rolling resistance force
measurements indicate a greater amount of energy
lost through the tires and converted to heat. This
indicates a lower fuel efficiency of a tire.
132 If future technology made improvements
possible that would allow tires to exceed the range
of this or the other two scales, NHTSA would
consider future rulemaking to adjust the scales.
1. Proposed Rating Formulas
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
ii. Safety
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
29564
RTC = Adjusted Peak Traction Rating =
{(μAPA + μAPC) {1 ¥ [(μAPA ¥ μAPC)/
(μAPA + μAPC)]2} ¥ 0.6} * (100/2.0)
The agency proposes this formula as a
convenient way to obtain a single rating
for both asphalt and concrete, and
normalizing the expected range to a
scale of 0 to 100.133
The ‘‘(μAPA + μAPC) {1¥ [(μAPA ¥
μAPC)/(μAPA + μAPC)]2}’’ portion of the
RTC formula has been developed with
the intention of encouraging tire
manufacturers to design tires with little
disparity between μAPA and μAPC. That
is, if μAPA= μAPC, ‘‘(μAPA + μAPC) {1 ¥
[(μAPA ¥ μAPC)/(μAPA + μAPC)]2}’’ would
be equal to (μAPA + μAPC) and thus the
highest rating possible is achieved for a
given set of coefficients of friction since
no deduction to the rating is assessed
due to the disparity of the coefficients
of friction between asphalt and
concrete. This approach is consistent
with the current traction rating
philosophy of UTQGS which penalizes
a tire’s rating if either the asphalt or
concrete coefficients are in a lower
relative category than the other adjusted
coefficient.
Based on data available to date at the
agency’s San Angelo Test Facility,
NHTSA estimates the minimum
Adjusted Peak Coefficient of Friction for
Asphalt is 0.4, the maximum Adjusted
Peak Coefficient of Friction for Asphalt
is 1.2, the minimum Adjusted Peak
Coefficient of Friction for Concrete is
0.3, and the maximum Adjusted Peak
Coefficient of Friction for Concrete is
1.1, for an additive range spanning from
0.7 (i.e., 0.4 + 0.3) to 2.3 (i.e., 1.2 + 1.1).
For the purpose of allowing future tire
traction improvement, the agency is
proposing to expand the estimated
Adjusted Peak Coefficient of Friction
range of 0.7 to 2.3 to a range of 0.6 to
2.6, where 0.6 would represent a zero on
the traction rating scale and 2.6 would
represent a 100 on the traction rating
scale. The agency proposes this range
because we believe it is technically
possible to construct tires with
improved traction and the traction
rating scale should allow sufficient
room to express that improvement.
The agency then shifts and normalizes
‘‘(μAPA + μAPC) {1¥[(μAPA¥μAPC)/(μAPA
+ μAPC)]2}’’ from the range of 0.6 to 2.6
to a 0 to 100 rating scale and arrives at
the aforementioned RTC formula.134
As explained above, NHTSA is
proposing to specify that the safety (i.e.,
traction) rating, for purposes of the tire
fuel efficiency consumer information
program, be calculated using the peak
coefficients of friction, which are
friction coefficient numbers that are also
recorded by the test equipment used in
UTQGS traction rating procedure. The
agency is proposing to specify the
measurement of the peak coefficients of
friction on both asphalt and on concrete,
as opposed to the sliding coefficients of
friction, as specified in the UTQGS
traction test procedure. These
measurements of peak coefficient of
friction on asphalt and peak coefficient
of friction on concrete must be
‘‘adjusted,’’ or correlated to a standard
reference test tire, because asphalt and
concrete surfaces can vary from day to
day. Thus, there must be some
standardized tire to which the test can
calibrate. This is true for the sliding
coefficients of friction measured as well.
For the safety (i.e., traction) rating, the
agency is proposing to require tire
manufacturers to report the Adjusted
Peak Coefficient of Friction for Asphalt
(μAPA) and the Adjusted Peak Coefficient
of Friction for Concrete (μAPC) by testing
in accordance with 49 CFR 575.104(f)
and recording the average peak
coefficients of friction and then
adjusting the measured average peak
coefficients of friction for asphalt and
concrete, respectively, using the
following formulae:
μAPA = (Measured Candidate Tire
Average Peak Coefficient of Friction
for Asphalt + 0.75) ¥ (Measured
Standard Tire Average Peak
Coefficient of Friction for Asphalt)
μAPC = (Measured Candidate Tire
Average Peak Coefficient of Friction
for Concrete + 0.60) ¥ (Measured
Standard Tire Average Peak
Coefficient of Friction for Concrete)
The two constants, 0.75 and 0.60, are
based on agency test data for the
adjustment of the average peak
coefficients of friction for asphalt and
concrete pavements, respectively. The
agency might change these two numbers
if the repaving of the skid pad surfaces
at the agency’s San Angelo Test Facility
results in a shift of these numbers on
each surface. NHTSA is seeking
comments and proposals on this
approach, including the use or change
of these constants.
In addition to the adjusted peak
coefficients of friction, the agency is
also proposing to require tire
manufacturers to report the traction
rating using the following formula:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
133 This formula is an adaptation of the
Fahrenheit to Centigrade (also a 0 to 100 scale)
conversion formula.
134 The agency notes that the formula for R
TC
reduces to a simpler form than that which is
specified above. For the NPRM we have not
reduced the formula so that the public can see
where maximum and minimum peak coefficients
are used in the equation and to make it clear that
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Using the RTC traction rating formula,
NHTSA’s estimated range of additive
Adjusted Peak Coefficient from 0.7 to
2.3 would fall between 5 and 85 on the
0 to 100 safety (wet traction) rating
scale. NHTSA is seeking comments and
proposals on this approach.
As mentioned above, our safety
(traction) rating formula and supporting
equations were developed based on
limited test data and in advance of
traction test resurfacing at our San
Angelo Test Facility. Consequently, it is
difficult to precisely predict the
probable range of adjusted peak
coefficients across all replacement tires
and, therefore, to calculate the resultant
expected safety (wet traction) rating
range for existing tires. We plan to
update the formula and supporting
equations in the final rule with
additional data and with test data
gathered after the track is resurfaced in
order to bring the rating scale to a range
that can be expected for state of the art
tires. We also request comments on how
much to amend the rating formula for
the final rule to expand the rating scale
at the minimum and/or maximum ends
of the scale to allow for future potential
wet traction improvements.
In terms of what this scale would
mean to consumers, a traction rating is
difficult to quantify. That is, it is not as
straight forward as it is for a fuel
efficiency rating to develop a rule of
thumb for the safety rating scale such as
‘‘each difference of X on the safety
rating scale equates to Y percent fewer
crashes and Z dollars less in resultant
economic damages.’’ NHTSA would
have to try and correlate a rating with
a set stopping distance, and then that
distance with crashes. These
calculations are complicated by the fact
that they depend on other factors (in
addition to the traction rating of the
tires) such as the handling
characteristics of the vehicle on which
they are mounted, the force with which
the brakes are applied, and the loading
of the vehicle. To put a tire’s safety
rating information on an economic
scale, all of these characteristics would
have to be assumed for all tires. But in
reality, there is not a single vehicle that
all replacement tires can be mounted
on. Therefore, we are concerned that the
difference between two such tire safety
ratings would not reflect the same
economic difference in terms of safety,
where the tires were mounted on two
different types of vehicles. What we can
communicate with the proposed rating
it includes a ‘‘rating penalty’’ for tires with different
coefficients for asphalt and concrete. We believe
this is important since these values may change
based on additional data and on retesting after our
test track has been repaved.
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
iii. Durability
Existing treadwear grades in UTQGS
range up to 800. Therefore, NHTSA is
requiring that the UTQGS treadwear
grade be divided by 10 and that number
placed on the 1 to 100 scale. This
treadwear rating scale will allow for the
possible technological development of
replacement tires with higher treadwear
ratings in the future. Accordingly, if
TWUTQGS is the UTQGS rating for
treadwear as calculated under 49 CFR
575.104(d)(2)(i), then NHTSA is
proposing the treadwear rating for
purposes of the tire fuel efficiency rating
135 Manufacturers are required to print UTQGS
information on a paper label pursuant to 49 CFR
575.104(d)(1)(B). Many manufacturers include other
information on this paper label as well. Note that
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
program (RTW) be calculated according
to the following formula:
RTW = TWUTQGS/10
In terms of what this scale would
mean to consumers, the treadwear
conversion is straightforward, as the
treadwear rating is a relative rating
compared to a control tire, which would
be rated 10 on our scale. A tire rated 20
should last twice as long as a tire rated
a 10. Similarly, a tire rated a 75 on the
proposed traction scale would last three
times longer than a tire rated 25 on the
proposed traction rating scale.
2. Proposed Label Style
the fuel efficiency, safety, and durability
ratings in the form illustrated in Figure
7.135 This label is based upon the ratings
presentation that tested best with
consumers in focus groups conducted
by the agency. In NHTSA’s consumer
focus group research the agency
considered and presented consumers
with five different ratings graphics
containing ratings for fuel efficiency,
traction, and treadwear. The ratings
graphics were presented in various
colors, with various picture icons, and
experimented with horizontal rating
scales as well as vertical rating scales.
See Figure 8 through Figure 12.136
NHTSA is proposing to require tire
manufacturers to affix a paper label with
NHTSA uses the term ‘‘paper label’’ in the
colloquial sense; many labels on tires are actually
made of plastic.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
136 Color versions of Figures 8–12 will be placed
in the docket and on NHTSA’s Web site, https://
www.nhtsa.gov.
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
EP22JN09.006
is that tires with better traction ratings
stop in less distance than tires with
worse ratings.
29565
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
EP22JN09.007
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
29566
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
29567
EP22JN09.008
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
EP22JN09.009
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
29568
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
29569
EP22JN09.010
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
NHTSA is proposing that the rating
scales be oriented horizontally, that the
scales be shaded red (0) to green (100),
and that each scale be marked by an
icon in addition to the title, similar to
Label B shown to the focus groups
(Figure 9). This label design was the
clearly preferred concept. Participants
intuitively understood that red was poor
and green was good and liked this color
scheme. The vertically-oriented label
(Label C, illustrated in Figure 10) was
difficult to understand for many
participants in the focus groups.
NHTSA is proposing to modify the
Label B as shown to consumers (Figure
9) as described here. See Figure 7. First,
NHTSA is proposing to add a heading
that reads, ‘‘Government Tire Ratings,’’
similar to the heading on the vehicle
label that shows the new car assessment
program (NCAP) ratings. The focus
group participants indicated that they
would prefer to know that it was a
government program.
We are also proposing to have the fuel
efficiency rating appear topmost on the
label, followed by safety and durability.
The ratings appeared in different order
in the designs shown and participants
did not express a preference. NHTSA
has chosen to place fuel efficiency on
top as that is the emphasis of EISA,
however we request comment on the
order of ratings. Participants did
indicate that safety would be a more
important consideration in their
purchase decision, so the agency seeks
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
comment on this rating appearing at the
top.
Further, we are proposing to change
the labels on the rating scales to read as
follows: ‘‘Fuel Efficiency and
Greenhouse Gas Rating,’’ ‘‘Safety (Wet
Traction),’’ and ‘‘Durability
(Treadwear).’’ This language more
closely mirrors the language in EISA.
The agency is proposing that
‘‘Greenhouse Gas Rating’’ appear on the
fuel efficiency rating scale because
section 105 of EISA mandates a
consumer information program that will
establish a rating system reflecting the
fuel economy and greenhouse gas
emissions over the life of
automobiles.137 For consistency across
fuel economy-related consumer
information programs, we are proposing
that the fuel efficiency rating in the tire
fuel efficiency consumer information
program indicate that fuel efficiency
ratings also signify relative performance
in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
As for the safety and durability rating
scale labels, NHTSA is aware that safety
and durability can refer to more
characteristics than those rated in the
program we are proposing today, and
therefore has included ‘‘wet traction’’
and ‘‘treadwear’’ to clarify what is being
rated on the safety and durability scales.
The agency is also proposing to
change the language at the bottom of the
label by replacing the word ‘‘highest’’
with the word ‘‘best.’’ This is to because
137 See
PO 00000
49 U.S.C. 32908(g).
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the data behind the rating is not
uniformly ‘‘higher’’ when the rating
improves. While this would not be
apparent to all consumers, some may
wish to research the data behind the
rating and this language would more
accurately reflect the data.
NHTSA is proposing to include an
additional sentence at the bottom of the
label indicating where consumers
should go to learn more about the
information: ‘‘For more information
visit https://www.nhtsa.gov.’’ This
sentence appears more prominent than
the other reference sentences at the
bottom of the label because the agency
seeks to encourage consumers to learn
about the ratings, which they can do
most completely on NHTSA’s Web site.
The Web address could be replaced if
the new tire information Web site
NHTSA intends to develop has a simple
domain name.
NHTSA is proposing to place the
rating on each scale in a white box, as
opposed to within one of the colored
shaded boxes comprising the scale. This
allows the rating score to be printed in
slightly larger text than if it were limited
to inside each box. Placing each rating
in a white box also allows the rating to
appear in a more accurate location on
the scale, as opposed to being limited to
appearing within a shaded box. NHTSA
is further proposing to move the arrows
pointing to the score to the bottom of
each rating scale, as opposed to the top.
This is to avoid potentially obscuring
the rating scale titles with the arrow on
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
EP22JN09.011
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
29570
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
29571
Finally, NHTSA is proposing to delete
the indication of ‘‘average rating.’’
Without having a complete database of
all tires, NHTSA is not sure where the
‘‘average rating’’ would be located on
each scale. In addition, it is likely that
these would not be in the same location
on each of the three scales, and focus
group participants expressed some
confusion with designs like this.
Participants in the focus groups
generally liked the icons used on the
sample labels, however the icon used
for the traction rating was found
confusing by many. The cloud in the
symbol for traction (representing the
source of the rain drops) was confusing
for some consumers who could not
make out what it was or thought it was
a cowboy hat. NHTSA considered other
ideas, such as those shown in Figure 13.
NHTSA is not currently proposing a
different icon than that which was
tested. However, NHTSA plans to
conduct further consumer testing prior
to the final rule and is seeking comment
on these and any other ideas regarding
possible changes to the traction icon,
which indicates ‘‘wet’’ traction.
NHTSA is further seeking comment
on using some icon or mark on the
labels to help consumers at a glance
identify the most fuel efficient tire.
NHTSA has designed the scales so that
the highest rating for tires in the
databases we have examined for each
category would be in the 80s. A mark
indicating, for example, the top 25% of
ratings could let consumers know that
they are already looking at a best-rated
tire. The mark could be associated with
just the fuel efficiency rating or the tire
might only receive the mark if it also
has a minimum certain safety and
durability rating. This is similar to the
idea behind the Energy Star program.
The Energy Star program is a voluntary
joint EPA and DOE program to rate the
energy-efficiency of household
products.138 For each product included
in the program, there are performance
standards to determine whether or not
the product qualifies for an Energy Star
designation. As an initial matter,
NHTSA is concerned that such a mark
might be inaccurately perceived by the
consumer as indicating an overall tire
rating, which might indicate
government approval of the safety of
that replacement tire. We request
comment on this idea.
NHTSA is also requesting comment
on whether or not the ratings label
should include a caution that the ratings
apply only to properly inflated and/or
new tires. Both of these messages would
be part of the consumer education
program to promote this program.
Last, NHTSA is requesting comment
on including a statement like ‘‘made in
week xx of year yy,’’ where the ‘‘xx’’
and ‘‘yy’’ would be the numerals from
the tire identification number (TIN).
NHTSA receives a lot of complaints
about the TIN and consumer difficulty
in understanding how to read it. Focus
group participants also indicated that
date of manufacture was additional
information they would like to have.
NHTSA requests comments on the effect
of requiring this information on the
paper label.
Consumers may choose among a
handful to several dozen tire lines for
their replacement needs.140
Consumers may choose from national
Internet and mail order companies to
tire dealers, manufacturer outlets, and
retail department stores. Typically, the
tires bought in the replacement market
are balanced and mounted by the tire
dealer or retailer.141 NHTSA is
proposing a definition of ‘‘tire retailer’’
to be ‘‘a person or business with whom
a replacement passenger car tire
manufacturer or brand name owner has
a contractual, proprietary, or other legal
relationship, or a person or business
who has such a relationship with a
distributor of the replacement passenger
car tire manufacturer or brand name
owner concerning the tire in question.’’
See section XIII (Regulatory Text) of this
notice. NHTSA seeks comment on the
appropriateness and inclusiveness of
this definition.
VII. Proposed Information
Dissemination and Reporting
Requirements for Tire Manufacturers
and Tire Retailers
A. The Replacement Passenger Car Tire
Market
Most replacement tires are designed
to perform on the wide range of vehicles
in the fleet, including vehicle models
dating back many years. Thus, suppliers
competing in the replacement market
must offer a wide variety of tire types
and sizes.139 In addition, the spectrum
of replacement tire sizes and types is
continually expanding. At any one time,
replacement tires from hundreds of
brands and lines are for sale in the
marketplace, which consists of tens of
thousands of individual products, or
stock-keeping units (SKUs), when size
variability is taken into account.
B. Assumptions About the Average Tire
Purchaser and the Average Tire
Purchasing Process
NHTSA’s consumer research focus
groups revealed some common themes
in consumers’ tire purchasing processes,
which are discussed in detail below.
Additionally, on November 17, 2008
NHTSA participated in a roundtable
discussion convened by the Energy
Efficiency Center at the University of
California, Davis (‘‘UC Davis
140 Id.
138 See
https://www.energystar.gov/.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
139 2006
PO 00000
NAS Report, supra note 4, at 21.
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
141 Id.
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
EP22JN09.012
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
the top of the scale pointing to a lower
rated tire.
NHTSA is also proposing a minimum
font size of 14 point for the heading on
the label, and 12 point for the labels on
each of the rating scales. NHTSA is also
proposing to require the label to be at
least 4.5 inches high by 5.5 inches wide.
The agency tentatively concludes that
this is approximately the smallest size
the label could be and still be legible.
