Final Rule

Tuesday,
March 30, 2010

Part III

Department of
Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

49 CFR Part 575
Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer
Information Program; Final Rule

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4717

Sfmt 4717

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

15894

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

[Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0036]

For legal issues: 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:

RIN 2127–AK45

Table of Contents

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 575

Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer
Information Program

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This document establishes the
test procedures to be used by tire
manufacturers in a new consumer
information program to generate
comparative performance information to
inform consumers about the effect of
their choices among replacement
passenger car tires on fuel efficiency,
safety, and durability. When this
program is fully established, this
information will be provided to
consumers at the point of sale and
online. This information will encourage
the purchase of better performing
replacement tires.
In order to provide this agency with
time needed to conduct additional
consumer testing and resolve important
issues raised by public comments on the
agency’s proposal regarding the
program, this rule does not specify how
the information will be explained and
provided to consumers. After a public
meeting regarding the agency’s draft
plan for additional testing, NHTSA will
proceed with the testing and then
develop and publish a new proposal for
these aspects of the new program.
DATES: Today’s final rule is effective
June 1, 2010. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed
in the rule is approved by the Director
of the Federal Register as of June 1,
2010.
The various compliance dates for
these regulations are set forth, as
applicable, in § 575.106(e)(1)(iii).
Petitions for reconsideration must be
received by May 14, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration
must be submitted to: Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:
For policy and technical issues: Ms.
Mary Versailles, Office of Rulemaking,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone: (202) 366–0846.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

I. Executive Overview
A. Summary
B. Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007
C. Summary of NPRM
1. Proposed 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. Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards
6. Proposed Consumer Education Program
7. Benefits and Costs
8. Lead Time
D. Brief Summary of Public Comments on
the NPRM
E. Final Rule
1. Test Procedures
2. Rolling Resistance Rating Metric
3. Label
4. Information Dissemination and
Reporting Requirements for Tire
Manufacturers and Tire Retailers
5. Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards
6. Consumer Education Program
7. Benefits and Costs
8. 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
B. Efforts by Other Governments To
Establish Consumer Information
Programs To Address These Issues
1. California
2. European Union
3. Japan
C. Mandates in Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 for a 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. Scope of the Tire Fuel Efficiency
Consumer Information Program
A. Which Tires Must Be Rated?

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

1. Passenger Car Tires
2. Replacement Tires
3. Tires Excluded
4. Voluntary Rating of Tires Not Subject to
the Program
5. Each Different Stock Keeping Unit Must
Be Rated
B. Entities Subject to Requirements of the
Program
1. Tire Manufacturers
2. Tire Retailers
C. EISA Does Not Give NHTSA Authority
To Establish a Rolling Resistance
Performance Standard for Replacement
Passenger Car Tires
IV. Rolling Resistance Test Procedure
A. Test Procedure
B. Lab Alignment Procedure
V. Rolling Resistance Rating Metric
VI. Rating System
A. What Information Will the Rating
System Convey to Consumers?
1. Fuel Efficiency
2. Safety
i. Potential Safety Consequences
ii. Test Procedure
3. Durability
B. How Will the Rating System Information
be Conveyed to Consumers?
VII. Information Dissemination and
Reporting Requirements for Tire
Manufacturers and Retailers
A. Requirements for Tire Retailers
1. NHTSA Will Re-Propose Information
Dissemination Requirements for Tire
Retailers
2. NHTSA Will Re-Propose Requirements
Regarding the Label
B. Requirements for Tire Manufacturers
1. NHTSA Will Re-Propose Requirements
Regarding Communication of Ratings
2. Data Reporting
C. Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards
D. Advertising
VIII. NHTSA’s Consumer Education Program
IX. Benefits and Costs
A. Benefits
B. Costs
X. Lead Time
XI. Enforcement
XII. Regulatory Alternatives
XIII. Conforming Amendments to Part 575
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 final rule is being issued
pursuant to the Energy Independence

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
and Security Act of 2007 (EISA),1 which
was enacted in December 2007. EISA
includes 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 the effect of tire
choices on fuel economy or the
potential tradeoffs between tire fuel
efficiency and tire safety and durability.
The collective effects of the choices
consumers make when they buy tires
are matters of public interest and
concern. 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 reducing greenhouse gas
emissions and improving local air
quality. 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 people buying them to place
on their own vehicles, they are also
matters of even broader public interest
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. To better inform consumers,
EISA requires that NHTSA develop
requirements for providing this
information to consumers, and a
national tire maintenance consumer
education program. Consumers need to
inflate and maintain their tires properly
so that they can 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
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 http://cta.ornl.gov/
data/index.shtml (last accessed Mar. 5, 2009).

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

(TPMSs) be installed on new motor
vehicles.3 However, TPMSs are not a
substitute for proper tire maintenance.
Motorists must be reminded of the fact
that even small losses in inflation
pressure can reduce tire treadwear life,
fuel efficiency, and operating
performance.4
The tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program will require tire
manufacturers to rate their replacement
tires for fuel efficiency, safety, and
durability based on test procedures
specified in this final rule. These test
procedures address three aspects of tire
performance: rolling resistance, wet
traction and treadwear life. As noted
above and described in further detail
below, rolling resistance is a
measurement of fuel efficiency. A
measurement of wet traction is intended
to indicate a tire’s ability to stop on wet
pavement. Thus, wet traction is a metric
that measures an aspect of safety. A
treadwear rating measures a tire’s wear
rate compared with that of control tires.
Treadwear life, therefore, is a measure
of durability.
Comparing the three different ratings
for different replacement tires will
enable consumers to see how different
replacement tires can affect the fuel
economy they are getting from their
vehicles. This will also enable
consumers to see the tradeoffs they may
be facing between fuel efficiency, safety
(i.e., wet traction), and durability (i.e.,
treadwear life), and how the balance of
these factors may differ from tire to tire.
Providing information regarding all
three types of performance will help to
ensure that no single aspect is given
disproportionate attention. NHTSA’s
research found that while changing tire
construction to improve fuel efficiency
need not sacrifice wet traction or
treadwear, maintaining the same wet
traction performance 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
3 See Final Rule, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems,
Controls and Displays, 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’’).
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). Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0121–
0035.

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

15895

will be changed in ways that sacrifice
other factors.
In developing the rule, 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
specifying the test procedure by which
NHTSA will evaluate the accuracy of
the rolling resistance rating assigned by
the tire manufacturer. For the safety and
durability rating, this final rule specifies
that the agency will use previously
established test procedures for wet
traction and treadwear to evaluate the
accuracy of the safety and durability
ratings assigned by the tire
manufacturer, respectively.
NHTSA is not specifying the content
or requirements of the consumer
information and education portions of
the program at this time. In light of the
important objectives of this rulemaking,
we are continuing to work to improve
the content and format of the consumer
information so that consumers will, in
fact, be adequately informed.
Specifically, NHTSA will be conducting
additional consumer testing to explore
how consumers will best comprehend
information in each of the three
categories discussed above. After
additional consumer testing, NHTSA
will publish a new proposal for the
consumer information and consumer
education portions of this new program.
Prompting NHTSA to pursue a deeper
examination of consumers’
comprehension of comparative tire
information, several comments on the
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
suggested the agency consider
additional indicators for the proposed
label that would provide some
understanding of what the ratings meant
in terms of the choices available to a
consumer. These suggestions included
the use of an icon or mark on the labels
to help consumers at a glance identify
the most fuel efficient tire—an idea
NHTSA had sought comment on in the
NPRM—and suggestions that the ratings
show high and low demarcations
reflecting the range of ratings within the
same size so that consumers and
retailers would not become
disenchanted with the system if they
could not purchase or provide any toprated tires in the size for the consumer’s
vehicle. Another commenter expressed
concern with the idea of a mark for the
best performers in the fuel efficiency
rating category, as it could imply
government endorsement and the
commenter stated such endorsement
should not be given unless it was to the
safest tire.