This is slightly larger than the Stars on
Cars label required on vehicles. NHTSA
requests comments on these size
requirements for the label.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
29572
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
workshop’’) 142 to discuss the tire
purchase process. Participants included
State and Federal government agencies,
tire manufacturers, tire retailers and
universities. Both these sources of
information have enabled the agency to
make some assumptions regarding the
average tire purchaser and the average
tire purchasing process. These
assumptions have led the agency to
draw tentative conclusions regarding
the most effective ways to ensure
consumers have access to easy-tounderstand information. These
assumptions form the basis of our
proposals regarding requirements for
information dissemination and
reporting requirements for tire
manufacturers and for tire retailers.
NHTSA requests comment on how to
best communicate information to
consumers before or during the tire
purchasing process.
NHTSA’s consumer research and the
discussions at the UC Davis workshop
revealed that many consumers make
their choice of tire at the location of
purchase with guidance from a sales
associate. NHTSA’s consumer research
indicated, however, that many tire
consumers do conduct research to
determine specifications for their
vehicle, and then visit a store or go
online to compare tires of different
specifications. Participants in the UC
Davis workshop noted that many tire
purchases are unplanned, where
consumers needed to take immediate
action to restore their vehicle.
Consumers in NHTSA’s focus group
research made a distinction between
buying replacement tires and buying
tires because of an urgent need, e.g., a
flat tire. These consumers agreed that in
the latter scenario, many steps that they
may have undertaken before a planned
purchase, e.g., doing comprehensive
research, were bypassed with the goal of
getting a new tire in their price range
immediately. UC Davis workshop
participants, among them many tire
retailers and tire manufacturers, further
agreed that while some consumers do
‘‘defensive’’ research prior to scheduled
or planned tire purchases in an attempt
to avoid getting taken advantage of by
sales associates, very few do ‘‘offensive’’
research such that they know precisely
what tires they want.
NHTSA’s consumer research found
that the connection between fuel
efficiency and tire selection was not
brought up unaided. Even when
prompted, many participants in the
142 The agenda and presentations from the
roundtable can be seen at https://eec1.ucdavis.edu/
programs/transportation/tire-roundtable-nov-2008/
tiresroundtable (last accessed Mar. 6, 2009).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
research did not feel there was a strong
connection between the two. A few
participants understood that inflated
tires are safe, making the causal
relationship between tire inflation and
vehicle safety, which is understood by
most. But after discussion and probing,
more participants began to understand
the connection and agreed tires impact
fuel efficiency. While NHTSA’s
consumer research indicated that
consumers are interested in the prospect
of a rating system that would enable
them to compare fuel efficiency of
different tires, participants in the UC
Davis workshop, which included tire
retailers, tire manufacturers, and
government organizations, generally
agreed that price is the largest factor in
most consumers’ final tire purchasing
decision.
C. What Are We Proposing To Require
of Tire Retailers?
Based on NHTSA’s understanding of
the average tire purchaser and on the
tire purchasing process generally, we
believe that the most successful method
of encouraging consumers to consider
the new ratings at the point of sale is to
have a poster in each tire retailer/dealer
location that would be visible to
consumers, to make consumers aware
that there are comparative government
tire ratings available for the passenger
car tires they are considering. The
poster would communicate the
importance of comparing replacement
tire ratings as well as the importance of
proper tire maintenance.
Therefore, in today’s notice we are
proposing to require that tire retailers
who have a display room, i.e., those that
present sample tires offered for sale to
consumers, display a tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program poster
that NHTSA will print and provide to
retailers. Some of the principles NHTSA
is proposing be conveyed by the poster
are:
• Your choice of tires you buy to put
on your vehicle affects:
Æ The gas mileage your vehicle will
get,
Æ The traction and other safety
characteristics your vehicle can achieve,
and
Æ How long you can reasonably
expect it will be before you’ll have to
buy another new set of tires.
• There is a new government program
that requires new tires for cars, vans,
and SUVs to have a paper label on the
tire tread to show you the tire’s rating
for fuel efficiency, safety, and
durability.
• Ask your dealer for the ratings for
the tires you are considering for your
vehicle.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
• More information about this ratings
program and a complete listing of the
ratings for all these tires is available at
https://www.nhtsa.gov.
• Whatever tire you choose, you need
to keep it properly inflated to get the
best fuel efficiency, safety, and tire life
that the tire can deliver.
NHTSA seeks comment on these
messages and solicits suggestions for
poster design and the best means to
convey information about the rating
system and elicit interest in the ratings,
keeping in mind the ultimate goal of
assisting consumers in making more
educated tire purchasing decisions.
The agency is proposing to make this
poster available within 12 months of the
issuance of a final regulation. At that
time NHTSA will publish a Federal
Register notice announcing the
availability of the poster. We are
proposing that a tire retailer will be able
to comply with the requirement of
displaying the poster either by
downloading and printing it, in color
and with the specifications from
NHTSA’s Web site, or by contacting the
agency and requesting that we send the
retailer a copy of the poster.
We are also proposing to require that
tire retailers leave the paper label which
displays the tire fuel efficiency rating
graphic on the tire until the tire is
sold.143 This requirement would
maximize the chance that consumers
would see the label for the tire they are
purchasing. NHTSA recognizes that at
many tire retailers, the tires are
mounted by the retailer itself and the
consumer may never actually see the
tires they purchase before they are on
their vehicle. We are not proposing to
require that tire retailers must show
consumers the label for the tire they are
going to purchase, but merely that the
label is kept on the tire until sale. The
agency would not hold a tire retailer
responsible for accidental damage or
delamination of a label, or for a
manufacturer’s failure to provide a
label.
NHTSA is aware of the small business
nature of many tire retailers and is
sensitive to any burdens being placed
upon tire retailers and dealers. The
agency considered requirements that
tire retailers show consumers the ratings
for each tire that is available and being
compared for potential purchase.
However, the agency has tentatively
concluded that the burdens associated
with such requirements are not needed
to implement an effective program. The
agency seeks comments on any other
143 Note that NHTSA uses the term ‘‘paper label’’
in the colloquial sense; many labels on tires are
actually made of plastic.
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Additionally, NHTSA can use the force
measurements to develop an accurate
rolling resistance database that can be
used for development of a calculator
that consumers can use to estimate
dollars of fuel saved either annually or
over the average life of the tire, as
explained in section VIII of this notice.
D. What Are We Proposing To Require
Finally, the test load can be used to
of Tire Manufacturers?
calculate rolling resistance coefficient if
necessary or desirable.
1. Data Reporting
We are proposing to require
We are proposing to require
manufacturers to report to NHTSA the
manufacturers to report to NHTSA for
treadwear rating and the traction rating
each tire that is individually rated under for each tire, on a 0 to 100 scale as
this tire fuel efficiency consumer
discussed above in sections VI.A.2 and
information program the following data: VI.A.3 because these ratings represent
• Rolling resistance force (RRF), as
durability and safety for purposes of the
computed from the ISO 28580 test (in
national tire fuel efficiency consumer
Newtons) and followed in parenthesis
information program required by EISA.
by the equivalent pounds-force, e.g., 5
The agency is proposing that these
Newtons (1.12 lbf).144
ratings be based on the UTQGS test
• Test load, as specified in the ISO
procedures for traction and treadwear.
28580 test procedure (in Newtons) and
However, the agency remains open to
followed in parenthesis by the
considering other tests that may better
equivalent pounds-force, e.g., 5
represent and communicate information
Newtons (1.12 lbf).
about safety and durability. As
• Rolling resistance rating (0–100),
mentioned above, NHTSA requests
based on the formula in section VI.B.1
comments on other test methods and
above.
metrics on which to base ratings of
• Traction 0–100 rating, based on the safety and durability.
formula in section VI.B.1 above.
We request comment on what format
• Average peak coefficient of friction
to require tire manufacturers to submit
for asphalt, as measured during the
data. NHTSA intends to require
UTQGS traction test procedure (49 CFR
submission of data in a uniform format
575.104(f)).
to ensure that all information is
• Average peak coefficient of friction
provided, and for ease of database entry.
for concrete, as measured during the
NHTSA is proposing that the agency
UTQGS traction test procedure (49 CFR
will design a Microsoft Excel template
575.104(f)).
for data submission and will make this
• Adjusted peak coefficient of friction template available for download from
for asphalt (μAPA), based on the formula
the agency Web site. However, the
in section VI.B.1 above.
agency is also looking into using an
• Adjusted peak coefficient of friction online data submission system and the
for concrete (μAPC), based on the formula possibility of creating one centralized
in section VI.B.1 above.
location where tire manufacturers will
• Treadwear 0–100 rating, based on
submit all required data submissions,
the formula in section VI.B.1 above.
including tire fuel economy data
• Wear rate of tested tire, as measured submissions. The agency seeks
during the UTQGS treadwear procedure comment on the feasibility of using both
(49 CFR 575.104(e)).
a spreadsheet template and an online
There are several reasons NHTSA is
data reporting system for having tire
proposing that the tire manufacturer
manufactures submit data for the fuel
submit these various measurements to
efficiency consumer information
the agency. First, this makes it
program ratings.
straightforward for the agency to ensure
2. Tire Labels
compliance with the rating systems
We are also proposing two
developed in this tire fuel efficiency
alternatives for tire manufacturers to
consumer information program. These
present the required rating information
reporting requirements also permit the
on a paper label affixed to each subject
agency to assess the adequacy and
replacement tire. First, a tire
appropriateness of the tolerance bands,
as described in section XI of this notice. manufacturer may place the required
rating graphic somewhere on the paper
144 While pounds-force (lbf) have been used
labels already required to be affixed to
throughout this NPRM since they are more familiar
each individual tire by UTQGS
to the average U.S. consumer, the SI units of
requirements.145 Second, a tire
Newtons will be the official reporting unit. All
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
information dissemination requirements
that would ensure that easy-tounderstand information is conveyed in
a way that is most likely to impact
consumers’ decisions and, thus, affect
their behavior and save them and our
nation fuel and money.
proposed limits and values will be converted
accordingly.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
145 See
PO 00000
49 CFR 575.104(d)(i)(B).
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
29573
manufacturer could fulfill the tire fuel
efficiency labeling requirements by
affixing a separate paper label with just
the tire fuel efficiency label graphic on
it.
Regardless of which alternative is
chosen by the tire manufacturer, we are
proposing to specify a minimum size for
the tire fuel efficiency rating system
graphic (4.5 inches high and 5.5 inches
wide) and that the graphic must be in
color on the label.
The minimum size specification is
proposed to ensure that the rating
graphic will be legible on the label. The
reason that we are proposing the graphic
appear in color is because consumers
reacted positively to the red shading on
the lower/left side of the scale to
indicate lower ratings, and to the green
shading on the higher/right side of the
scale to indicate higher ratings.
NHTSA requests comments on
whether the label requirement should be
more specific regarding precisely when
tire manufacturers must affix the label.
E. Requirements for Tire Retailers and
Tire Manufacturers With an Internet
Presence
There are tire retailers with virtual
storefronts, as well as retailers and
manufacturers that maintain Web sites
that consumers can use to research tires.
Because NHTSA believes that many
consumers use the Internet to do at least
a minimal amount of research in some
situations before they need to purchase
tires, we are proposing to require that
tire retailers and tire manufacturers that
maintain Web sites must include a link
to the comprehensive tire Web site that
NHTSA plans to develop (see section
VIII.B.4 below).
NHTSA requests comments on what
additional requirements, if any, should
apply to such Web sites. For example,
should NHTSA require the Web site to
include an electronic version of the
poster NHTSA is proposing to require
retailers with a display room to display?
The poster would be provided in an
electronic format by NHTSA when
printed copies are provided as
discussed above.
F. Uniform Tire Quality Grading
Standards
As mentioned above, NHTSA has a
tire rating system that has been in place
since 1975, the uniform tire quality
grading standards (UTQGS).146 NHTSA
established the UTQGS to fulfill a
statutory requirement established by the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
146 See
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
49 CFR 575.104 (2008).
22JNP2
29574
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Safety Act of 1966.147 This statutory
requirement has been codified and
amended to read as follows:
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
The Secretary shall prescribe through
standards a uniform quality grading system
for motor vehicle tires to help consumers
make an informed choice when purchasing
tires. The Secretary also shall cooperate with
industry and the Federal Trade Commission
to the greatest extent practicable to eliminate
deceptive and confusing tire nomenclature
and marketing practices. A tire standard or
regulation prescribed under this chapter
supersedes an order or administrative
interpretation of the Commission.148
The UTQGS, applicable to passenger
car tires, require motor vehicle and tire
manufacturers to provide consumers
with information about their tires’
relative performance regarding
treadwear, traction, and temperature
resistance. Manufacturers are required
to rate their tires based on performance
in specified test procedures, to report
those ratings to NHTSA, to permanently
mold those ratings onto sidewalls, to
attach a label containing those ratings
on replacement tires, and to provide
information about the UTQGS with tires
and new motor vehicles. The treadwear,
traction, and temperature resistance
characteristics were chosen by NHTSA
for rating under the UTQGS because the
agency believed they provided the best
balance of tire properties for meaningful
evaluation by consumers. As previously
discussed for the characteristics affected
by today’s proposals, those
characteristics interact with each other
such that improvement of one of them
could reduce performance of one of the
others.
As NHTSA is proposing to base
today’s proposed safety and durability
ratings on them, traction and treadwear
were discussed above. The UTQGS
temperature rating indicates the tire’s
resistance to the generation of heat and
its ability to dissipate heat. Sustained
high temperature can cause the material
of the tire to degrade and reduce tire
life, and excessive temperature can lead
to sudden tire failure. Tires are tested
under controlled conditions on a highspeed laboratory test wheel. Tires are
graded A, B, or C, with A indicating an
ability to dissipate heat at higher
speeds. While grade C originally
corresponded to a level of performance
required for passenger car tires by
FMVSS No. 109, new requirements in
FMVSS No. 139 mean that few, if any,
147 See National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
Act of 1966, Public Law 89–563, § 203, 80 Stat. 718
(1966) (codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. 30123(b)).
148 49 U.S.C. 30123(b).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
new tires perform below the level of
grade B.149
In 1995, NHTSA proposed
amendments to the UTQGS.150 At that
time, NHTSA proposed, based on
comments from the public,151 to remove
the temperature resistance rating and to
add a fuel efficiency rating. It was
believed that the temperature resistance
rating was not as well understood by
consumers as the treadwear and traction
ratings.152 The rulemaking was
terminated 153 because Congress placed
a condition in NHTSA’s 1996
appropriations Act that stated ‘‘none of
the funds appropriated by this Act may
be obligated or expended to plan,
finalize, or implement any rulemaking
to add to [the UTQGS] any requirement
pertaining to a grading standard that is
different from the three grading
standards (treadwear, traction, and
temperature resistance) already in
effect.’’ 154 This language has been
included in every DOT Appropriations
Act since 1996.
In developing today’s proposal under
EISA, the agency considered the need
and appropriateness of continuing the
current UTQGS requirements. For the
reasons discussed below, we have
tentatively concluded that the current
UTQGS requirements should either be
removed, once tires meet the new EISA
requirements, or amended to conform to
the approach in today’s EISA proposal.
For two of the three UTQGS ratings,
today’s proposal would establish
parallel but different ratings. Thus,
consumers would be receiving the same
basic information, but in two different
ways. For the treadwear rating, the
durability rating proposed in this notice
is simply a different way of expressing
the same rating. For the traction rating,
the safety rating proposed in this notice
is based on the same test procedure;
however, the ratings are based on
different measurements, both of which
are recorded by the equipment used in
the UTQGS test procedure.
If the agency maintained the current
UTQGS ratings in these areas, there
would be concerns about consumer
confusion as well as unnecessary
149 UTQGS requires tires to be rated a C if they
perform at the lowest level in the UTQGS test. If
a tire performs at a higher level the manufacturer
may rate the tire a B. Therefore, while there may
still be grade C tires on the market, NHTSA expects
that the tires could be rated a B, based on the
requirements of FMVSS 139.
150 60 FR 27472 (May 24, 1995).
151 See Request for Comments, 59 FR 19686 (Apr.
25, 1994).
152 Id. at 19689.
153 See 61 FR 47437 (Sept. 9, 1996).
154 Department of Transportation and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996,
Public Law 104–50, 109 Stat. 436 (1995).
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
duplication. For example, with both
systems in place, a consumer would see
one scale (e.g., letter grades for traction)
on the UTQGS label and on the tire
sidewall, but on the tire fuel efficiency
label the consumer would see a safety
(i.e., traction) rating on a different scale
(0 to 100). Similarly, the consumer
would get a treadwear grade on the
UTQGS label and on the tire sidewall,
but would get the same grade expressed
on a different scale (0 to 100) on the tire
fuel efficiency label.
As to the third UTQGS rating, i.e.,
temperature resistance, NHTSA notes
that 80 percent of current tires are
graded either A or B. As discussed
previously, the new performance
standards for passenger car tires will
result in only grade A or B tires in the
market. Therefore, the rating does not
provide much comparative information.
Moreover, for reasons discussed in the
1995 NPRM,155 we believe this rating
has limited relevance to consumers.
Given the above discussion, we are
requesting comments on two
alternatives. Under the first alternative,
the current UTQGS requirements would
be removed once tires meet the new
EISA requirements. While the new
requirements we are proposing today
would be issued under the authority of
EISA, we believe the ratings system
proposed in this document for
durability (treadwear) and safety (wet
traction) serve the same purposes as the
corresponding existing UTQGS ratings.
We note that, unlike the current
UTQGS requirements, manufacturers
would not be required to permanently
mold the EISA ratings onto tire
sidewalls or provide information for
tires on new motor vehicles. However,
we have tentatively concluded that,
given the purposes of both UTQGS and
the EISA ratings, i.e., helping consumers
make informed choices in purchasing
tires, and the ways that the relevant
information would be available
(including the paper label on
replacement tires and a government
Web site), these differences would not
be a reason to maintain the current
UTQGS requirements.
Under the second alternative, the
current UTQGS requirements would be
amended to conform to the approach in
today’s EISA proposal. We would
replace the existing UTQGS treadwear
and traction ratings with the ratings
proposed in today’s notice for durability
(treadwear) and safety (wet traction),
and the rating for temperature resistance
would be removed. The requirement for
UTQGS information to be provided on
a tire tread surface label would be
155 See
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
60 FR 27472, 27478–27481.
22JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
written broadly enough that if the
ratings were provided on the EISA label
they need not be provided on a separate
UTQGS label. Under this alternative, we
would also remove the requirement for
the UTQGS ratings to be molded on the
tire sidewalls. We believe this
requirement is duplicative and results
in unnecessary costs. For replacement
tires, the ratings would be provided on
the paper label. While we question
whether there is a need to provide this
information for the tires on new
vehicles, we request comments on this
issue. We also request comments on the
most appropriate way to require the
information to be provided, should we
decide to continue to do so. Finally, as
part of this alternative, we would make
any necessary conforming changes to
the other UTQGS requirements.
We note that our proposed regulatory
text does not include changes with
respect to removing or revising the
current UTQGS requirements. If this
part of the proposal is adopted as a final
rule, we would make the necessary
changes in the final rule’s regulatory
text.
In developing this aspect of our
proposal, we have specifically
considered 49 U.S.C. 30123(b) (the
statutory requirements concerning
UTQGS), 49 U.S.C. 32304A (Consumer
Tire Information, i.e., the relevant part
of EISA), and the current DOT
Appropriations Act. As to the language
of the DOT Appropriations Act,
discussed earlier, we construe that
language to prohibit us from adding to
the UTQGS program any new grading
standards beyond those currently in
effect (treadwear, traction, and
temperature resistance), but not from
removing current standards or making
minor modifications in the current
standards, such as those discussed
above under the second alternative. We
note that the fuel efficiency rating
proposed by today’s document would be
issued solely under the authority of
EISA, i.e., it would not be part of the
UTQGS program under any of the
alternatives we are considering.
VIII. NHTSA’s Consumer Education
Program
As noted elsewhere in the notice,
section 111 of EISA requires that the tire
fuel efficiency consumer information
program for replacement tires include
‘‘a national tire maintenance consumer
education program including,
information on tire inflation pressure,
alignment, rotation, and treadwear to
maximize fuel efficiency, safety, and
durability of replacement tires.’’ 49
U.S.C. 32304A(a)(2)(D). In order to
develop the most effective
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
communication materials to comply
with this requirement, the agency
conducted consumer testing in January
2009 on informational materials and
potential tire labeling.156 The goals of
this research were to (1) explore
reactions to consumer expectations for a
tire fuel efficiency rating program; (2)
measure feedback related to the
effectiveness of the communication
materials used to convey the tire
labeling information; and (3) gauge
consumer preferences of tire label
designs presented to determine how
best to design a consumer friendly label
for the program. Consumers have
expressed interest in ways this new
information should be conveyed.
NHTSA is using consumer testing
research to help maximize consumer
understanding of the program and to
develop communication materials to
assist consumers in making more
educated tire purchasing decisions.
NHTSA requests comments on the most
effective way to establish and
implement a consumer education
program to fulfill the statutory
requirements and purposes behind
today’s proposed tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program.
A. Previous Tire Consumer Education
Efforts
NHTSA has long recognized the
importance of consumer education in
the area of tire maintenance. The
Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards
(UTQGS) ratings, which are molded
onto passenger car tire sidewalls, allow
consumers to compare tire treadwear,
traction performance, and temperature
resistance. UTQGS consumer
information includes a booklet
published annually with comparative
UTGQS ratings for all passenger car
tires. NHTSA’s consumer based Web
site, Safercar.gov, features a tire lookup
database with these comparative ratings
to assist consumers in purchasing new
or replacement vehicle tires.157
The What’s Your PSI? campaign
launched in 2005 challenged consumers
to learn the correct pressure for their
vehicle’s tires and to help them
maintain proper pressure. Campaign
materials included a brochure
distributed by tire safety partners
throughout the country and interactive
online tire quiz. These materials are
156 NHTSA
Rolling Resistance Focus Group
Report (January 2008). This report will be posted to
the docket.
157 See https://www.safercar.gov/portal/site/
safercar/menuitem.13dd5c887c7e
1358fefe0a2f35a67789/
?vgnextoid=9f4baa8c16e35110Vgn
VCM1000002fd17898RCRD.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
29575
available online through the
Safercar.gov Web site.158
In 2008, NHTSA revised the Tire
Safety: Everything Rides On It brochure,
published in 2001. This brochure was
published as a consumer information
tool to inform vehicle owners of tire
pressure, load limits, and maintenance.
It is also a guidebook that helps
consumers make informed decisions on
tire repair and maintenance
procedures.159 The agency has
partnered with industry and retail
partners to distribute the brochure.
Additionally in 2008, NHTSA urged
drivers to check their tires during hot
weather via a public service
announcement (PSA). The PSA was
featured on NHTSA.gov and
Safercar.gov, warning of potential tire
failure associated with under-inflation.
B. Potential Future Consumer Education
Efforts
1. What Information Should NHTSA
Convey?
In addition to the information
dissemination requirements for tire
manufacturers and tire retailers
discussed above in section VII of this
notice, NHTSA intends to actively
communicate the importance of tire
maintenance generally, including tire
inflation pressure, alignment, rotation,
and other tire issues.
All tires require proper inflation and
maintenance to achieve their intended
levels of efficiency, safety, wear, and
operating performance.160 NHTSA has
previously addressed the importance of
proper tire inflation to safety and fuel
economy through PSAs. Additionally,
in 2005, NHTSA published a final rule
mandating tire pressure monitoring
systems (TPMS) for all new automobiles
by the 2008 model year.161 TPMS,
however, is no substitution for proper
tire maintenance. Despite the fact that
all new vehicles are equipped with a
TPMS, NHTSA believes that proper tire
maintenance is still the most important
information to convey to consumers.
Smaller reductions in inflation pressure
than measured by the TPMS can affect
not only fuel efficiency, but also tire
lifespan and vehicle handling.
While past consumer information
efforts have been effective in
communicating the importance of tire
safety and maintenance, the agency
158 See https://www.safercar.gov/portal/site/
safercar/menuitem.13dd5c887c7e
1358fefe0a2f35a67789/
?vgnextoid=eac9aa8c16e35110Vgn
VCM1000002fd17898RCRD.
159 See https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/
tiresafety/ridesonit/tires_index.html.
160 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 5.
161 See 70 FR 18136 (April 8, 2005).
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
plans to improve on these efforts by
using innovative methods of
dissemination for a new national tire
fuel efficiency consumer information
program. According to the agency’s
recent research, consumers reacted
positively to receiving this information
in the following ways: Point of sale,
interactive mediums, and via the
Internet.
2. Point of Sale
While NHTSA is partially addressing
the presentation of consumer education
information through the requirements
for manufacturers and tire retailers
proposed in today’s notice, tire fuel
efficiency rating information may
additionally be displayed at kiosks, on
overhead posters, tire plaques, or in
advertisements at the point of purchase
(everywhere tires are sold—tire retailers,
dealers, online, manufacturer Web
sites). These displays would highlight
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
4. Web Site Development
The agency’s Safercar.gov consumer
Web site currently provides information
on tire safety. Due to the amount of
content available on tires, NHTSA plans
to consolidate all tire information into a
dedicated one-stop micro-site focusing
on tires. The core message of the site
would be tire maintenance—
information on its importance in terms
of safety, fuel efficiency, tire life and
vehicle handling as well as tips on how
best to maintain tires. The site would
then make it easier for a consumer to
locate various information regarding
tires.
The new site would also be the
location for all of NHTSA’s information
about tire fuel efficiency. From its new
comprehensive tire Web site, NHTSA
also plans to link to other government
Web sites that discuss energy efficiency
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
key information to be aware of and
useful tips to note when shopping to
buy replacement tires. NHTSA plans to
develop informative posters and
brochures that it will make available on
its Web site for tire manufacturers and
tire retailers to download and make
available to educate consumers.
Moreover, as noted above, the agency
plans to provide specific size and design
requirements for a paper label with fuel
efficiency, safety, and durability ratings
to accompany each tire. A template
would be supplied to tire manufacturers
for their inclusion of these ratings on
the label. A similar agency program,
Stars On Cars, requires manufacturers to
post vehicle crash test rating
information on a vehicle’s window
sticker.
3. Interactive Mediums
NHTSA’s consumer research shows
that a calculator that would show the
and consumer products and appliances,
so that upon visiting the government’s
comprehensive tire Web site, consumers
have the opportunity to learn about fuel
efficient vehicles, energy saving
practices, and the energy efficiency of
other consumer products, as well as fuel
efficient tires. These may include, but
are not limited to, EPA’s Green Vehicle
Guide, https://fueleconomy.gov, and the
government’s Energy Star Web site.
NHTSA plans to develop a link to
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
about the tire fuel efficiency rating
system. Similar to the UTQGS tire
lookup tool on Safercar.gov, NHTSA
plans to develop a Web-based tire fuel
efficiency search database, which would
be a useful tool for consumers to
compare tires prior to visiting a retailer.
The database would also be a site for
retailers to obtain information to assist
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
amount of fuel and money a driver
would save by buying a higher rated
fuel efficiency tire annually, or over the
estimated lifetime of the tire, appeals to
consumers. This calculator might be
available online, at a dealership, or a
tire retailer. Using the calculator, a
consumer could select tires to compare,
enter the fuel economy of their vehicle
(mpg) and the average number of miles
they drive each year and even the dollar
amount they are paying for fuel and get
a calculation of differences in fuel usage
and/or money saved for the tires under
comparison. In the example shown in
Figure 14, gallons saved is calculated
assuming Tire A provides the input gas
consumption and Tire B provides the
average gas savings per pound force
found in the NHTSA study (∼0.085%
per pound).
their customers. A dealer could satisfy
the proposed requirements to have
ratings information available when
presenting comparative tire information
by providing a computer kiosk linked to
NHTSA’s Web site for customers to use
while in their store.
5. Paper Brochure Materials
NHTSA intends to publish a brochure
to inform consumers about the tire fuel
efficiency ratings program, where to
obtain the ratings, as well as other
related information. NHTSA would
make this brochure available on its Web
site for tire retailers who wish to print
it and use it in their stores. The agency
will also explore other avenues of
distribution to inform future tire
purchasers of the availability of this
new information. Promoting awareness
of this tire information will allow
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
EP22JN09.013
29576
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
consumers to spend time carrying out
research prior to visiting a tire retailer.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
6. Partnership Development
NHTSA will work with existing
partners and identify new ones to help
promote tire fuel efficiency campaign
messages. NHTSA will seek to partner
with any interested tire retailers, State
or local governments, as well as
manufacturers who share NHTSA’s goal
of promoting the importance of proper
tire maintenance. NHTSA will also seek
to partner with any interested
universities or high schools who may
wish to educate students regarding tire
fuel efficiency or proper tire
maintenance. Many high school and
college students have used vehicles
with replacement tires and, thus, they
are definitely a target audience for
consumer education regarding proper
tire maintenance.
These partners will help to distribute
those messages to a broader audience
than the agency can do alone. These
third-party relationships also build
credibility and awareness among the
media, which in turn helps expand
reach. The agency will develop a toolkit
that partners can use when packaging
materials for consumer education
efforts.
Further, EPA’s SmartWay program
has experience in transportation
marketing and forming partnership
programs.162 EPA has experience with
general public outreach and has reached
out to NHTSA seeking to integrate
NHTSA’s tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program with EPA’s similar
efforts in its SmartWay Transport
program. NHTSA and EPA believe that
a more integrated outreach effort from
the Federal government will best assist
consumers in educating themselves
about tire maintenance and fuel
efficiency, and thus in making more
informed purchasing decisions.
7. Exhibits and Conferencing
NHTSA currently exhibits at a
number of auto-related shows and
conferences throughout the year. These
shows provide an opportunity to
distribute campaign materials and
interface with consumers interested in
vehicle safety information. NHTSA also
gives consumers a walkthrough of
agency Web sites to demonstrate how to
find information. NHTSA will use these
conference environments to promote the
tire fuel efficiency consumer education
program.
The agency also plans on looking into
distributing educational flyers
162 See https://www.epa.gov/smartway/index.htm
(last accessed June 4, 2009).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
promoting NHTSA’s tire education Web
site to highly congested events where
large amounts of people drive their
vehicles to attend, such as professional
sporting events.
8. Local Education Programs
NHTSA proposes to establish a line of
communication with its regional and
local offices and develop a plan that
reaches out to the local universities and
high schools in the States to deliver
presentations made available by NHTSA
officials. NHTSA plans to distribute
educational material such as brochures
and FAQs to each student body. The
reason NHTSA wishes to reach out to
university and high school students, is
because the agency believes that this
target audience highly uses replacement
tires.
IX. Costs and Benefits
A. Costs 163
There are three sets of costs involved
for manufacturer: Costs to test tires to
obtain rating information, costs of the
consumer information and, assuming
the program drives the market to
demand different tires, costs to improve
tires. Costs for the first two categories
are estimated to be around $10.5 million
annually, with one-time costs of around
$4 million.
As discussed more thoroughly below
under benefits, the costs for the third
category are difficult to estimate. There
are many different ways that a
manufacturer might choose to improve
the rolling resistance rating of their
tires. The agency estimates that the
increased cost at the consumer level of
such improvements is $2.00 to $4.00 per
tire for tires subject to this regulation if
all other tire properties were held
constant.164 However, total costs for this
category are dependent on market
demand for different tires as a result of
this program. The PRIA estimates that
between 2 and 10 percent of the targeted
tire population will be improved as a
result of the proposal. Under this
assumption and using a cost of $3 to
improve the rolling resistance of one
tire, the costs to improve tires are
estimated to be between $8.4 and $42
163 All costs discussed below are presented in
2008 economics.
164 This is the cost to reduce rolling resistance by
10 percent from today’s average replacement tire
rolling resistance, holding other tire properties
constant. Using silica is a well known method.
There are a variety of ways to improve rolling
resistance and not hold other properties constant,
with different cost implications. That is one reason
that the agency feels it is important to have rolling
resistance, traction, and treadwear on the same
label.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
29577
million. The agency requests comments
on this cost estimate.
Based on a report from Smithers
Scientific Services, Inc. presented at the
February 5, 2009 Staff Workshop for the
California Energy Commission’s Fuel
Efficient Tire Program, there are 20,708
tires that would need to be tested
initially to provide information. If each
one of these were tested once for tire
rolling resistance, the initial costs to the
industry would be $3,727,000. Based
upon the average number of reports the
agency receives under the UTQGS
program, the agency estimates that 125
new/redesigned tires will need to be
tested annually, for ongoing testing
costs of $22,500. Since the UTQGS
already requires testing for treadwear
and traction, those costs are already in
the baseline and are not incremental
costs of this proposal.
Information program costs include
manufacturer costs to report information
to NHTSA and to label tires. Tire
manufacturers are required to provide
information to NHTSA on the rating
system. We are proposing to require
manufacturers to report to NHTSA for
each tire that is individually rated under
this tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program data on each of the
three ratings: fuel efficiency, traction,
and treadwear. In the early warning
system (EWR) there are 28 tire
manufacturers that report. Each
manufacturer will need to set up the
software in a computer program to
combine the testing information,
organize it for NHTSA’s use, etc. We
estimate this cost to be a one-time
charge of about $10,000 per company. In
the EWR analysis, we estimated the
annual cost per report per tire
manufacturer to be $287. There are also
computer maintenance costs of keeping
the data up to date, etc. as tests come
in throughout the year. In the EWR
analysis,165 we estimated costs of $3,755
per year per company. Thus, the total
annual cost is estimated to be $4,042 per
company, and $280,000 + $113,176 =
$393,176 for the first year and $113,176
as an annual cost for all 28 tire
manufacturers.
The proposal also requires a color
label to be added to the current label
that is glued onto a tire. The label will
have the three scales in color and other
information. We estimate the
incremental cost of adding the color
label to the existing label to be $0.05 per
tire. We assume it will not change the
way the label is attached to the tire, so
165 Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation, Tread Act
Amendments to Early Warning Reporting
Regulation Part 579 and Defect and Noncompliance
Part 573, August 2008, (Docket No. 2008–0169–
0007.1).
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
29578
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
will not result in additional labor at the
tire manufacturer plant.
There are roughly 200 million
replacement tires sold per year.166 We
estimate that 5 percent (10 million) of
the replacement tires are LT tires, and
therefore not covered by this proposal,
and 4.5 percent (9 million) of the
replacement tires are snow tires or other
types of tires that are exempt from the
consumer information program. Thus,
the cost to provide consumer
information on a label is estimated to be
$9.05 million ($0.05*181 million).
For tire retailers, the agency estimates
that this proposal would have no cost.
The only proposed requirements for
retailers are to leave the label on the tire
until it is sold and to display a poster.
Since manufacturers will supply the
label, and NHTSA will supply the
poster, there should be no cost to
retailers.
There are three sets of costs to the
government: Enforcement costs, costs
for maintaining the Web site, and costs
to provide the poster to retailers.
NHTSA anticipates spending $730,000
annually to do compliance testing for
this program. Based on costs for the
existing areas of the NHTSA Web site,
NHTSA estimates that it will cost
approximately $550,000 per year to set
up and update the part of the Web site
to include information on 20,000 tires.
For the poster, NHTSA currently
provides a booklet to tire dealers with
the UTQGS information. That booklet is
on 8.5″ x 11″ paper and is 141 pages
long. The printing costs are $3,190 per
year. NHTSA anticipates that providing
the posters would be a similar expense.
Therefore, the combined costs to the
government are estimated to be $1.28
million.
B. Benefits
There are three categories of potential
benefits (or disbenefits) from this rule:
Fuel economy, safety and durability. For
each of these categories a significant
unknown is likely consumer behavior in
response to this program, and as a result
of that, likely manufacturer reaction. For
example, if consumers value fuel
efficiency but are unwilling to increase
the price they pay for tires, tires with
improved fuel efficiency but decreased
safety and/or durability may enter the
market. If consumers care most about
safety, and if there is a tradeoff between
fuel economy and safety, one effect of
this rule may be to increase safety while
decreasing fuel economy. NHTSA
would have to quantify the value of all
166 According to Modern Tire Dealer in 2008,
there were 198 million replacement tires sold.
https://www.moderntiredealer.com/FAQ/.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
three categories of benefits/disbenefits
under such a scenario and construct a
range of likely scenarios to calculate the
combined potential benefits of this rule.
Other scenarios can also be imagined.
NHTSA requests comments on how it
might more narrowly analyze the
uncertainty regarding the anticipated
outcomes of this proposal.