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

15896

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

These comments, as well as
comments from other Federal agencies,
have led NHTSA to recognize that a
revised consumer research methodology
could provide advanced understanding
of how the presentation of relative
rating information affects consumers’
perceptions of the relevance of the
information, and what motivates
consumers to act in accordance with the
information they have learned. Through
additional consumer research, and a
continued open dialog with interested
stakeholders, NHTSA will consider how
to best promote consumer
understanding of the real-world benefits
and possible tradeoffs involved in
selecting tires at various points along
relevant scales.
To further the development of the
consumer information and consumer
education portions of the tire fuel
efficiency consumer information
program, NHTSA recently announced
that it will hold a public meeting on a
new draft consumer research plan on
Friday March 26, 2010 at the U.S.
Department of Transportation
Headquarters building.6 The agency has
opened a new docket for the public
meeting, Docket No. NHTSA–2010–
0018, and on that docket interested
members of the public can access the
draft research plan, early agency
consumer research, and any written
comments submitted at the meeting or
in response to the meeting notice.
NHTSA will consider the public
comments received in developing a
research plan to aid in the development
of consumer information requirements
and NHTSA’s consumer education plan
regarding tire fuel efficiency. NHTSA
will also continue to consider comments
received on the NPRM relating to the
consumer information and education
portions of the tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program. A
continued open dialog will allow
interested stakeholders to further
explicate their ideas of what they
believe should be included in a
successful tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program, and how this
information can best be communicated.
The new consumer research will further
inform these concepts by indicating in
what form consumers are most likely to
understand information, and act in
accordance with what they have
learned.
In developing this final rule, the
agency consulted with the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
6 Notice

of Public Meeting; Tire Fuel Efficiency,
75 FR 11806 (March 12, 2010), Docket No. NHTSA–
2010–0018–0001.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

(EPA) on many issues. Since the NPRM,
the agency has received nearly 600
pages of comments, which have been
carefully reviewed and considered.
When developing the supplemental
NPRM for the consumer information
requirements, NHTSA will continue to
consider and evaluate comments
received on the NPRM. NHTSA will
also continue to consult with EPA, DOE,
and other Federal agencies experienced
with energy efficiency consumer
information programs on the
development of the tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program.
NHTSA has also prepared a
companion Final Regulatory Impact
Analysis (FRIA) that provides an
analysis on the potential economic
impacts of this consumer information
program, which is available in the
docket for this final rule.
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 National
Academy of Sciences (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.7 Many factors affect a vehicle’s
fuel economy, including its tires’ rolling
resistance, i.e., the force needed to make
the tires roll. The 2006 NAS report
estimated that 4 percent (urban) to 7
percent (highway) of the energy created
by a 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
replacement tires and its impact on
vehicle fuel economy is not readily
available.
7 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.

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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. Per the
President’s May 19, 2009
announcement, on September 28, 2009,
NHTSA and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) issued a joint
NPRM, 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.8 This joint proposal reflects a
carefully coordinated and harmonized
approach to implementing these two
statutes. The new standards propose a
significant increase in fuel economy by
2016. This consumer tire information
program is one of the actions that will
contribute towards the larger goals of
energy independence and security. In
comparison to CAFE standards, which
apply to new vehicle fuel economy, this
rule has goals of improving fuel
economy for the existing fleet of
vehicles, as replacement tires are
purchased and installed.
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 titled
‘‘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
8 Proposed Rulemaking to Establish Light-Duty
Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 74 FR
49454 (Sept. 28, 2009).

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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. Summary of NPRM

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

1. Proposed Test Procedures
The NPRM proposed to require tire
manufacturers to rate the fuel efficiency
of their tires using a measurement
obtained with a test procedure recently
finalized by the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO),
ISO 28580:2009(E), Passenger car, truck
and bus tyres—Methods of measuring
rolling resistance—Single point test and
correlation of measurement results
(hereinafter referred to as ISO 28580).9
The choice of which test procedure to
specify for measuring rolling resistance
is important because measuring rolling
resistance requires precise
instrumentation, calibration, test
conditions, and equipment alignment
for repeatable results. As explained in
detail in the NPRM, 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 proposed to use
traction and treadwear test procedures
that are already specified under another
tire rating system, the uniform tire
quality grading standards (UTQGS).10
9 See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Tire Fuel
Efficiency Consumer Information Program, 74 FR
29542 (June 22, 2009); Docket No. NHTSA–2009–
0121–0014 (hereinafter ‘‘Tire Fuel Efficiency
NPRM’’).
10 See 49 CFR 575.104 (2008).

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

2. Proposed Rolling Resistance Rating
Metric
The NPRM proposed 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 test load. The
proposed European tire fuel efficiency
rating system specifies tire ratings based
on RRC. NHTSA proposed to base the
rolling resistance rating on the RRF
metric because such a rating 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,
the NPRM proposed a label that
contains an individual tire’s ratings for
fuel efficiency (i.e., rolling resistance),
safety (i.e., wet traction), and durability
(i.e., treadwear), and which was similar
to a ratings label that tested well in
consumer research conducted by
NHTSA. Prior to the NPRM, NHTSA
conducted focus group studies in which
it presented several labels using
different graphics and scales to relay the
ratings. The proposed label showed 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 red
and green shading, with red indicating
lower/worse ratings and green
indicating higher/better ratings. Other
graphics presented in NHTSA’s
consumer research were discussed in
the NPRM.
4. Proposed Information Dissemination
and Reporting Requirements for Tire
Manufacturers and Tire Retailers
For tire manufacturers, NHTSA
proposed 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 fuel
savings estimator tool that allows easy
comparison of fuel savings between
various replacement tires. Regarding
labeling, we proposed to require tire
manufacturers to print the tire fuel
efficiency graphic in color along with
any other information manufacturers
include on an existing paper label on
the tire.11
11 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

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

15897

As for requirements for tire retailers,
we proposed 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 also proposed a requirement that
tire retailers must display a poster that
NHTSA would print and distribute that
would explain the rating system and
encourage consumers to compare ratings
across tires. Finally, for tire
manufacturers and retailers that
maintain a Web site, the agency
proposed to require those Web sites to
link to the comprehensive tire Web site
we will be developing as part of the
national tire maintenance consumer
education program. The agency also
sought 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.
5. Uniform Tire Quality Grading
Standards
In the NPRM, the agency considered
the need and appropriateness of
continuing the current UTQGS
requirements. NHTSA explained that if
the agency maintained the current safety
and treadwear UTQGS ratings, there
would be concerns about consumer
confusion as well as unnecessary
duplication. For this and other reasons
explained in the NPRM, the agency
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 rule.
6. Proposed Consumer Education
Program
The NPRM identified and sought
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. Some
of NHTSA’s ideas for consumer
education included 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 government Web site on
tires containing a database of all tire
rating information. NHTSA also
NHTSA uses the term ‘‘paper label’’ in the colloquial
sense; many labels on tires are actually made of
plastic.

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

15898

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

announced that we are planning to
develop a comparative fuel savings
estimator 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 estimator, 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, the NPRM announced plans
to develop and form new partnerships
to distribute educational messages about
tire fuel efficiency and tire maintenance.
NHTSA explained that we will seek to
partner with any interested tire retailers,
and State or local governments, as well
as manufacturers who share NHTSA’s
goal of promoting the importance of
proper tire maintenance. The NPRM
also stated that we will seek to partner
with universities, colleges 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.
7. Benefits and Costs
As explained in the NPRM, it is
intended that the rule will have benefits
in terms of fuel economy, safety, and
durability. At the very least, the rule
should enable consumers to make more
informed decisions about these
variables, thus increasing benefits of the
factors that most matter to them.
Because the agency could not foresee
precisely how much the proposed
consumer information program would
affect consumer tire purchasing
behavior and could not foresee the
reduction in rolling resistance among
improved tires, the Preliminary
Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA)
estimated 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 developed
estimates assuming that between 2
percent and 10 percent of targeted tires
are improved and that the average
reduction in rolling resistance among
improved tires is between 5 percent and
10 percent. Under these hypothetical
assumptions, the PRIA estimated that
the proposal would save 7.9 to 78
million gallons of fuel and prevent the
emission of between 76,000 and 757,000
metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2)