In addition to the unknown reactions
of consumers and manufacturers,
calculating benefits is complicated by
several additional factors. We explain
these additional complications for each
of the three rating systems in the
remainder of this section. In each of
these discussions we consider how to
compute the benefit of a difference of X
points on the particular rating scale.
For fuel economy, one of the reasons
the agency is basing the fuel efficiency
rating on RRF rather than RRC is that it
allows the program to readily provide
consumers with a statement such as ‘‘a
difference of X on the fuel efficiency
rating scale equates to Y gallons of fuel
saved.’’ To calculate benefits for an
individual tire purchase, if the driver
knows the baseline fuel economy of the
vehicle the tires will be mounted on, the
fuel efficiency rating of the existing
tires, the fuel efficiency rating of the
replacement tires, and the number of
miles driven annually, the driver can
calculate the reduction (or increase) in
the number of gallons of fuel the driver
will need to operate the vehicle for a
year. By using fuel price forecasts, you
can estimate the cost of that fuel, and
make an economic decision about
whether or not to buy those replacement
tires.
To calculate fuel savings benefits for
this rule, we would need to know how
many consumers are likely to purchase
lower (or higher) fuel efficiency rated
tires as a result of the information in
this program and the average reduction
(or increase) in rolling resistance of the
tires they purchase. The agency is
planning to do additional consumer
testing or other means to help it
estimate the expected consumer
reaction to this program. The PRIA
develops hypothetical estimates
assuming that between 2% and 10% of
targeted tires are improved and that the
average reduction in rolling resistance
among improved tires is between 5%
and 10%. Under these assumptions, the
proposal is estimated to save between
7.9 and 78 million gallons of fuel and
prevent the emission of 76,000–757,000
metric tons of CO2 annually. The values
of the fuel savings are between $22
million and $220 million at a 3 percent
discount rate and between $20 million
and $203 million at a 7 percent discount
rate. The agency requests any
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
information commenters may have
about how to estimate consumer
reaction and fuel savings.
Benefit estimates for the safety rating
are more difficult to quantify. As noted,
information is lacking about likely
consumer responses to the proposed
label. Even if such information were
available, it is not as straight forward as
it is for a fuel efficiency rating to
develop a rule of thumb for the safety
rating scale such as ‘‘each difference of
X on the safety rating scale equates to
Y percent fewer crashes and Z dollars
less in resultant economic damages.’’
One possible way to do this would be
to try and correlate a rating with a set
stopping distance, and then estimate the
reduction in crash injuries and fatalities
resulting from a given reduction in
stopping distance. The latter could be
done by developing an injury
probability profile for crashes as a
function of impact speed (Delta-V) and
measure the change in Delta-V that
would occur when braking distance is
changed. The agency has used this
method to measure safety impacts in 2
previous rulemakings, those for Tire
Pressure Monitoring Systems
(TPMSs),167 and for truck trailer braking
improvements.168
However, these calculations are
complicated by the fact that they
depend on other factors (in addition to
the traction rating of the tires) such as
the handling characteristics of the
vehicle on which they are mounted, the
force with which the brakes are applied,
and the loading of the vehicle. To put
a tire’s safety rating information on an
economic scale, all of these
characteristics would have to be
assumed for all tires. But in reality,
there is not a single vehicle that all
replacement tires can be mounted on.
We invite comments on these important
issues, but we are concerned that the
difference between two such tire safety
ratings would not reflect the same
economic difference in terms of safety,
where the tires were mounted on two
different types of vehicles. What we can
communicate with the proposed rating
is that tires with better traction ratings
stop in less distance than tires with
worse ratings. And as noted, the societal
safety impacts depend on consumer and
167 Final Economic Assessment, Tire Pressure
Monitoring System FMVSS No. 138, Office of
Regulatory Analysis and Evaluation, Plans and
Policy, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC. (March, 2002), Docket No.
NHTSA–2002–8572–0216.
168 Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, FMVSS No.
121, Air Brake Systems Amending Stopping
Distance, Office of Regulatory Analysis and
Evaluation, National Center for Statistics and
Analysis (Not Yet Published).
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
manufacturer reactions to the program.
We seek comments on all of these
questions.
For durability, the rating is a relative
rating compared to a control tire, which
would be rated 10 on our scale. A tire
rated 20 should last twice as long as a
tire rated a 10 and so forth. Several
assumptions would need to be made to
develop a rule of thumb for the
durability rating scale of the form ‘‘each
difference of X on the durability rating
scale equates to equates to a reduction
of $Y in tire purchases over the lifetime
of the vehicle.’’ Tire lifetimes are
complicated by factors such as: The
vehicle the tire is mounted on, driving
habits, tire maintenance, weather/
environment/temperature, etc. NHTSA
could however come up with a set
scenario and come up with mileage
estimates if the tires are driven as in that
scenario. Drivers could translate that
into a reduction in tire purchase costs
over the lifetime of a vehicle given the
price of the tires being considered—a
$50 tire that is expected to last 10,000
miles would have the same expected
lifetime cost (over the life of a vehicle)
as a $100 tire that is expected to last
20,000 miles.
X. Lead time
While manufacturers currently
calculate the rolling resistance of at least
some tires for vehicle manufacturers to
use when selecting which tires to equip
new vehicles with, NHTSA believes that
lead time is necessary for tire
manufacturers to conduct additional
testing and to prepare rating information
for all affected tires. In addition, time
will be necessary for NHTSA to collect
all reported rating information into a
database and to prepare consumer
information materials.
On February 5, 2009, at a CEC staff
workshop on their Fuel Efficient Tire
Program, Smithers Scientific Services,
Inc. (Smithers) presented the results of
research done for the CEC to evaluate
test facility capacity to conduct rolling
resistance testing. Smithers based their
analysis on current availability at
independent laboratories, and also an
estimate of test machine availability at
manufacturer-owned laboratories.
Depending on the scenario evaluated,
they estimated that testing all affected
tires would take 0.7 to 8.2 years.
NHTSA notes that Smithers’
evaluation included some factors that
are different from today’s proposed
Federal program. First, Smithers
assumed that three tests would be
required for each tire, while the program
we are proposing today would only
require a single test. Second, the
proposal was based on estimates of both
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
passenger car and light truck tires, while
today’s proposal only applies to
passenger car tires.169 Adjusting for
these two factors, the Smithers data
would suggest that manufacturers need
0.2 to 2.4 years to test one replacement
passenger car tire of each different size
specification, as proposed in this notice.
NHTSA believes this number may
still be an over-estimate of the time
needed to test and rate all tires affected
by this proposed program. Based on our
research, NHTSA estimates it may be
possible that less than 25 percent of the
affected tires will have to be tested in
accordance with the ISO 28580
procedures in order to rate them for this
program. It is likely that manufacturers
will be able to develop equations to
calculate the effect of differences in
tread pattern, etc., and use those
equations to compute the test results
from ISO 28580 from other tires that
have been tested. Tire manufacturers
will be able to extrapolate estimates of
the test procedure values from knowing
the test procedure values of similar
sized tires. In addition, manufacturers
already have rolling resistance
information on many, if not all tires, as
this information is used by vehicle
manufacturers when choosing which
tires to install as original equipment.
Even if these data were gathered using
other test methods, NHTSA’s research
shows that equations can translate the
data to the test procedure specified in
this rule. Recognizing that the deadlines
imposed by Congress in EISA indicate a
desire to have information available to
consumers as quickly as possible,
NHTSA is therefore proposing to require
manufacturers to report on all existing
tires within 12 months of the issuance
of a final regulation.
For new tires introduced after the
effective date of this rule, NHTSA is
proposing to require reporting of
information at least 30 days prior to
introducing the tire for sale, as is
required for UTQGS information.
Regarding the poster NHTSA is
proposing to require in retailers that
have a display room, the agency is
proposing to make this poster available
within 12 months of the issuance of a
final regulation. At that time NHTSA
will publish a Federal Register notice
announcing the availability of the
poster. The agency is proposing that a
tire retailer must have the poster on
display within 60 days of the issuance
of the notice of availability in the
Federal Register. We are proposing that
a tire retailer will be able to comply
169 Smithers estimated that there were 62,124
passenger car tires and 9,888 light truck tires that
would need to be tested.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
29579
with the requirement of displaying the
poster either by downloading and
printing it, in color and with the
specifications from NHTSA’s Web site,
or by contacting the agency and
requesting that we send the retailer a
copy of the poster.
For tire retailers and tire
manufacturers with an Internet
presence, NHTSA is proposing that
those Web sites link to NHTSA’s tire
Web site within 12 months of the
issuance of a final regulation. NHTSA
will provide the direct link to the
comprehensive tire Web site in that
final regulation.
XI. Compliance Tolerances
The test procedure proposed in this
notice is the one NHTSA will use for
compliance testing. Today’s notice also
proposes tolerances for RRF, traction,
and treadwear which indicate what
NHTSA is proposing to consider a
noncompliance for the reporting and
rating requirements if there is a
difference between NHTSA’s test result
and a reported rating. In establishing
tolerances, at this state of the
rulemaking process, the agency has
considered the repeatability of a tire
tested as well as the variability of
machine-to-machine tests, lab-to-lab
tests, and the potential for different
results due to different manufacturing
dates.
For UTQGS, NHTSA specifies a test
procedure for each rating. For traction
and temperature resistance, the
regulation then sets a performance level
at which the tire must be rated a C, and
higher levels at which the manufacturer
may rate it a B, A, or in the case of
Traction AA. The regulation was written
this way as an acknowledgement of
some level of necessary variability in
the manufacture of tires. For tires that
perform near a performance level that
would allow a higher traction grade, the
regulation allows the manufacturer to
‘‘underrate’’ to allow for the possibility
that NHTSA might select a tire for
compliance testing that would perform
at the lower level.
For a consumer that purchases, for
example, a B-rated tire and receives a
tire that actually performs better than
expected, there is no concern. However,
there is some concern that a consumer
may choose to pay extra for a B-rated
tire when a comparable tire is
‘‘underrated’’ as a ‘‘C.’’ Thus, for the
UTQGS definition of compliance, there
is a risk that ratings information
communicated will not be accurate.
Section 111 of EISA added a new subprovision to 49 U.S.C. 32308 (General
prohibitions, civil penalty, and
enforcement) which provides for civil
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
29580
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
penalties of not more than $50,000 for
each violation of the tire fuel efficiency
provisions. 49 U.S.C. 32308(c). Given
this, in deciding how to define what
would be considered a noncompliance
for the tire fuel efficiency program,
NHTSA tentatively has the concern that
the program not result in a situation
where NHTSA would be taking
enforcement action against a
manufacturer for the safety and
durability ratings under this program,
when enforcement action would not be
warranted for UTQGS ratings based on
the same test procedures. For this
reason, NHTSA is proposing to require
the ratings reported by a manufacturer
under this proposed rule must be less
than or equal to the rating determined
by the agency using the procedures
specified in this rule.
However, as discussed previously,
NHTSA’s research allows the agency to
quantify the range of most of the
variability that can be expected when
determining the RRF value for a tire.
Similarly, based on NHTSA experience
conducting the traction and treadwear
tests for the UTQGS program, NHTSA
believes it can determine the range of
variation for the safety and durability
ratings proposed in this rule. NHTSA is
requesting comments on a requirement
which would require the ratings
reported by a manufacturer to be within
a specified tolerance limit as explained
below for each rating. Because of the
concern with the accuracy of the
information being reported in this
program, NHTSA is also seeking
comment on whether to consider a noncompliance to exist when NHTSA’s test
value results in rating that is outside the
tolerance band, but is higher than the
rating reported by tire manufacturer.
A. Fuel Efficiency
For the fuel efficiency rating, the
agency is proposing a tolerance for
compliance purposes of plus and minus
(±)5.5 percent of the rating set by the
manufacturer. The agency bases this
tolerance on an analysis of in-house test
data to date, while considering the
machine variability specification under
ISO 28580, which is 0.05 Newtons per
kiloNewton (N/kN) for RRC.
The agency selected a percentage
tolerance because test data revealed that
the variability of testing a tire increases
as the load rating of the tire increases;
this was found on multiple tests of the
same tires. It was found that the
variability for a passenger car tire with
a mid-range load index had variability
around the mean of ±0.66 pounds-force
(lbf) which translated to 95 percent of
the data being within ±5.5 percent of the
mean. A similar analysis revealed that
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
the same ±5.5 percent was an effective
tolerance for the tires of lower and of
higher load ranges, as well. So, a small
tire tested repeated times would reveal
small RRF variations, but within ±5.5
percent of the mean, and a large load
range tire revealed larger RRF
variations, but also within ±5.5 percent
range of its respective mean.
So for compliance purposes, the
agency is proposing that the RRF rating
established by the manufacturer must be
between ±5.5 percent of the RRF
revealed from agency testing. The
agency acknowledges that any RRF will
be obtained from a tire that is different
from the tire or tires that the
manufacturer used to establish the
reported RRF. In these cases, there will
be new variability introduced into the
compliance testing of a production tire
from such factors as from machine-tomachine tests, lab-to-lab tests, different
manufacturing dates, different batches
of material, and possibly at different
manufacturing plants. The agency does
not have sufficient data to
comprehensively establish tolerances
considering these factors, so the agency
solicits comments and proposals for a
tolerance that considers these factors,
and requests that wherever possible,
supporting data is provided. The
manufacturer will be required to submit
to the agency the RRF and the rating for
each tire.
B. Safety
The calculation of the safety (i.e.,
traction) rating is discussed in detail in
section VI.B.1 of this notice. For
compliance purposes, the agency is
proposing that the adjusted peak
coefficient of friction for asphalt (μAPA)
and the adjusted peak coefficient of
friction for concrete (μAPC) must
individually be between ±0.06 of the
respective peak coefficients of friction
revealed from agency testing. These
proposed tolerances are based on agency
test data wherein peak coefficients of
friction for asphalt and concrete were
recorded, and the average and standard
deviation calculated for each.170 The
standard deviation was doubled and
assigned a plus/minus tolerance to
capture 95 percent of the data for the
tested tires for each surface; the
tolerance for the concrete was ±0.06,
and the tolerance for the asphalt was
also ±0.06.
170 See National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, NHTSA Tire Rolling Resistance
Rating System Test Development Project: Phase 2—
Effects of Tire Rolling Resistance Levels on
Traction, Treadwear, and Vehicle Fuel Economy
(February 2009). This Phase 2 research report will
be placed in the docket.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The agency acknowledges that any
adjusted peak coefficient of friction
result will be obtained from a tire that
is different from the tire or tires that the
manufacturer used to establish the
reported adjusted peak coefficient of
friction. In these cases, there will be
new variability introduced into the
compliance testing of a production tire
from such factors as from machine-tomachine tests, lab-to-lab tests, different
manufacturing dates, different batches
of material, and possibly at different
manufacturing plants. The agency does
not have sufficient data to
comprehensively establish tolerances
considering these factors, so the agency
solicits comments and proposals for a
tolerance that considers these factors,
and requests that wherever possible,
supporting data is provided.
The agency also considered another
approach to the safety (i.e., traction)
rating calculation, and the agency
solicits comment on this approach, as
well. This approach would require the
manufacturer to report to the values for
both the peak and sliding (or lockedwheel) coefficients of friction for both
concrete and asphalt for each separately
rated tire. For each testing surface, the
manufacturer will report the coefficient
acquired on that surface and a rating
that is calculated by dividing the
average peak coefficient from the test
tire by the average peak coefficients
from the control tires, times 100. The
data would be weighted based on the
sequence of the test (candidate) tires (T)
and control (standard) tires (C). For
example if the test order was C1–T1–
T2–C2, then the value used in obtaining
the rating for the first test tire would be
T1/(2⁄3 C1 + 1⁄3C2) and for the other test
tire T2/(1⁄3 C1 + 2⁄3C2), each multiplied
by 100. This gives a value based on the
relationship of the test tire and the
control tires that ran with it. This rating
(one for asphalt and one for concrete)
would be added together and
normalized on a 1 to 100 scale for the
final safety rating.
C. Durability
As explained above in section VI.B.1,
NHTSA is proposing calculating a
durability (i.e., treadwear) rating by
taking the UTQGS treadwear rating (as
specified in 49 CFR 575.104), and
dividing by 10. For compliance testing,
the agency is proposing a tolerance on
the UTQGS wear rate of the tire of ±2.5
mils per 1,000 miles as defined in 49
CFR 575.104(e).
The agency proposes this compliance
tolerance based on the wear rates
measured on the ASTM E1136 Course
Monitoring Tire (CMT) from testing as
specified in 49 CFR 575.104(e). When
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
analyzed, the data revealed the standard
deviation to be 0.84 mils per 1,000
miles, and normally, the agency would
consider ±2 standard deviations (1.6
mils per 1,000 miles) to be a suitable
tolerance, which would capture 95
percent of the data around the average
wear rate. However, the CMT is a
limited production tire made to
tightened specifications, and the agency
believes that this justifies an expansion
of the tolerance to ±3 standard
deviations (2.5 mils per 1,000 miles)
which will capture 99 percent of the
data around the average wear rate. For
compliance purposes, the wear rate
established by the manufacturer must be
between ±2.5 mils per 1,000 miles of the
wear rate revealed from agency testing.
The agency acknowledges that any
wear rate result will be obtained from a
tire that is different from the tire or tires
that the manufacturer used to establish
the reported wear rate. In these cases,
there will be new variability introduced
into the compliance testing of a
production tire from such factors as
from machine-to-machine tests, lab-tolab tests, different manufacturing dates,
different batches of material, and
possibly at different manufacturing
plants. The agency does not have
sufficient data to comprehensively
establish tolerances considering these
factors, so the agency solicits comments
and proposals for a tolerance that
considers these factors, and requests
that wherever possible, supporting data
is provided. The manufacturer will be
required to submit to the agency the
wear rate from testing and the durability
rating it assigned for each tire.
XII. Regulatory Alternatives
Throughout sections specific to
various portions of the tire fuel
efficiency consumer information
program for replacement tires, NHTSA
has discussed other options considered
by the agency.
XIII. Public Participation
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
How Do I Prepare and Submit
Comments?
Your comments must be written and
in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the
Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your
comments. Your comments must not be
more than 15 pages long.171 We
established this limit to encourage you
to write your primary comments in a
concise fashion. However, you may
attach necessary additional documents
171 See
49 CFR 553.21.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
to your comments. There is no limit on
the length of the attachments.