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

annually. The values of the fuel savings
were between $22 and $220 million at
a 3 percent discount rate and between
$20 and $203 million at a 7 percent
discount rate.
The PRIA estimated the annual cost of
NHTSA’s proposal to be between $18.9
and $52.8 million. This included 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
anticipated one-time costs of around $4
million, including initial testing costs of
$3.7 million and reporting start-up costs
of $280,000.
8. Lead Time
NHTSA proposed to require tire
manufacturers to meet applicable
requirements for all existing
replacement tires within 12 months of
the issuance of a final regulation. For
new tires introduced after the effective
date of this rule, NHTSA proposed 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, in retailers that
have a display room, the agency
proposed to make this poster available
within 12 months of the issuance of a
final regulation. At that time NHTSA
would publish a Federal Register notice
announcing the availability of the
poster. The agency proposed 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 proposed that a tire retailer
would 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 proposed that those
Web sites link to NHTSA’s tire Web site
within 12 months of the issuance of a
final regulation.
D. Brief Summary of Public Comments
on the NPRM
Scope of the program: Some
consumer and safety groups suggested
that NHTSA require that tire
manufacturers include the new tire
ratings in advertisements for tires.
Further, these groups, a tire
manufacturer, and ExxonMobil
Chemical Company (ExxonMobil) urged
NHTSA to contemplate a standard for
tire fuel efficiency performance.

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

ExxonMobil also suggested that NHTSA
establish a minimum inflation pressure
retention loss rate for tires to minimize
the air loss characteristics of tires.
Various commenters sought
confirmation of which entities would be
considered tire manufacturers and tire
retailers under the tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program, as well
as confirmation of the different tires
types of tires that were not required to
be rated under the program. Multiple
commenters also asked whether tires
that were not required to be included
under the program could be voluntarily
rated under the program.
Rolling resistance test procedure:
Various commenters urged us to adopt
the full ISO 28580 test procedure. MTS
Systems Corp. (MTS), a test equipment
manufacturer, suggested a different test
method using a flat surface test machine
rather than a road wheel. Several
commenters also noted the need for
NHTSA to specify a reference test
machine since the ISO test procedure
needs one for the alignment of results
between different measurement
machines, but the ISO has not yet
designated one.
Rolling resistance rating metric: Tire
Rack (an online tire retailer), Consumers
Union (non-profit publisher of
Consumer Reports magazine), and
ExxonMobil expressed support for using
RRF as the metric on which the agency
should base the fuel efficiency rating.
The tire manufacturers, a tire test
equipment manufacturer, the European
Commission, Japan Automobile Tyre
Manufacturers Association (JATMA),
the Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC, an environmental group), and
General Motors (GM) commented that
RRC would be a better metric for a fuel
efficiency rating than RRF. These
commenters argued that basing a fuel
efficiency rating on RRC would spread
out ratings for tires available to a single
consumer so that the consumer would
be able to get a top rated tire.
Safety: Advocates for Highway and
Auto Safety (Advocates) supported the
inclusion of tire safety information in
the tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program, and stated that the
program should not promote cost
savings at the expense of safety. JATMA
supported the use of the current UTQGS
traction grading test method as the basis
for a safety rating for purposes of the tire
fuel efficiency consumer information
program. Tire Rack stated that NHTSA
should base the safety rating on an
average of the slide and peak
coefficients of friction, the
measurements of traction obtained via
the traction test procedure. Consumers
Union stated that the safety (wet