Please submit your comments by any
of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments
on the electronic docket site by clicking
on ‘‘Help’’ or ‘‘FAQ.’’
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
M–30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground
Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
If you are submitting comments
electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we
ask that the documents submitted be
scanned using Optical Character
Recognition (OCR) process, thus
allowing the agency to search and copy
certain portions of your submissions.172
Please note that pursuant to the Data
Quality Act, in order 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 https://www.whitehouse.gov/
omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT’s
guidelines may be accessed at https://
dmses.dot.gov/submit/
DataQualityGuidelines.pdf.
How Can I Be Sure That My Comments
Were Received?
If you submit your comments by mail
and 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?
If you wish to submit any information
under a claim of confidentiality, you
should submit three copies of your
complete submission, including the
information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief
Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. When you send a comment
containing information claimed to be
172 Optical character recognition (OCR) is the
process of converting an image of text, such as a
scanned paper document or electronic fax file, into
computer-editable text.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
29581
confidential business information, you
should include a cover letter setting
forth the information specified in our
confidential business information
regulation.173
In addition, you should submit a
copy, from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business
information, to the Docket by one of the
methods set forth above.
Will the Agency Consider Late
Comments?
We will consider all comments
received before the close of business on
the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent
possible, we will also consider
comments received after that date.
Therefore, if interested persons believe
that any new information the agency
places in the docket affects their
comments, they may submit comments
after the closing date concerning how
the agency should consider that
information for the final rule.
If a comment is received too late for
us to consider in developing a final rule
(assuming that one is issued), 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 materials placed in
the docket for this document (e.g., the
comments submitted in response to this
document by other interested persons)
at any time by going to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the dockets.
You may also read the materials at the
Docket Management Facility by going to
the street address given above under
ADDRESSES. The Docket Management
Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
XIV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735,
Oct. 4, 1993), provides for making
determinations whether a regulatory
action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore
subject to Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) review and to the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
173 See
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
49 CFR part 512.
22JNP2
29582
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
We have considered the impact of this
rulemaking action under Executive
Order 12866 and the Department of
Transportation’s regulatory policies and
procedures. The annual effect on the
economy of this rulemaking depends on
consumer and manufacturer responses
to the program. However, this
rulemaking is significant due to public
interest in the issues. Therefore, this
document was reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under E.O.
12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and
Review.’’
This document would amend 49 CFR
part 575 by adding a new section for
requirements pursuant to the National
Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer
Information Program. The agency has
prepared a Preliminary Regulatory
Impact Analysis (PRIA) and placed it in
the docket and on the agency’s Web site.
There are two sets of costs involved:
Costs to set up the information program
and provide consumer information and
costs to improve the rolling resistance of
tires. Program costs are estimated to be
about $9.1 million per year. Costs per
tire are estimated to range from $2 to $4
per tire and average around $3 per tire.
If 10 percent of the target tire population
(15 million tires) decreased their rolling
resistance, the annual cost would be $45
million. Assuming 10 percent of tires
improve their rolling resistance, the
combined annual cost of the program
would be $54.1 million. For a further
explanation of the estimated costs, see
the PRIA provided in the docket for this
proposal.
B. National Environmental Policy Act
We have reviewed this proposal for
the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and
determined that it would not have a
significant impact on the quality of the
human environment.
C. 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
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 will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
In compliance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act NHTSA has evaluated
the effects of this proposed rule on
small entities. The head of the agency
has certified that the proposed rule
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The following is NHTSA’s
statement providing the factual basis for
the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). Tire
manufacturers are not small entities.
Out of the 60,000 entities that sell tires,
there are a substantial number of tire
dealers/retailers that are small entities.
However, the only part of the proposal
with potential cost implications for tire
dealers/retailers is that those with
display rooms must display the program
poster which NHTSA will provide. We
do not believe that this will result in a
significant economic impact on tire
dealers/retailers.
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined today’s
proposed rule pursuant to Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999). Executive Order 13132 requires
agencies to determine the federalism
implications of a proposed rule.
The agency refers readers to section
II.B.7 above, ‘‘Application with State
and local laws and regulations.’’ As
noted there, given the ambiguity of the
statutory language regarding
preemption, the agency is sending a
copy of this NPRM directly to the State
of California, the National Governor’s
Association, the National Conference of
State Legislatures, the Council of State
Governments, and the National
Association of Attorneys General. As
also noted there, NHTSA has already
generally consulted with counsel for the
California Energy Commission regarding
various aspects of this agency’s analysis
of that language.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
Pursuant to Executive Order 12988,
‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ 174 NHTSA has
considered whether this rulemaking
would have any retroactive effect. This
proposed rule does not have any
retroactive effect.
F. 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 a proposed or final
rule that includes 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 in any one year
(adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). Adjusting this amount by the
implicit gross domestic product price
deflator for 2007 results in $130 million
(119.816/92.106 = 1.30).
Before promulgating a rule for which
a written statement is needed, section
205 of the UMRA generally requires
NHTSA 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 NHTSA 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 why that alternative was
not adopted.
This proposed rule will not result in
the expenditure by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, of more
than $130 million annually, and will
not result in the expenditure of that
magnitude by tire manufacturers and/or
tire retailers. In promulgating this
proposal, NHTSA considered a variety
of alternative tire fuel efficiency rating
systems and information dissemination
requirement options. NHTSA is
statutorily required to establish a
national tire fuel efficiency rating
program for the purpose of educating
consumers about the effect of tires on
fuel efficiency, safety and durability.
NHTSA tentatively concludes that the
proposed requirements are cost-effective
and the least burdensome way to fulfill
the statutory requirements of the
program.
174 61
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996).
22JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the procedures established by
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. The proposed rule would
require manufacturers of tires to provide
data on tires to NHTSA and to attach
labels to replacement tires.
In compliance with the PRA, we
announce that NHTSA is seeking
comment on a new information
collection.
Agency: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Title: 49 CFR part 575; Tire Fuel
Efficiency.
OMB Control Number: Not assigned.
Form Number: The collection of this
information uses no standard form.
Requested Expiration Date of
Approval: Three years from the date of
approval.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Summary of the Collection of
Information
NHTSA is proposing a new
requirement in Part 575 which would
require tire manufacturers and tire
brand name owners to rate all
replacement passenger car tires for fuel
efficiency (i.e., rolling resistance), safety
(i.e., wet traction), and durability (i.e.,
treadwear), and submit reports to
NHTSA regarding the test values on
which these ratings are based. The
ratings for safety and durability are
based on test procedures specified
under the UTQGS traction and
treadwear ratings requirements. This
information would be used by
consumers of replacement passenger car
tires to compare tire fuel efficiency
across different tires and examine any
trade offs between fuel efficiency (i.e.,
rolling resistance), safety (i.e., wet
traction), and durability (i.e., treadwear)
in making their purchase decisions.
The information would be provided
in a couple different ways: (1) A paper
label of specified format affixed to the
tread face of the new tire; and (2) tire
manufacturers would provide data to
NHTSA under a reporting requirement.
Tire retailers would inform consumers
of the fuel efficiency rating system by
displaying a poster that NHTSA would
print and distribute. NHTSA would
make the ratings data available to the
public both in printed form and via the
Internet.
Estimated Annual Burden
The label that NHTSA is proposing to
require is already covered by an existing
information collection (OMB Control
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
Number 2127–0519). The agency
estimates that the incremental cost of
the additional information required on
the label manufacturers already affix to
the tire would be $.05 cents per label.
Based on an estimate of 191 million
replacement tires sold annually that are
affected by this proposal, the cost of the
label would be $9.55 million.
The next source of burden to
manufacturers is the reporting costs.
NHTSA estimates that there are 28 tire
manufacturers that will be required to
report. Each of these will need to set up
the software in a computer program to
combine the testing information,
organize it for NHTSA’s use, etc. We
estimate this cost to be a one-time
charge of about $10,000 per company.
Based on the costs used in the Early
Warning Reporting Regulation
analysis,175 we estimate the annual cost
per report per tire manufacturer to be
$287. There are also computer
maintenance costs of keeping the data
up to date, etc., as tests come in
throughout the year. In the EWR
analysis, we estimated costs of $3,755
per year per company. Thus, the total
annual cost is estimated to be $4,042 per
company. Thus the total costs would be
$280,000 + $113,176 = $393,176 for the
first year and $113,176 as an annual cost
for the 28 tire manufacturers.
The largest portion of the cost burden
imposed by the tire fuel efficiency
program arises from the testing
necessary to determine the ratings that
should be assigned to the tires. Two of
the proposed tests are already covered
by an existing information collection
(OMB Control Number 2127–0519). The
agency estimates that, at least initially,
there are 20,708 tires that would need
to be tested to provide information for
the third rating. At a cost of
approximately $180 per test, if each one
of these were tested once for tire rolling
resistance, the costs to the industry
would be $3,727,000. After the first few
years of this program, the number of
tires manufacturers will need to test
annually will probably decrease. Based
upon the average number of reports the
agency receives under the UTQGS
program, the agency estimates that 125
new/redesigned tires will need to be
tested annually, for ongoing testing
costs of $22,500.
Estimated Annual Burden to the
Government
The estimated annual cost to the
Federal Government is $1.28 million.
175 Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation, Tread Act
Amendments to Early Warning Reporting
Regulation Part 579 and Defect and Noncompliance
Part 573, August 2008 (Docket No. 2008–0169–
0007.1).
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
29583
This cost includes $730,000 for
enforcement testing, and about $550,000
annually to set up and keep up to date
a Web site that includes the information
reported to NHTSA.
Number of Respondents
There are approximately 28
manufacturers of replacement tires sold
in the United States.
Comments Are Invited On
Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
Department, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
the accuracy of the Department’s
estimate of the burden of the proposed
information collection; ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the
information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology. Please submit any
comments to the NHTSA Docket
Number referenced in the heading of
this document, and to Mary Versailles
as referenced in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document. Comments are due by August
21, 2009.
H. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 176 applies to
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be
economically significant as defined
under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental, health or safety risk that
NHTSA has reason to believe may have
a disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
we must evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the proposed
rule on children, and explain why the
proposed regulation is preferable to
other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by us.
This proposed rule does not pose
such a risk for children. The primary
effects of this proposal are to conserve
energy by educating consumers to make
better informed tire purchasing
decisions.
I. 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.,
176 62
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
FR 19885 (Apr. 23, 1997).
22JNP2
29584
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
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 the American
Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM), 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.
The notice proposes a national tire
fuel efficiency rating system for
replacement passenger car tires to assist
consumers in making more educated
tire purchasing decisions. For purposes
of the fuel efficiency rating
determination, NHTSA proposed to base
the rating determination on a rolling
resistance test method nearly finalized
by ISO, ISO 28580: Tyre Rolling
Resistance measurement method—
Single point test and measurement
result correlation—Designed to facilitate
international cooperation and, possibly,
regulation building. The ISO is a
worldwide federation of national
standards bodies that prepares
standards through technical committees
comprised of international
organizations, governmental and nongovernmental, in liaison with ISO.177
Standards developed by ISO are
voluntary consensus standards.
J. Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 178 applies to
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be
economically significant as defined
under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have
a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy; or
(2) that is designated by the
Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs as a
significant energy action. If the
regulatory action meets either criterion,
177 ISO Central Secretariat, 1, ch. de la VoieCreuse, Case postale 56, CH–1211 Geneva 20,
Switzerland, Telephone +41 22 749 01 11, Fax +41
22 733 34 30, https://www.iso.org.
178 66 FR 28355 (May 18, 2001).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
we must evaluate the adverse energy
effects of the proposed rule and explain
why the proposed regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by NHTSA.
The proposed rule seeks to establish
a national tire fuel efficiency rating
program for the purpose of educating
consumers about the effect of tires on
fuel efficiency, safety and durability,
which if successful, will likely reduce
the rolling resistance of replacement
passenger car tires and, thus, reduce the
consumption of petroleum. Therefore,
this proposed rule will not have any
adverse energy effects. Accordingly, this
proposed rulemaking action is not
designated as a significant energy
action.
K. 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.
L. Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 requires each
agency to write all rules in plain
language. Application of the principles
of plain language includes consideration
of the following questions:
• Have we organized the material to
suit the public’s needs?
• Are the requirements in the rule
clearly stated?
• Does the rule contain technical
language or jargon that isn’t clear?
• Would a different format (grouping
and order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing) make the rule easier to
understand?
• Would more (but shorter) sections
be better?
• Could we improve clarity by adding
tables, lists, or diagrams?
• What else could we do to make the
rule easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these
questions, please include them in your
comments on this proposal.
M. 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 organization,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you
may visit https://www.dot.gov/
privacy.html.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 575
Consumer protection, Motor vehicle
safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR Part
575 as follows:
PART 575—CONSUMER
INFORMATION
1. Revise the authority citation for
Part 575 to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32302, 32304A,
30111, 30115, 30117, 30123, 30166, and
30168, Pub. L. 104–414, 114 Stat. 1800, Pub.
L. 109–59, 119 Stat. 1144, Pub. L. 110–140,
121 Stat. 1492, 15 U.S.C. 1232(g); delegation
of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Add § 575.106 to subpart B to read
as follows:
§ 575.106 Tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program.
(a) Scope. This section requires tire
manufacturers, tire brand name owners,
and tire retailers to provide information
indicating the relative performance of
replacement passenger car tires in the
areas of fuel efficiency, safety, and
durability.
(b) Purpose. The purpose of this
section is to aid consumers in making
better educated choices in the purchase
of passenger car tires.
(c) Application. This section applies
to replacement passenger car tires.
However, this section does not apply to
deep tread, winter-type snow tires,
space-saver or temporary use spare tires,
tires with nominal rim diameters of 12
inches or less, or to limited production
tires as defined in § 575.104(c)(2).
(d) Definitions. As used in this
section:
Passenger car tire means a tire
intended for use on passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, and
trucks, that have a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less.
Ratings graphic means a graphical
depiction of a tire’s fuel efficiency,
safety, and durability ratings
information, as reported to NHTSA
under paragraph (e)(1)(i)(C) of this
section, that conforms in content, format
and sequence to the sample label
depicted in Figure 1 of this section.
Replacement passenger car tire means
any passenger car tire other than a
passenger car tire sold as original
equipment on a new vehicle.
Size designation means the alphanumeric designation assigned by a
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
manufacturer that identifies a tire’s size.
This can include identifications of tire
class, nominal width, aspect ratio, tire
construction, and wheel diameter.
Tire line or tire model means the
entire name used by a tire manufacturer
to designate a tire product including all
prefixes and suffixes as they appear on
the sidewall of a tire.
Tire retailer means a person or
business that offers a tire for sale and
with whom a replacement passenger car
tire manufacturer or brand name owner
has a contractual, proprietary, or other
legal relationship, or a person or
business who has such a relationship
with a distributor of the replacement
passenger car tire manufacturer or brand
name owner concerning the tire in
question.
(e) Requirements.—(1) Information. (i)
Requirements for tire manufacturers.
Each manufacturer of tires, or in the
case of tires marketed under a brand
name, each brand name owner, shall
provide rating information for each tire
of which it is the manufacturer or brand
name owner in the manner set forth in
paragraphs (e)(1)(i)(A) through (D) of
this section. The ratings for each tire
shall be only those specified in
paragraph (e)(2) of this section. For the
purposes of this section, each tire of a
different size designation is to be rated
separately. Each tire shall be able to
achieve the level of performance
represented by each rating with which
it is labeled. An individual tire need
not, however, meet further requirements
after having been subjected to the test
for any one rating.
(A) Ratings. Each tire shall be rated
with the words, letters, symbols, and
figures specified in paragraph (e)(2) of
this section. Each shall display this
rating information using the ratings
graphic illustrated in Figure 1 on either
the tire label required by
§ 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B), or on a separate
tire label, as set forth in paragraph
(e)(1)(i)(B) of this section.
(B) Tire label. Each tire manufactured
on or after the effective date of these
amendments shall have affixed to its
tread surface so as not to be easily
removable a label containing its ratings
graphic, as illustrated in Figure 1. The
label shall be no less than 4.5 inches
high and 5.5 inches wide. The fuel
efficiency, safety and durability ratings
attributed to the tire shall be either
imprinted or indelibly stamped on the
ratings graphic on the label in the
appropriate location along each scale, as
described in this paragraph (e)(1)(i)(B).
For purposes of the ratings graphic
required by this section, the fuel
efficiency, safety and durability ratings,
each an integer ranging from 0 to 100,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
shall appear in a white box
superimposed upon the color shaded
rating scale, and directly above the
arrow which shall be located in the
location that corresponds to where the
respective rating falls, where each
shaded box represents an increment of
5 on each rating scale. Namely, since the
ratings graphic has 20 boxes for each
rating scale, the first box would contain
the arrow pointing to the white box
containing the score if a tire is rated 1
through 4. An arrow indicating a rating
of 5 would appear directly on the
rightmost edge of the leftmost color
shaded, i.e., reddest, box. The 20th, or
rightmost, box would contain the arrow
pointing to the white box containing the
rating if a tire is rated 96 through 99. An
arrow indicating a rating of 95 would
appear directly on the leftmost edge of
the rightmost color shaded, i.e.,
greenest, box. An arrow indicating a
rating of 100 would appear directly on
the rightmost edge of the rightmost color
shaded, i.e., greenest, box.
(1) Ratings graphic text. The text
‘‘FUEL EFFICIENCY and GREENHOUSE
GAS RATING,’’ ‘‘SAFETY RATING
(WET TRACTION),’’ and ‘‘DURABILITY
RATING (TREADWEAR),’’ and ‘‘For
more information visit www.nhtsa.gov,’’
must have a minimum font size of 12
point. The remaining text in the header
area of the ratings graphic (i.e.,
‘‘GOVERNMENT TIRE RATING,’’ tire
manufacturer or brand name owner
specification, tire line specification, tire
size specification), and the 0 to 100
number rating on each rating scale, must
have a minimum font size of 14 point.
All remaining text and numbers on the
label must have a minimum font size of
10 point.