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
traction) rating scale should be revised
to define a span that is most appropriate
to the level of performance commonly
found in current replacement tires while
still leaving room for future
improvement. The Rubber
Manufacturers Association (RMA, a tire
industry trade association) argued that
EISA did not give NHTSA the authority
to establish a new rating system for
consumer information on tire safety.
RMA contended that the derivation of
the safety rating formula from the wet
traction test measurements was not
explained well in the NPRM and that
they were unable to comment on it.
Durability: Michelin North America
(Michelin, a tire manufacturer)
commented that NHTSA should specify
changes to the UTQGS treadwear
procedure to yield more truly
representative wear results. Michelin
also commented that the durability
(treadwear) rating scale should be
adjusted because the ratings of some
current replacement tires would far
exceed the top rating on the scale. RMA
argued that EISA did not give NHTSA
the authority to establish a new rating
system for consumer information on tire
durability.
Overall rating: The tire manufacturers,
MTS, Tire Rack, Advocates, and NRDC
did not support an overall rating.
Consumers Union, as well as other
consumer and safety groups (Public
Citizen et al.) 12 did support some form
of an overall rating.
Label: NRDC, a private citizen, and
Public Citizen et al. suggested the
inclusion of a best-in-class (EnergyStartype) endorsement for the most fuel
efficient tires. Relatedly, to facilitate
comparisons, Consumers Union and
Tire Rack suggested the ratings show
high and low demarcations reflecting
the range of ratings for tires of the same
size. Public Citizen et al. supported
providing all the ratings on the same
scale. Ford Motor Company (Ford) and
Advocates suggested using the UTQGS
scales for the traction and treadwear
ratings, as opposed to the proposed 0–
100 scale. Advocates expressed support
for the green-red color coding, while
Michelin stated that the transfer of
information to consumers cannot be
wholly dependent upon color. Tire
manufacturers supported a five category
tire efficiency rating system, as opposed
to the proposed 0–100 rating scale. RMA
argued that EISA does not give NHTSA
authority to provide consumer
12 Public Citizen, Center for Auto Safety,
Consumer Federation of America, and Safe Climate
Campaign submitted joint comments to the NPRM.
See Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0043.1.
Throughout this notice, we will refer to these as
Public Citizen et al. comments.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

information on a tire’s greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions. Numerous
commenters submitted suggestions
about terminology on the label, the
ordering of the rating scales, the
required size of the tire label, additional
disclaimers to place on the label, and
alternate graphic icons for the rating
scales. RMA and the European
Commission opposed the inclusion of
tire manufacture date on the tire label,
an issue on which NHTSA sought
comment in the NPRM, but did not
propose regulatory language. Public
Citizen et al. suggested that the tire
identification number (TIN), which
NHTSA’s safety standards require be
molded onto the tire, be included on the
paper label. Public Citizen et al., as well
as the Tire Industry Association (TIA),
expressed concern that the paper label
may not provide consumers with
information at a useful time in
influencing purchasing decisions.
Information Dissemination and
Reporting Requirements
• Tire manufacturer requirements:
Tire manufacturers expressed support of
the interpolation of test values for
purposes of data reporting. Other
commenters generally opposed the
interpolation of test values. RMA
opposed the proposed data reporting
requirements. NRDC supported
requiring manufacturers to report rolling
resistance data. The International
Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
agreed with the proposal that
manufacturers should be required to
report which tires are exempted, and the
basis for the exemption. Similarly,
Michelin expressed support for
requiring tire manufacturers to report
which tires qualify for the low volume
exemption and are not labeled.
• Tire retailer requirements:
Consumers Union suggested that
NHTSA provide further guidance on
how best to ensure that consumers can
see the educational poster at the point
of sale. RMA suggested that instead of
requiring the proposed ratings graphic
appear on a tire label, NHTSA should
require that the rating information be
made available to consumers at the
point of sale. TIA commented that
NHTSA underestimates the importance
of dialogue between sales associates and
consumers at the point of sale, and
suggested that sales associates should be
trained to communicate the information
provided in the new rating system.
Similarly, Public Citizen et al., Ford, the
National Automobile Dealers
Association (NADA) and ICCT
encouraged the adoption of additional
requirements beyond requiring the
retailer keep the label on the tire until