(2) Ratings graphic color. The text and
numbers of the ratings graphic shall be
dark in color, with a background that is
light in color. The three scales on the
ratings graphic shall be presented in
color, where the first of 20 squares (i.e.,
the leftmost square on each scale) shall
be primary red, the 2nd of 20 squares
shall be a slightly lighter shade of red
than the leftmost (i.e., 1st) square, the
3rd square shall be a slightly lighter
shade of red than the 2nd square, and
so on until the 10th of 20 squares,
which should be nearly white. The last
of 20 squares (i.e., the rightmost square)
shall be primary green, the 19th square
shall be a slightly lighter shade of green
than the 20th square, the 18th square
shall be a shade of green slightly lighter
than the 19th square, and so on until the
10th of 20 squares, which should be
nearly white. Sample ratings graphics
that depict the appropriate color
schemes are available at https://
www.nhtsa.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
29585
(3) Ratings graphic orientation. The
ratings graphic of Figure 1 shall be
oriented on the tire tread surface with
lines of type running perpendicular to
the tread circumference. If a label
bearing a tire size designation is
attached to the tire tread surface and the
tire size designation is oriented with
lines of type running perpendicular to
the tread circumference, the ratings
graphic of Figure 1 shall read in the
same direction as the tire size
designation.
(4) New ratings information.
Whenever the tire manufacturer, or in
the case of tires marketed under a brand
name the brand name owner,
determines new or different fuel
efficiency, safety, or durability ratings
information for a tire, the tire
manufacturer or brand name owner
shall include the new ratings
information on and with tires
manufactured on or after the date 30
calendar days after receipt by the
manufacturer of the new information.
(C) Reporting requirements. The
information collection requirements
contained in this section have been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.) and have been assigned
OMB Control Number XXXX–XXXX.
(1) Manufacturers of tires, or in the
case of tires marketed under a brand
name, brand name owners of tires
subject to this section shall submit to
NHTSA electronically, either directly or
through an agent, the following data for
each rated replacement passenger car
tire by one year after the effective date
of these regulations:
(i) Rolling resistance force, in
Newtons and must be followed in
parenthesis by the equivalent poundsforce, e.g., 5 Newtons (1.12 lbf)., as
measured in paragraph (f) of this
section.
(ii) Test load, in Newtons and must be
followed in parenthesis by the
equivalent pounds-force, e.g., 5
Newtons (1.12 lbf), as measured in
paragraph (f) of this section.
(iii) Rolling resistance rating (0 to
100), as determined in paragraph
(e)(2)(i) of this section.
(iv) Traction rating (0 to 100), as
determined in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this
section.
(v) Treadwear rating (0 to 100), as
determined in paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of
this section.
(vi) Average peak coefficient of
friction for asphalt, as measured in
§ 575.104(f).
(vii) Average peak coefficient of
friction for concrete, as measured in
§ 575.104(f).
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
29586
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
(viii) Adjusted peak coefficient of
friction for asphalt (μAPA), based on the
formula in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this
section.
(ix) Adjusted peak coefficient of
friction for concrete (μAPC), based on the
formula in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this
section.
(x) Wear rate of tested tire, as
measured during the UTQGS treadwear
procedure (49 CFR 575.104(e)).
(2) Format of data submitted. The
information required under paragraph
(e)(1)(i)(C)(1) of this section shall be
submitted to NHTSA in electronic
format.
(3) New ratings information.
Whenever the tire manufacturer, or in
the case of tires marketed under a brand
name, the brand name owner
determines new or different information
required under paragraph (e)(1)(i)(C)(1)
of this section for a tire, the tire
manufacturer or brand name owner
shall submit the new ratings
information to NHTSA on or before the
date 30 calendar days after receipt by
the manufacturer of the new
information.
(ii) Requirements for tire retailers.
Each tire retailer shall provide rating
information for each passenger car tire
offered for sale in the manner set forth
in paragraphs (e)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this
section.
(A) A tire retailer shall not remove the
label containing the ratings graphic
required by paragraph (e)(1)(i)(B) of this
section, until the tire has been sold.
(B) A tire retailer that has a display
room, or that displays sample tires for
sale to consumers, shall display a tire
fuel efficiency consumer information
program poster that NHTSA shall print
and provide to tire retailers.
(iii) Linking to NHTSA’s tire Web site.
Tire manufacturers and tire retailers that
have or maintain Web sites must link to
NHTSA’s tire Web site (https://
www.nhtsa.gov) from their main (top)
Web page no later than 12 months after
this regulation is effective or the day the
Web site is online and available to the
public.
(2) Performance.—(i) Fuel efficiency.
Each tire shall be rated for fuel
efficiency performance on a scale of 0 to
100, as calculated using the following
formula, where RRF is the NHTSA
nominal rolling resistance force value
obtained when the tire is tested in
accordance with the conditions and
procedures specified in paragraph (f) of
this section. A fuel efficiency rating
(RFE) shall be expressed as an integer 0
to 100 (for example, 51, 64, 80) by
rounding RFE to the nearest whole
number. The maximum rating that may
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
be assigned to the candidate tire is RFE,
as calculated using this formula.
RFE = (RRFmax¥RRF) * 100/
(RRFmax¥RRFmin)
Where RRFmax is equal to 25 and
represents the highest rolling resistance
the agency believes should be
represented on the fuel efficiency rating
scale and where RRFmin is equal to 5 and
represents the lowest rolling resistance
the agency believes should be
represented on the fuel efficiency rating
scale.
(ii) Traction. Each tire shall be rated
for traction performance on a scale of 0
to 100, as calculated using the following
formula, where μAPA and μAPC are the
nominal peak coefficient of friction
values obtained when the tire is tested
in accordance with the conditions and
procedures specified in paragraph (g) of
this section. A traction rating (RTC) shall
be expressed as an integer between 0
and 100 (for example, 51, 64, 80) by
rounding RTC to the nearest whole
number. The maximum rating that may
be assigned to the candidate tire is RTC,
as calculated using this formula.
RTC = {(μAPA + μAPC) {1¥[(μAPA¥μAPC)/
(μAPA + μAPC)]2} ¥0.6} * (100/2.0)
Where:
μAPA = adjusted peak coefficient of friction
for asphalt, and
μAPC = adjusted peak coefficient of friction
for concrete
(iii) Treadwear. Each tire shall be
rated for treadwear performance on a
scale of 0 to 100, as calculated using the
following formula, where TWUTQGS is
the traction grading as specified in
§ 575.104(d)(2)(i). A traction rating
(RTW) shall be expressed as an integer
between 0 and 100 (for example, 51, 64,
80) by rounding RTW to the nearest
whole number. The maximum rating
that may be assigned to the candidate
tire is RTW, as calculated using this
formula.
RTW = TWUTQGS/10
(f) Fuel efficiency rating conditions
and procedures.—(1) Conditions. (i)
Measurement of rolling resistance force
under the test procedure specified in
paragraph (f)(2) of this section shall be
made using either the force or the torque
method.
(ii) The test procedure specified in
paragraph (f)(2) of this section shall be
carried out on an 80-grit roadwheel
surface.
(2) Procedure. The test procedure
shall be as specified in International
Organization for Standardization (ISO),
ISO 28580: Tyre Rolling Resistance
measurement method—Single point test
and measurement result correlation—
Designed to facilitate international
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
cooperation and, possibly, regulation
building, except that the conditions
specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this
section shall be used.
(g) Traction rating conditions and
procedures. (1) Conditions. Test
conditions are as specified in
§ 575.104(f)(1).
(2) Procedure. (i) Prepare two
standard tires as specified in
§ 575.104(f)(2)(i).
(ii) Mount the tires on the test
apparatus described in
§ 575.104(f)(1)(iv) and load each tire to
1,085 pounds.
(iii) Tow the trailer on the asphalt test
surface specified in § 575.104(f)(1)(i) at
a speed of 40 mph, lock one trailer
wheel, and record the peak coefficient
of friction on the tire associated with
that wheel. Peak coefficient shall be
measured between 0.35 and 0.65
seconds after initiation of braking
sequence.
(iv) Repeat the test on the concrete
surface, locking the same wheel.
(v) Repeat the tests specified in
paragraphs (g)(2)(iii) and (iv) of this
section for a total of 10 measurements
on each test surface.
(vi) Repeat the procedures specified
in paragraphs (g)(2)(iii) through (v) of
this section, locking the wheel
associated with the other standard tire.
(vii) Average the 20 measurements
taken on the asphalt surface to find the
standard tire average peak coefficient of
friction for the asphalt surface. Average
the 20 measurements taken on the
concrete surface to find the standard tire
average peak coefficient of friction for
the concrete surface. The standard tire
average peak coefficient of friction so
determined may be used in the
computation of adjusted peak
coefficient of friction coefficients for
more than one candidate tire.
(viii) Prepare two candidate tires of
the same construction type,
manufacturer, tire line, and size
designation in accordance with
paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section, mount
them on the test apparatus, and test one
of them according to the procedures of
paragraphs (g)(2)(ii) through (v) of this
section, except load each tire to 85% of
the test load specified in § 575.104(h).
For CT tires, the test inflation of
candidate tires shall be 230 kPa.
Candidate tire measurements may be
taken either before or after the standard
tire measurements used to compute the
standard tire traction coefficient. Take
all standard tire and candidate tire
measurements used in computation of a
candidate tire’s adjusted peak
coefficient of friction within a single
three hour period. Average the 10
measurements taken on the asphalt
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules
(x) Compute each candidate tire’s
adjusted peak coefficient of friction for
asphalt (μAPA) by the following formula:
μAPA = (Measured Candidate Tire
Average Peak Coefficient of Friction for
Asphalt + 0.75)¥(Measured Standard
Tire Average Peak Coefficient of
Friction for Asphalt)
(xi) Compute each candidate tire’s
adjusted peak coefficient of friction for
concrete (μAPC) by the following
formula:
μAPC = (Measured Candidate Tire
Average Peak Coefficient of Friction for
Concrete + 0.60)¥(Measured Standard
Tire Average Peak Coefficient of
Friction for Concrete)
(h) Treadwear rating conditions and
procedures.—(1) Conditions. Test
conditions are as specified in
§ 575.104(e)(1).
(2) Procedure. Test procedure is as
specified in § 575.104(e)(2).
Tables and Figures to § 575.106
Issued on: June 16, 2009.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9–14496 Filed 6–18–09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:58 Jun 19, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22JNP2.SGM
22JNP2
EP22JN09.014
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
surface to find the candidate tire average
peak coefficient of friction for the
asphalt surface. Average the 10
measurements taken on the concrete
surface to find the candidate tire average
peak coefficient of friction for the
concrete surface.
(ix) Repeat the procedures specified
in paragraph (g)(2)(viii) of this section,
using the second candidate tire as the
tire being tested.
29587
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 118 (Monday, June 22, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29542-29587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14496]
[[Page 29541]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
49 CFR Part 575
Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer Information Program; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 29542]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 575
[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0121]
RIN 2127-AK45
Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer Information Program
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation (NHTSA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes a broad new consumer information
program for replacement tires to inform consumers about the effect of
tires on fuel efficiency, safety, and durability. This consumer
information program would implement a national tire fuel efficiency
rating system for replacement tires, with the information provided to
consumers at the point of sale and online. Fuel efficiency ratings are
expected to inform consumers so that they will be better informed about
replacement tire performance. This consumer information program seeks
to enhance energy security and reduce costs by improving fuel economy.
Information would also be provided about safety and durability.
DATES: Comments to this proposal must be received on or before August
21, 2009. In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, NHTSA is also
seeking comment on a new information collection. See the Paperwork
Reduction Act section under Regulatory Notices and Analyses below.
Please submit all comments relating to new information collection
requirements on or before August 21, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the docket number in
the heading of this document, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on
the electronic docket site by clicking on ``Help'' or ``FAQ.''
Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Regardless of how you submit comments, you should mention the docket
number of this document.
You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202-366-9826.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
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.dot.gov/privacy.html.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov, or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For policy and technical issues: Ms. Julie Abraham or Ms. Mary
Versailles, Office of Rulemaking, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone: (202) 366-0846.
For legal issues: Mr. Stephen Wood or Ms. Sarah Alves, Office of
the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-
2992.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Overview
A. Summary
B. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
C. Proposal
1. Test Procedures
2. Proposed Rolling Resistance Rating Metric
3. Proposed Label
4. Proposed Information Dissemination and Reporting Requirements
for Tire Manufacturers and Tire Retailers
5. Consumer Education Program
D. Costs and Benefits
E. Lead Time
II. Background
A. Contribution of Tire Maintenance and Tire Fuel Efficiency to
Addressing Energy Independence and Security
1. Tire Fuel Efficiency and Rolling Resistance
2. Relationship Between Tire Maintenance and Tire Fuel
Efficiency and Vehicle Fuel Economy
3. 2006 National Academy of Sciences Report
4. California
5. European Union
6. Japan
B. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 Mandated
Consumer Tire Information Program
1. Tires Subject to the Consumer Information Program
2. Mandate To Create a National Tire Fuel Efficiency Rating
System
3. Communicating Information to Consumers
4. Specification of Test Methods
5. Creating a National Consumer Education Program on Tire
Maintenance
6. Consultation in Setting Standards
7. Application With State and Local Laws and Regulations
8. Compliance and Enforcement
9. Reporting to Congress
III. Which Tires Must Be Rated?
A. Passenger Car Tires
B. Replacement Tires
C. Tires within a Tire Model
D. Tires Excluded
IV. Rolling Resistance Test Procedure
A. Rolling Resistance
B. Possible Test Procedures Available to Measure Rolling
Resistance
C. NHTSA Research Results
D. Why Select a Single-Point Test Instead of Multi-Point?
E. Why Select ISO 28580 Instead of Other Tests?
V. Proposed Rolling Resistance Rating Metric
VI. Proposed Rating System
A. What Should We Convey to Consumers in a Rating System?
1. Fuel Efficiency
2. Safety
i. Potential Safety Consequences
ii. Test Procedure
3. Durability
4. Overall Rating
B. How Should We Convey the Information to Consumers in a Rating
System?
1. Proposed Rating Formulas
i. Fuel Efficiency
ii. Safety
iii. Durability
2. Proposed Label Style
VII. Proposed Information Dissemination and Reporting Requirements
for Tire Manufacturers and Tire Retailers
A. The Replacement Passenger Car Tire Market
B. Assumptions about the Average Tire Purchaser and the Average
Tire Purchasing Process
C. What Are We Proposing To Require of Tire Retailers?
D. What Are We Proposing To Require of Tire Manufacturers?
1. Data Reporting
2. Tire Labels
E. Requirements for Tire Retailers and Tire Manufacturers With
an Internet Presence
F. Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards
VIII. NHTSA's Consumer Education Program
A. Previous Tire Consumer Education Efforts
[[Page 29543]]
B. Potential Future Consumer Education Efforts
1. What Information Should NHTSA Convey?
2. Point of Sale
3. Interactive Mediums
4. Web Site Development
5. Paper Brochure Materials
6. Partnership Development
7. Exhibits and Conferencing
8. Local Education Programs
IX. Costs and Benefits
A. Costs
B. Benefits
X. Lead Time
XI. Compliance Tolerances
A. Fuel Efficiency
B. Safety
C. Durability
XII. Regulatory Alternatives
XIII. Public Participation
XIV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
B National Environmental Policy Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. Executive Order 13045
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 13211
K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
L. Plain Language
M. Privacy Act
I. Executive Overview
A. Summary
This document is being issued pursuant to the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (EISA),\1\ which was enacted in December 2007.
EISA included a requirement that NHTSA develop a national tire fuel
efficiency consumer information program to educate consumers about the
effect of tires on automobile fuel efficiency, safety, and durability.
Consumers currently have little, if any, convenient way of determining
how tire choices can affect vehicle fuel economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Public Law 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (Dec. 18, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The collective effects of the choices consumers make when they buy
tires are matters of public interest. The 240 million passenger cars
and light trucks in the United States consume about 135 billion gallons
of motor fuel annually.\2\ Finding ways to reduce this energy
consumption is a national goal for reasons ranging from ensuring
economic and national security to improving local air quality and
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Rolling resistance, or the force
required to make the tires roll, differs from tire to tire and is a
characteristic that indicates a tire's fuel efficiency. Consumers, if
sufficiently informed and interested, could bring about a reduction in
average rolling resistance of replacement tires by adjusting their tire
purchases, and as a consequence, significantly reduce the amount of
fuel consumed annually. While the handling, traction, and other
operating characteristics of tires are of particular interest to tire
buyers, they are also matters of even broader public interest in as
much as they may influence the safety performance of vehicles on the
nation's highways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 27, Tables 4-1 and
4-2, available at https://cta.ornl.gov/data/index.shtml (last
accessed Mar. 5, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress required NHTSA to establish a tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program, including a replacement tire fuel
efficiency rating system. This requirement is evidently a response to a
market failure in the form of imperfectly informed decisions on the
part of consumers; the program attempts to respond to the market
failure. In the same vein, EISA requires that NHTSA develop
requirements for providing this information to consumers, and a
national tire maintenance consumer education program. All tires require
proper inflation and maintenance to achieve their intended levels of
efficiency, safety, wear, and operating performance. NHTSA has
previously addressed the importance of proper tire inflation to safety
and fuel efficiency in various public service campaigns. NHTSA has also
mandated that tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMSs) be installed on
new motor vehicles,\3\ but TPMS is not a substitute for proper tire
maintenance. Motorists must be alerted to the fact that even small
losses in inflation pressure can reduce tire treadwear life, fuel
efficiency, and operating performance.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 70 FR 18136 (April 8, 2005).
\4\ Transportation Research Board Special Report 286, Tires and
Passenger Vehicle Fuel Economy, National Research Council of the
National Academies, 5 (2006) (hereinafter ``2006 NAS Report'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This document proposes to require tire manufacturers to label their
replacement tires for fuel efficiency, safety, and durability based on
test procedures specified by the agency. These tests address three
aspects of tire performance: rolling resistance, traction and treadwear
life. As noted above and described in further detail below, rolling
resistance is a measurement of fuel efficiency. A measurement of
traction is intended to indicate a tire's ability to stop on wet
pavement. Thus, traction is one metric that corresponds to safety. A
treadwear rating measures a tire's wear rate compared with that of
control tires. Treadwear life, therefore, corresponds to a measure of
durability.
Comparing this new proposed label across potential replacement
tires would enable consumers to see how different replacement tires can
affect the fuel economy they are getting from their vehicle. The label
would also allow consumers to see the tradeoff they may be facing
between fuel efficiency, safety (i.e., traction), and durability (i.e.,
treadwear life), and how the balance of these factors may differ from
tire to tire. NHTSA's research has found that while tire construction
need not sacrifice traction or treadwear for improved fuel efficiency,
maintaining the same traction and treadwear while increasing the fuel
efficiency of a given tire often entails higher costs.\5\ Thus, if a
manufacturer seeks to improve the fuel efficiency of a given
replacement tire construction while keeping cost constant, there is a
substantial chance that the construction will sacrifice either traction
or treadwear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA
Tire Rolling Resistance Rating System Test Development Project:
Phase 2--Effects of Tire Rolling Resistance Levels on Traction,
Treadwear, and Vehicle Fuel Economy (February 2009). This Phase 2
research report will be placed in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency is proposing to require that tire retailers display a
tire fuel efficiency consumer information program poster that NHTSA
will print and provide to retailers. The poster would communicate the
importance of comparing replacement tire ratings as well as the
importance of proper tire maintenance. The agency is also proposing to
require tire retailers and tire manufacturers that maintain Web sites
to link to NHTSA's comprehensive tire Web site it will be developing as
part of a national tire maintenance consumer education program. The
agency seeks comments on any other information dissemination
requirements that would ensure that easy-to-understand information is
conveyed in a way that is most likely to impact consumers' decisions
and, thus, affect their behavior and save them and our nation fuel and
money.
In developing the proposal, the agency conducted tire testing
research to determine which test procedure would best standardize a
fuel efficiency rating and provide accurate discrimination among
replacement tires. The agency is proposing the specific test procedure
by which manufacturers are to measure rolling resistance for the rating
system. NHTSA also conducted consumer focus group research to improve
understanding of the typical tire purchaser and the tire purchasing
[[Page 29544]]
process for the average consumer. NHTSA's preliminary consumer research
explored the type of label (including forms of rating, scales, and
graphic) that best communicates the information to consumers. In this
notice, we are proposing a label based on the rating scale and
presentation that tested best with consumers and that promises to
improve the operation of the market in terms of three factors (fuel
economy, safety, and durability) that matter to consumers. We are aware
that by itself, the rating scale may not make the relevant information
fully meaningful to consumers; from the label alone, it is not entirely
clear what a high rating, rather than a low one, will mean in terms of
what matters to consumer choices. The agency is planning to do
additional consumer testing, including additional types of testing such
as quantitative and experimental techniques, to make the label as
meaningful as possible. At this point, the agency cannot project the
expected consumer reaction to this program, and it will engage in
continued testing to provide such projections. The agency requests
comment on the proposed rating systems, the proposed label, and
potential future consumer research.
NHTSA is also publishing a companion Preliminary Regulatory Impact
Analysis (PRIA) that provides an analysis on the potential economic
impacts of this consumer information program. The agency seeks comment
on this preliminary analysis.
B. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The provision of EISA that mandates the consumer tire information
program built on a legislative proposal originally introduced in 2006
after a NAS report was issued suggesting that a tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program could increase vehicle fuel economy by an
average of 1 to 2 percent.\6\ Many factors affect a vehicle's fuel
economy, including the tire's rolling resistance, or force required to
make the tires roll. The 2006 NAS report estimated that 4 percent
(urban) to 7 percent (highway) of the energy available from the
vehicle's fuel usage is used to overcome the rolling resistance of the
tires. Therefore, reducing rolling resistance can reduce a vehicle's
fuel consumption. As one of many strategies to meet the Federal
corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for new passenger cars
and light trucks, automobile manufacturers often equip vehicles with
low rolling resistance tires. However, consumers often unknowingly
purchase higher rolling resistance tires when replacing their vehicle
tires, because information on the comparative rolling resistance of
tires and its impact on vehicle fuel economy is not readily available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Previous attempts to establish a national tire fuel
efficiency program can be found in proposed amendments to various
energy bills in prior years. See e.g., S. Amdt. 3083, 108th Cong.,
150 Cong. Rec. S4710 (2004) (proposing to amend S. 150); S. Amdt.
1470, 108th Cong., 149 Cong. Rep. S10707 (2003) (proposing to amend
S. 14). These amendments proposed regulating the fuel efficiency of
tires in addition to a tire fuel efficiency grading system and
consumer information program, and were not adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the most significant of the EISA mandates is the setting of
separate maximum feasible standards for passenger cars and for light
trucks at levels sufficient to ensure that the average fuel economy of
the combined fleet of all passenger cars and light trucks sold by all
manufacturers in the U.S. in model year (MY) 2020 equals or exceeds 35
miles per gallon. In the near future, per the President's announcement,
NHTSA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intend to initiate
a joint rulemaking with NHTSA proposing CAFE standards under the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended by EISA, and EPA
proposing greenhouse gas emissions standards under the Clean Air
Act.\7\ It is intended that this joint rulemaking proposal will reflect
a carefully coordinated and harmonized approach to implementing these
two statutes.\8\ The new standards will propose a significant increase
in fuel economy by 2016.\9\ This consumer tire information program is
one of the actions that will contribute towards the larger goals of
energy independence and security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Notice of Upcoming Joint Rulemaking To Establish Vehicle GHG
Emissions and CAFE Standards; Notice of Intent To Conduct a Joint
Rulemaking, 74 FR 24007 (May 22, 2009).
\8\ Id. at 24008.
\9\ Id. at 24009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 111 of EISA added section 32304A to Chapter 323 of title
49, United States Code. This chapter codifies consumer information
requirements initially established by the Motor Vehicle Information and
Cost Savings Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-513). The new section 32304A is
entitled ``Consumer tire information'' and specifies as follows:
Within 24 months of the enactment of EISA, NHTSA is to
promulgate rules establishing a national tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program for replacement tires to educate consumers about
the effect of tires on fuel efficiency, safety, and durability.
The program must include a national tire fuel efficiency
rating system for replacement tires to assist consumers in making more
educated tire purchasing decisions.
NHTSA must specify requirements for providing information
to consumers, including information at the point of sale and other
potential dissemination methods, including the Internet.
NHTSA must also specify the test methods that
manufacturers are to use in assessing and rating tires to avoid
variation among test equipment and manufacturers.
As a part of the consumer information program, NHTSA must
develop a national tire maintenance consumer education program, which
must include information on tire inflation pressure, alignment,
rotation, and treadwear to maximize fuel efficiency, safety and
durability of replacement tires.
C. Proposal
We solicit comment on all aspects of this proposal, including the
rolling resistance test procedure, the rating system and label graphic,
and the requirements for tire manufacturers and tire retailers for
reporting and disseminating information. Specific areas where we
request comments are identified elsewhere in this preamble and in the
PRIA. Based on public comments and other information, including new
data and analysis, the requirements and specifications in the final
rule could differ from the specific ones proposed in this document.
1. Test Procedures
This document proposes to require tire manufacturers to rate the
fuel efficiency of their tires using a test procedure currently under
development by the International Organization for Standardization
(ISO), ISO 28580: Tyre Rolling Resistance measurement method--Single
point test and measurement result correlation--Designed to facilitate
international cooperation and, possibly, regulation building. The ISO
standard is currently in Final Draft International Standard (FDIS)
stage, and is expected to be balloted and finalized by October 2009.
Based on this timeline, the agency expects this test procedure to be
finalized before publication of the final rule.\10\ NHTSA is proposing
to specify the use of the finalized ISO 28580 test procedure. The
agency is also seeking
[[Page 29545]]
comment on the use of other test procedures as described in section IV
of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ If the ISO 28580 test procedure is not a finalized by the
time of publication of this notice, interested parties may obtain a
copy of the draft by contacting Mr. Joe Pacuit, U.S. Technical
Advisory Group (TAG) Secretariat to Technical Committee (TC) 31,
Tyres, rims and valves. Mr. Pacuit can be reached by telephone at
(303) 666-8121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The choice of which test procedure to specify for measuring rolling
resistance is important because measuring rolling resistance requires
precise instrumentation, calibration, speed control and equipment
alignment for repeatable results. As explained in more detail in this
notice, agency research shows that all of the available test procedures
could meet these requirements. However, the ISO 28580 test method is
unique in that it specifies a procedure to correlate results between
laboratories and test equipment, which our research shows is a
significant source of variation. Because other established test methods
lack such a procedure, NHTSA would have to develop a new procedure to
address this variation before any of those test methods could be
considered. Further, the ISO 28580 test procedure is the specified test
method in the proposed European Union Directive, allowing manufacturers
to do one test to determine ratings for both proposed regulations.
As for the safety and durability ratings, due to the statutory
timeline within which this rulemaking must be completed, NHTSA is
proposing to use traction and treadwear test procedures that are
already specified under another tire rating system, the uniform tire
quality grading standards (UTQGS).\11\ The agency has been examining
other metrics for safety and durability, as well as possible
correlations between tire fuel efficiency and wet and dry traction,
indoor and outdoor treadwear, and vehicle fuel economy.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See 49 CFR 575.104 (2008).
\12\ NHTSA's Phase 2 research tested 15 models of replacement
tires, as well as the original equipment tires on a fuel economy
test vehicle, to examine possible correlations between tire rolling
resistance levels and vehicle fuel economy as measured on a
dynometer, wet and dry traction, and indoor and outdoor treadwear.
See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA Tire
Rolling Resistance Rating System Test Development Project: Phase 2--
Effects of Tire Rolling Resistance Levels on Traction, Treadwear,
and Vehicle Fuel Economy (February 2009). This Phase 2 research
report will be placed in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Proposed Rolling Resistance Rating Metric
We are proposing to base a tire's fuel efficiency rating on rolling
resistance force (RRF) as measured by the ISO 28580 test procedure.
This is in contrast to basing a fuel efficiency rating on rolling
resistance coefficient (RRC), or RRF divided by load. The agency is
aware that the proposed European tire fuel efficiency rating system
specifies tire ratings based on RRC.
NHTSA is proposing to base the rolling resistance rating on the RRF
metric because such a rating would provide more discrimination among
different tires throughout the system, and thus more information to
consumers, than a rating based on RRC. RRF translates more directly to
the fuel required to move a tire, and based on the goals of EISA,
appears to be a more appropriate metric.
3. Proposed Label
To convey information to consumers, this document proposes a label,
which contains an individual tire's ratings for fuel efficiency (i.e.,
rolling resistance), safety (i.e., traction), and durability (i.e.,
treadwear), and which is similar to a ratings label that tested well in
consumer research conducted by NHTSA. NHTSA conducted focus group
studies in which it presented several labels using different graphics
and scales to relay the ratings. Figure 1 shows the ratings label that
NHTSA is proposing in today's notice. The graphic shows all the ratings
on a scale of 0 to 100, with 100 being the best rating. Consumers
expressed an understanding of this 0 to 100 scale, and reacted
positively to the red and green shading, with red indicating lower/
worse ratings and green indicating higher/better ratings.\13\ Other
graphics presented in NHTSA's consumer research are discussed in
section VI.B.3 of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Today's proposed regulation specifies the colors on the far
ends of the ratings scales as ``primary red'' (for lowest/worst
rating box) and ``primary green'' (for the highest/best rating box).
An example of the proposed label in color can be found in the docket
for this rulemaking and on NHTSA's Web site, https://www.nhtsa.gov.
Click on the link to this notice, which will appear under ``What's
New, Latest Updates, and Features on Our Site'' (towards the bottom
of the main page).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA is seeking comment on an alternative graphic for the traction
rating scale because consumers expressed some confusion with the
graphic as presented. The cloud in the symbol for traction
(representing the source of the rain drops) was confusing for some
consumers who could not make out what it was or thought it was a cowboy
hat. NHTSA is aware that the consumers may not fully understand the
meaning of certain points on the ratings scale and is taking steps,
with this rule, to help to increase understanding. NHTSA is seeking
comment on how that task might best be accomplished, including with
changes to the label itself.
For the purposes of the final rule, the agency is also considering
the concept of a combined rating of some sort, which would convert all
three benefit metrics into one overall rating. The advantage of such a
system for tire performance ratings would be that it would simplify the
ratings, potentially relieving consumers of the task of weighing the
ratings for three different metrics for one tire against the three
ratings for another tire. At the same time, if the single combined
rating were presented to the exclusion of individual ratings for each
metric, it would obscure the relative performance of individual
components that might carry different priorities with different
consumers. As discussed in detail below in section VI.A.4, an example
of such a system might be expressed as average overall cost per mile.
As explained in greater detail later in this notice, the agency seeks
comments as to whether such a combined rating could be developed and,
if so, should be adopted in the final rule and implemented. The agency
seeks comments on the relative advantages and disadvantages of a single
combined rating, the three rating system in our proposal, and a third
approach combining the first two approaches.
[[Page 29546]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.000
4. Proposed Information Dissemination and Reporting Requirements for
Tire Manufacturers and Tire Retailers
For tire manufacturers, NHTSA is proposing that manufacturers be
required to report various data to the agency. This is necessary both
for enforcement of the rating system, and for development of NHTSA's
tire fuel efficiency Web site, which will contain a database of tire
information with a calculator tool that allows easy comparison of fuel
savings between various replacement tires.
Regarding labeling, we are proposing to require tire manufacturers
to print the tire fuel efficiency graphic (Figure 1) in color along
with any other information manufacturers include on an existing paper
label on the tire.\14\ At the manufacturer's option they could also
meet the labeling requirement by displaying the tire fuel efficiency
rating graphic as a separate label in full color.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Manufacturers are required to print UTQGS information on a
paper label pursuant to 49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(B). Many manufacturers
include other information on this paper label as well. Note that
NHTSA uses the term ``paper label'' in the colloquial sense; many
labels on tires are actually made of plastic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for requirements for tire retailers, we are proposing a
requirement that the paper label containing the new rating information
must remain on the tire until the sale of the tire. The label refers
consumers to the agency's Web site for further information about the
ratings. We are further proposing a requirement that tire retailers
must display a poster that NHTSA would print and distribute to them
which would explain the rating system and encourage consumers to
compare ratings across tires.
In addition, for tire manufacturers and retailers that maintain a
Web site, the agency is proposing to require those Web sites to link to
NHTSA's comprehensive tire Web site we will be developing as part of
the national tire maintenance consumer education program. The agency
also seeks comments on any other information dissemination requirements
that would ensure that easy-to-understand information is conveyed in a
way that is most likely to impact consumers' decisions and, thus,
affect their behavior and save them and our nation fuel and money.
5. Consumer Education Program
This document identifies and seeks comment on various ways that
NHTSA plans to implement a consumer education program to inform
consumers about the effect of tire properties and tire maintenance on
vehicle fuel efficiency, safety, and durability. All tires require
proper inflation and maintenance to achieve their intended levels of
energy efficiency, safety, wear, and operating performance. NHTSA has
previously addressed the importance of proper tire inflation to fuel
efficiency, treadwear, and safety in various public service campaigns.
Although NHTSA has mandated tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMSs) be
installed on new motor vehicles,\15\ a TPMS is not a substitute for
proper tire maintenance. Motorists must be alerted to the fact that
even small losses in inflation pressure
[[Page 29547]]
can reduce tire treadwear life, fuel efficiency, and operating
performance.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 70 FR 18136 (April 5, 2005); Docket No. NHTSA-2005-
20586-1.
\16\ When a tire is under-inflated, the shape of its footprint
and the pressure it exerts on the road surface are both altered. One
consequence of this alteration can be a reduction in the tire's
ability to transmit (or generate) braking force to the road surface.
Thus, under-inflated tires may increase a vehicle's stopping
distance on wet surfaces. 66 FR 38982, 38986 (July 26, 2001). Under-
inflated tires also increase the rolling resistance of vehicles and,
correspondingly, decrease their fuel economy. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of NHTSA's ideas for consumer education include informational
posters or brochures that NHTSA would distribute at trade shows and
other events, and which tire retailers could display at the point of
sale and a centralized, expansive government Web site on tires
containing a database of all tire rating information. NHTSA is also
planning to develop a comparative calculator that would show the amount
of money a consumer would save annually or over the estimated lifetime
of the tires of varying fuel efficiency ratings. Using the calculator,
a consumer could select tires to compare, enter the fuel economy of
their vehicle (miles per gallon or mpg) and the average number of miles
they drive each year and even the dollar amount they are paying for
fuel and get a calculation of differences in fuel usage and/or money
saved for the tires under comparison.
Finally, NHTSA plans to develop and form new partnerships to
distribute educational messages about tire fuel efficiency and tire
maintenance. NHTSA will seek to partner with any interested tire
retailers, State or local governments, as well as manufacturers who
share NHTSA's goal of promoting the importance of proper tire
maintenance. NHTSA will also seek to partner with universities and high
schools that may wish to educate students regarding tire fuel
efficiency or proper tire maintenance. These various innovative tools
and education measures will assist consumers in making better-informed
tire purchasing and maintenance decisions.
D. Costs and Benefits
The annual cost of NHTSA's proposal is estimated to be between
$18.9 and $52.8 million. This includes testing costs of $22,500,
reporting costs of around $113,000, labeling costs of around $9
million, costs to the Federal government of $1.28 million, and costs of
between $8.4 and $42 million to improve tires. In addition, NHTSA
anticipates one-time costs of around $4 million, including initial
testing costs of $3.7 million and reporting start-up costs of $280,000.
It is hoped that the proposed rule will have benefits in terms of
fuel economy, safety, and durability. At the very least, the proposed
rule should enable consumers to make more informed decisions about
these variables, thus increasing benefits along dimensions that most
matter to them. It is possible that the rule will help promote
innovation that will benefit consumers along all three dimensions.
Because the agency cannot foresee precisely how much today's proposed
consumer information program would affect consumer tire purchasing
behavior and cannot foresee the reduction in rolling resistance among
improved tires, the PRIA estimates benefits using a range of
hypothetical assumptions regarding the extent to which the tire fuel
efficiency consumer information program affects the replacement tire
market. Specifically, the PRIA develops estimates assuming that between
2% and 10% of targeted tires are improved and that the average
reduction in rolling resistance among improved tires is between 5% and
10%. Under these hypothetical assumptions, the proposal is estimated to
save 7.9-78 million gallons of fuel and prevent the emission of 76,000-
757,000 metric tons of CO2 annually. The values of the fuel
savings are between $22 and $220 million at a 3 percent discount rate
and between $20 and $203 million at a 7 percent discount rate.