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

15899

it is sold, reasoning that relatively few
consumers see tires before they buy
them as there are limited number of
tires on display in tire retailers.
Uniform tire quality grading
standards: Tire manufacturers, Tire
Rack, and Consumers Union expressed
support for the idea of replacing the
UTQGS requirements with the
requirements created under the tire fuel
efficiency consumer information
program. These commenters cite the
facts that this new rating system will be
on a different scale and will be based on
different test measurements than the
UTQGS grading system, which may
cause consumer confusion. Public
Citizen et al. supported NHTSA’s
continuing to provide the temperature
resistance rating along with the other
UTQGS ratings, and stated that the
temperature resistance rating should be
incorporated into the new tire fuel
efficiency consumer information
program rating system.
Consumer education program:
Numerous commenters suggested
various messages that NHTSA should be
communicating to promote the success
of the consumer education program.
Many commenters stated that much of
the effectiveness of this rating system
will depend on the success and reach of
the consumer education program,
informing consumers of the meaning of
the new rating system and of the
importance of proper tire inflation and
maintenance.
Benefits and costs: NRDC and ICCT
commented that our benefits are
underestimated due to NHTSA’s
underestimation of the impact of
reduced rolling resistance on fuel
economy. RMA predicted higher testing,
labeling, and tire improvement costs
than NHTSA. RMA also commented
that NHTSA overestimates benefits.
Lead time: Tire manufacturers, the
European Commission, and JATMA
requested more lead time than the
twelve months NHTSA proposed in the
NPRM.
Enforcement: ICCT and MTS
commented that NHTSA should tighten
the compliance tolerance bands that it
gave in the NPRM, and emphasized that
compliance tolerances are important
because consumers should have
confidence that the tires they are buying
are accurately labeled. RMA expressed
support for requiring reported ratings
must be less than or equal to the rating
determined by the agency in compliance
testing. RMA opposed the tolerance
band concept for compliance. RMA also
requested clarification of how NHTSA
intends to apply the new civil penalties
provision.

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

15900

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

E. Final Rule
The final rule adopts the test
procedure provisions of the NPRM
summarized above in section I.C, with
the changes discussed below made in
response to the public comments on the
NPRM. This final rule also clarifies the
scope of the tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program, and
responds to numerous comments on
related issues.
As explained above, NHTSA is not
specifying the content or requirements
of the consumer information and
education portions of the program at
this time, but will be issuing a new
proposal on these portions of the
program after engaging in additional
consumer research. NHTSA is also not
finalizing information dissemination
requirements for tire manufacturers or
tire retailers in this final rule, as further
consumer research may indicate how
consumers best comprehend ratings and
other consumer information. However,
as discussed further below, this final
rule does specify that NHTSA will
require tire manufacturers to report
ratings, but not test data, to the agency
as part of the data reporting
requirements of the tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program.
1. Test Procedures
EISA mandates that this rulemaking
include ‘‘specifications for test methods
for manufacturers to use in assessing
and rating tires to avoid variation among
test equipment and manufacturers.’’ 13
As proposed in the NPRM, this final
rule requires tire manufacturers to rate
the fuel efficiency of their tires. To test
for compliance with this requirement,
NHTSA will use a measurement
obtained using the recently approved
test procedure ISO 28580:2009(E),
Passenger car, truck and bus tyres—
Methods of measuring rolling
resistance—Single point test and
correlation of measurement results.14
As explained in detail in the NPRM,
the ISO 28580 test method is unique in
that it specifies a procedure to correlate
results between different test equipment
(i.e., different rolling resistance test
machines). This is important because
our research shows that machine-tomachine differences are a significant
source of variation. As discussed below,
the ISO has not yet completed all
aspects of this procedure. NHTSA is
nonetheless specifying the ISO 28580
test procedure in this final rule because
EISA specifically directs the agency to
13 49

U.S.C. 32304A(a)(2)(C).
14 See http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/
catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?
csnumber=44770 (last accessed Sept. 24, 2009).