E. Lead Time
Recognizing that the deadlines imposed by EISA indicate a desire to
have information available to consumers as quickly as possible, NHTSA
is proposing to require tire manufacturers to meet applicable
requirements for all existing replacement tires within 12 months of the
issuance of a final regulation. That is, within 12 months of the
issuance of a final regulation tire manufacturers must submit required
data to NHTSA on all existing replacement tires, and all replacement
tires sold by the manufacturer or transferred to tire retailers must be
labeled. For new tires introduced after the effective date of this
rule, NHTSA is proposing to require reporting of information at least
30 days prior to introducing the tire for sale, as is currently
required for UTQGS information.
Regarding the poster NHTSA is proposing to require in retailers
that have a display room, the agency is proposing to make this poster
available within 12 months of the issuance of a final regulation. At
that time NHTSA will publish a Federal Register notice announcing the
availability of the poster. The agency is proposing that a tire
retailer must have the poster on display within 60 days of the issuance
of the notice of availability in the Federal Register. We are proposing
that a tire retailer will be able to comply with the requirement of
displaying the poster either by downloading and printing it, in color
and with the specifications from NHTSA's Web site, or by contacting the
agency and requesting that we send the retailer a copy of the poster.
For tire retailers and tire manufacturers with an Internet
presence, NHTSA is proposing that those Web sites link to NHTSA's tire
Web site within 12 months of the issuance of a final regulation. NHTSA
will provide the direct link to the comprehensive tire Web site in that
final regulation.
II. Background
A. Contribution of Tire Maintenance and Tire Fuel Efficiency to
Addressing Energy Independence and Security
1. Tire Fuel Efficiency and Rolling Resistance
Without the continual addition of energy, a vehicle will slow down.
This effect is due to many forces, including aerodynamic drag,
driveline losses, brake drag, and tire rolling resistance. The first
three of these are vehicle properties; they will not be discussed
further. Rolling resistance is the effort required to keep a given tire
rolling. That is, rolling resistance is the energy loss during the
continuation of rotational movement of the tire. As such, it always
opposes the vehicle's longitudinal, or forward/backward, movement.
Since this rolling resistance force (RRF) opposes the direction of
travel of the rotating tire, it directly reduces the efficiency of a
vehicle in converting the chemical energy in the fuel to motion of the
vehicle. Therefore, tire rolling resistance is the most effective
metric for rating the ``fuel efficiency'' of a tire.
In general, vehicle efficiency affects the conversion of chemical
energy in motor fuel into mechanical energy and the transmission of
energy to the axles to drive the wheels. Figure 2 illustrates the
energy uses and losses for a midsize passenger car. Part of the energy
supplied to the wheels of the vehicle is lost due to energy converted
to heat within the structure of the tire as well as friction between
the tire and the road,
[[Page 29548]]
which creates resistance, decreasing fuel efficiency.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.001
A tire's rolling resistance is the energy consumed by a rolling
tire, or the mechanical energy converted into heat by a tire, moving a
unit distance on the roadway.\18\ The magnitude of rolling resistance
depends on the tire used, the nature of the surface on which it rolls,
and the operating conditions--inflation pressure, load, and speed.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml; 2006 NAS
Report, supra note 4, at 29.
\18\ Rolling resistance is, thus, defined as energy per unit
distance, which is the same units as force (Joules/meter = Newtons).
However, unlike force, rolling resistance is a scalar quantity with
no direction associated with it. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, The Pneumatic Tire, DOT HS 810 561, at 477 (February
2006).
\19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Relationship Between Tire Maintenance and Tire Fuel Efficiency and
Vehicle Fuel Economy
Tires with reduced inflation pressure exhibit more sidewall bending
and tread shearing. This increased deformation causes increased energy
loss by the flexing of the rubber. Further, tires with less than
optimal inflation pressure have a larger footprint of the tire on the
road, creating more contact between the tire and the road, thereby
increasing rolling resistance. Therefore, properly inflated tires
achieve less rolling resistance and higher fuel efficiency than under-
inflated tires. Moreover, all tires require proper inflation and proper
maintenance to achieve their intended levels of efficiency, safety,
wear, and operating performance. Thus, a strong message urging vigilant
maintenance of inflation must be a central part of communicating
information on the fuel efficiency performance of tires to
motorists.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 5, 97.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to proper tire inflation pressure, combinations of
differences in tire dimensions, design, materials, and construction
features will cause tires to differ in rolling resistance as well as in
many other attributes such as traction, handling, noise, wear
resistance, and appearance.\21\ Thus, when choosing among replacement
tires, consumers choose among tires varying in price, style, and many
aspects of performance, including rolling resistance, treadwear life,
and traction. Every year Americans spend approximately $20 billion
replacing about 200 million passenger car tires.\22\ Thus, the tires
consumers purchase will not only affect the handling, traction, ride
comfort, and appearance of their cars, but also the fuel economy.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Id. at 1.
\22\ H.R. Rep. No. 109-537, at 3 (June 28, 2006); 2006 NAS
Report, supra note 4, at 1.
\23\ Most passenger tires are replaced every 3 to 5 years
because of wear. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel economy improvements are a large part of ensuring a secure
energy future.\24\ EISA will help reduce America's dependence on oil by
reducing U.S. demand for oil by setting a national fuel economy
standard of at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020--which will increase
fuel economy standards by 40 percent and save billions of gallons of
fuel. In the near future, per the President's announcement, NHTSA and
EPA intend to initiate a joint rulemaking, with NHTSA proposing CAFE
standards under EPCA, as amended by EISA, and EPA proposing greenhouse
gas emissions standards under the Clean Air Act.\25\ This notice
proposes a tire fuel efficiency rating system and consumer education
program that will contribute to increases in actual on-road fuel
economy achieved, even for vehicles currently in service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See 73 FR 24352, 24360 (May 2, 2008).
\25\ Notice of Upcoming Joint Rulemaking To Establish Vehicle
GHG Emissions and CAFE Standards; Notice of Intent to Conduct a
Joint Rulemaking, 74 FR 24007 (May 22, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, improving fuel economy reduces the amount of tailpipe
emissions of CO2. CO2 emissions are directly
linked to fuel consumption because CO2 is an ultimate end
product of burning gasoline. The more fuel a vehicle burns, the more
CO2 it emits. Since the CO2 emissions are
essentially constant per gallon of fuel combusted, the amount of fuel
consumption per mile is directly related to the amount of
CO2 emissions per mile. Thus, improvements in fuel economy
necessarily reduce tailpipe emissions of CO2.\26\ The need
to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, e.g., motor vehicle
tailpipe emissions of CO2, in order to forestall and even
mitigate climate change is well recognized.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Id. at 24356.
\27\ IPCC (2007): Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate
Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.
Davidson, P. Bosch, R. Dave, and L. Meyer (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29549]]
3. 2006 National Academy of Sciences Report
In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004,\28\ Congress
provided funding through the USDOT/NHTSA to the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) to develop and perform a national tire fuel efficiency
study and literature review.\29\ The NAS was to assess the feasibility
of reducing rolling resistance in replacement tires and the effects of
doing so on vehicle fuel consumption, tire wear life and scrap tire
generation, and tire operating performance as it relates to motor
vehicle safety. Congress asked that the assessment include estimates of
the effects of reductions in rolling resistance on consumer spending on
fuel and tire replacement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ H.R. Rep. No. 108-401, at 971 (Nov. 25, 2003) (Conf. Rep.).
\29\ Ultimately the task was given to the Committee for the
National Tire Efficiency Study of the Transportation Research Board,
a division of the National Research Council that is jointly
administered by the National Academy of Sciences, the National
Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2006, the Transportation Research Board and the Board on
Energy and Environmental Systems, part of the National Academies'
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, released Special Report
286, Tires and Passenger Vehicle Fuel Economy: Informing Consumers and
Improving Performance (2006 NAS Report).\30\ The 2006 NAS Report
concluded that reduction of average rolling resistance of replacement
tires by 10 percent was technically and economically feasible, and that
such a reduction would increase the fuel economy of passenger vehicles
by 1 to 2 percent, saving about 1 to 2 billion gallons of fuel per year
nationwide.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Transportation Research Board Special Report 286, Tires and
Passenger Vehicle Fuel Economy, National Research Council of the
National Academies (2006). A copy of this report will be placed in
the docket.
\31\ Id. at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A reduction in the average rolling resistance of replacement tires
in the vehicle fleet can occur through various means. Consumers could
purchase more tires that are now available with lower rolling
resistance, tire designs could be modified, and new tire technologies
that offer reduced rolling resistance could be introduced. More
vigilant maintenance of tire inflation pressure may further this
outcome as well.\32\ The 2006 NAS Report concluded that consumers, if
sufficiently informed and interested, could bring about a reduction in
average rolling resistance by adjusting their tire purchases and by
taking proper care of their tires once in service, especially by
maintaining recommended inflation pressure.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Id. at 3.
\33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2006 NAS Report observed that consumers currently have little,
if any, practical way of assessing how tire choices can affect vehicle
fuel economy. Recognizing this market failure, the Report recommended
that Congress authorize and make sufficient resources available for
NHTSA to prompt and work with the tire industry in gathering and
reporting information on the influence of passenger tires on vehicle
fuel consumption.\34\ The 2006 NAS Report recognized the challenge of
changing consumer preference and behavior, but recommended
Congressional action nonetheless because of the potential societal
benefits associated with increasing effective on-road fuel economy by
even 1 to 2 percent.\35\ This ambitious undertaking must begin with
information concerning the tire's influence on fuel efficiency being
made widely and readily available to tire buyers and sellers. The
consumer tire information program mandated by EISA and proposed in
today's notice begins this undertaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Id. at 2, 4.
\35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other countries have also begun working towards increasing on-road
fuel economy by reducing average rolling resistance. These countries
include those of the European Union and Japan. In addition, the State
of California has also initiated a program to increase vehicle fuel
economy using tire efficiency ratings.
4. California
In 2001, California Senate Bill 1170 authorized the California
Energy Commission (CEC) to conduct a study to investigate opportunities
for increasing usage of low rolling resistance tires in California.\36\
The study concluded that there was a potential for substantial vehicle
fuel savings from an increase in the use of properly inflated, low
rolling resistance tires. As a result of this study, in October 2003,
the California State legislature adopted Assembly Bill No. 844 (AB
844),\37\ which required the CEC to develop a comprehensive fuel
efficient tire program.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Cal. Pub. Res. Code Sec. Sec. 25000.5, 25722-25723
(2009); 2001 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 912 (S.B. 1170) (West).
\37\ See Cal. Pub Res. Code Sec. Sec. 25770-25773; 2003 Cal.
Legis. Serv. Ch. 645 (A.B. 844) (West).
\38\ Specifically, AB 844 required the State Energy Resources
Conservation Board ``to adopt, on or before July 1, 2007, and
implement, no later than July 1, 2008, a replacement tire fuel
efficiency program of statewide applicability for replacement tires
for passenger cars and light-duty trucks, that is designed to ensure
that replacement tires sold in the State are at least as energy
efficient, on average, as the tires sold in the State as original
equipment on those vehicles.'' Cal. Pub. Res. Code Sec. 25772.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The program would consist of three phases. In the first phase, the
CEC will develop a database with information on the fuel efficiency of
replacement tires sold in California, develop a rating system for the
energy efficiency of replacement tires, and develop a manufacturer
reporting requirement for the energy efficiency of replacement
tires.\39\ In the second phase, the CEC will consider whether to adopt
standards for replacement tires to ensure that replacement tires sold
in the State are at least as energy efficient, on average, as original
equipment tires.\40\ In deciding whether to adopt standards, the CEC
must ensure that a standard:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See id. at Sec. 25771.
\40\ See id. at Sec. 25772. EISA does not provide NHTSA with
the authority to directly regulate the fuel efficiency of tires.
EISA's mandates to NHTSA regarding replacement tire fuel efficiency
relate only to developing ratings and disseminating information to
consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is technically feasible and cost effective;
Does not adversely affect tire safety;
Does not adversely affect the average life of replacement
tires; and
Does not adversely affect the State effort to manage scrap
tires.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See id. at Sec. 25773.
If standards are adopted, the CEC will also develop consumer
information requirements for replacement tires for which standards
apply. In the third phase, the CEC must review and revise the program
at least every three years.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 10, 2009, the Transportation Policy Committee of the CEC
conducted a workshop regarding the Energy Commission Fuel Efficient
Tire Program. As part of that workshop, the CEC staff draft regulation
was made public.\43\ The draft regulation specifies testing and
reporting requirements for manufacturers, and describes the database
the CEC will maintain. The draft regulation defines a ``fuel efficient
tire'' as a tire with ``a declared fuel efficiency rating value no
higher than 1.15 times the lowest declared fuel efficiency rating value
for all tires in its
[[Page 29550]]
combined tire size designation and load index.'' \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See https://www.energy.ca.gov/transportation/tire_efficiency/documents/#061009 (last accessed June 15,
2009).
\44\ Publication CEC-600-2009-010-SD (posted May 29,
2009), available at https://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-600-2009-010/CEC-600-2009-010-SD.PDF (last accessed June 15, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. European Union
Europe is approaching the issue of tire fuel efficiency from two
directions. On March 10, 2009, the European Parliament and the Council
of the European Union adopted the European Commission Proposal for a
regulation concerning new type-approval requirements for the general
safety of motor vehicles.\45\ One of the new requirements in this
regulation will gradually prohibit original equipment and replacement
tires with a rolling resistance coefficient (RRC) above certain levels
beginning November 1, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-/
/EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2009-0092+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN#top (last
accessed Mar. 11, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 22, 2009, the European Parliament adopted another
Commission proposal, ``Fuel Efficiency: Labeling of Tyres.'' The new
regulation will require original equipment and replacement tires to be
rated for rolling resistance, wet grip and noise.\46\ The rolling
resistance rating is determined using the same test procedure as in ISO
28580: Tyre Rolling Resistance measurement method--Single point test
and measurement result correlation--Designed to facilitate
international cooperation and, possibly, regulation building. The
ratings must be provided to consumers in a label on the tire, and also
in technical promotional literature, while the measured value for RRC
as determined for the type-approval regulation must be molded onto the
tire sidewall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See https://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindByProcnum.do?lang=2&procnum=COD/2008/0221 (last accessed Mar. 4,
2009). Mandatory requirements are also proposed to begin in October
2010 for wet grip and external rolling noise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The label design is the same A to G scale as that used to rate the
energy efficiency of household appliances in Europe.\47\ It will apply
to tires fitted to passenger cars as well as light and heavy duty
vehicles. Tire manufacturers are required to have a ``fuel savings
calculator'' on their Web sites, while the European Commission is
required to establish a ``EU tyre labeling Web site'' by September
2010. The new regulation will go into effect in 2012, but tire
manufacturers are encouraged to comply earlier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See Council Directive 1992/75/EEC, 1992 O.J. (L 297) 16-19
(on the indication by labeling and standard product information of
the consumption of energy and other resources by household
appliances).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Japan
In late 2008 the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) and
the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT)
announced a decision to establish a fuel efficient tire program.\48\
The stated objectives are to include standards for measuring rolling
resistance, providing information to consumers, and consideration of
ways to ensure proper tire pressure management (either through tire
pressure monitoring systems or consumer education). Japan has been
participating in the development of ISO 28580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See https://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/data/20081226_01.html (last accessed Mar. 10, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 Mandated Consumer Tire
Information Program
The legislation that eventually became section 111 of EISA
mandating the tire fuel efficiency consumer education program was
originally introduced by itself in the U.S. House of Representatives as
H.R. 5632 \49\ following the recommendations in the 2006 NAS
Report.\50\ The bill was introduced on June 16, 2006, and on June 28,
2006, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce reported on a slightly
amended version of the bill.\51\ It was never acted upon by the 109th
Congress, but it was inserted into a comprehensive energy bill as the
110th Congress began to develop it in May 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ H.R. 5632, 109th Cong. (2d Sess. 2006).
\50\ Previous attempts to establish a national tire fuel
efficiency program can be found in proposed amendments to various
energy bills in prior years. See e.g., S. Amdt. 3083, 108th Cong.,
150 Cong. Rec. S4710 (2004) (proposing to amend S. 150); S. Amdt.
1470, 108th Cong., 149 Cong. Rep. S10707 (2003) (proposing to amend
S. 14). These amendments proposed regulating the fuel efficiency of
tires in addition to a tire fuel efficiency grading system and
consumer information program, and were not adopted.
\51\ See H.R. Rep. No. 109-537 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, which was
enacted in 1972, mandated a Federal program to provide consumers with
accurate information about the comparative safety and damageability of
passenger cars. These requirements were codified in Chapter 323 of
title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). EISA added section 32304A
to title 49 U.S.C., Chapter 323, which gives authority to the
Department of Transportation (DOT) to establish a new consumer tire
information program to educate consumers about the effect of tires on
automobile fuel efficiency, safety, and durability. The DOT has
delegated authority to NHTSA at 49 CFR 1.50.
We have summarized below the requirements of title 49 U.S.C.
32304A, the consumer tire information program provision enacted by
EISA. We request comment on how effectively our proposal is likely to
be in achieving the goals of EISA. For example, what methodologies and
assumptions should be used in establishing and implementing the new
rating system? What is the most effective way to engage and educate
consumers regarding the proposed rating system?
1. Tires Subject to the Consumer Information Program
The national tire fuel efficiency consumer information program
mandated by EISA and proposed in this notice is applicable ``only to
replacement tires covered under section 575.104(c) of title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations'' (CFR), as that regulation existed on the date of
EISA's enactment.\52\ Section 575.104 of title 49 CFR is the Federal
regulation that requires motor vehicle and tire manufacturers and tire
brand name owners to provide information indicating the relative
performance of passenger car tires in the areas of treadwear, traction,
and temperature resistance. This section of NHTSA's regulations
specifies the test procedures to determine uniform tire quality grading
standards (UTQGS), and mandates that these standards be molded onto
tire sidewalls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title 49 CFR, section 575.104 applies only to ``new pneumatic tires
for use on passenger cars * * * [but] * * * does not apply to deep
tread, winter-type snow tires, space-saver or temporary use spare
tires, tires with nominal rim diameters of 12 inches or less, or to
limited production tires as defined in [49 CFR 575.104(c)(2)].'' \53\
Accordingly, today's proposed tire fuel efficiency consumer information
program applies only to replacement passenger car tires with the same
exclusions as the UTQGS regulation.
-------------