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

avoid the type of significant variation
that the ISO 28580 lab alignment
procedure takes into account, but other
established test methods do not.
Further, the ISO 28580 test procedure is
the specified test method in the
European Union Directive and in the
staff recommendations for a California
regulation, allowing manufacturers to
do one test to determine ratings for
multiple regulations.
As commenters pointed out, under
ISO 28580, use of the lab alignment
procedure depends on the specification
of a reference test machine against
which all other labs will align their
measurement results. Because the ISO
has not yet specified a reference lab for
the ISO 28580 test procedure, NHTSA
must specify this laboratory for the
purposes of implementing this rule so
that tire manufacturers know the
identity of the machine against which
they may correlate their test results. In
the near future, NHTSA will announce
one or more private laboratories to
operate the reference test machine(s) for
the tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program.15
Under the ISO 28580 lab alignment
procedure, machine alignment is
conducted using batches of alignment
tires of two models with defined
differences in rolling resistance that are
certified on the reference test machine.
ISO 28580 specifies requirements for
these alignment tires (‘‘Lab Alignment
Tires’’ or LATs), but specific sizes or
models of LATs are not specifically
identified in ISO 28580. Therefore,
NHTSA must also specify which LATs
tire manufacturers should use to align
other rolling resistance machines to the
reference lab. Since specifications and
source of supply for these LATs has not
yet been finalized, NHTSA will
postpone the specification of LATs to a
later date. NHTSA will address
available LAT options in the
forthcoming supplemental NPRM
relating to the consumer information
requirements and consumer education
portions of the program.
Because bias ply tires are included in
the scope of the tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program, NHTSA
15 It is not the intent of NHTSA to unilaterally
establish the reference machine for ISO or other
global regions. Rather, the agency must define a
‘‘regional’’ reference machine for the tire fuel
efficiency consumer information program that is
independent of entities we regulate and is
accessible to the agency by standard contractual
mechanisms. This will allow reporting under the
program and agency compliance testing that meet
the requirements of EISA. It is our understanding
that the output of a given ‘‘candidate’’ machine can
be corrected using the appropriate correlation
equations and, therefore, different entities/rating
systems could also designate their own reference
machines.

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

is also specifying a break-in procedure
for bias ply tires, in order to warm up
these types of tires up before ISO 28580
testing.16 This roadwheel break-in
procedure that will be used for bias ply
tires is adopted from already established
Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
As for the safety and durability
ratings, NHTSA is specifying the use of
the test procedures that are already
specified under the UTQGS. For the
traction test, because we are requiring
the collection of slightly different data
than under the UTQGS traction test
method, a one-time modification in the
software used in the test equipment may
be necessary. The agency will continue
to examine other metrics to see if they
could prove more effective in providing
consumer information about safety and
durability.
2. Rolling Resistance Rating Metric
Based on the large number of
comments received on this issue, and to
retain flexibility to use what the agency
learns about consumer comprehension
from the future consumer research,
NHTSA will defer a decision on which
rolling resistance metric should be used
for the fuel efficiency rating and
consider that matter further in the future
supplemental NPRM and final rule that
will finalize the consumer information
and education portions of the program.
3. Consumer Information Program
Requirements
NHTSA is not specifying the content
or requirements of the consumer
information program at this time. In
light of the important objectives of this
rulemaking, we are continuing to work
to improve the content and format of the
consumer information so that
consumers will, in fact, be adequately
informed. After additional consumer
testing, NHTSA will publish a new
proposal for the consumer information
portion of this new program in a
supplemental NPRM.
4. Information Dissemination and
Reporting Requirements for Tire
Manufacturers and Tire Retailers
NHTSA is requiring that tire
manufacturers report the three ratings
for each tire to the agency. Unlike the
proposed data reporting requirements,
NHTSA is not requiring manufacturers
to report test measurements. This is due
to concerns that this information being
public could cause competitive harm to
tire manufacturers. Requiring the
16 Bias ply tire design is an older internal
construction tire design. Radial ply construction of
tires has been the industry standard for the past 20
years, and the vast majority of passenger car tires
on the market today are of radial construction.

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

submission of such data would make
public each manufacturer’s statistical
approach to risk in terms of how each
manufacturer is rating tires to prevent
the possibility of non-compliance.17
NHTSA will also require tire
manufacturers to report which tire
models and sizes are excluded from the
scope of this program, and thus not
rated, because this information would
be useful to consumers who wish to
understand which tires are not rated
and why. NHTSA will make this
information available on its tire Web
site. For manufacturers that are
otherwise required to report ratings
data, this information should be
included with those data submissions.
For manufacturers that only produce
limited production tires, or other tires
that are excluded from the applicability
of today’s program, these manufacturers
must provide a one-time list of each one
of its tire models/sizes, and a statement
that every one of its tire models/sizes is
excluded from the applicability of this
regulation and, thus, is not rated.
NHTSA will make this information on
which tires are excluded from the new
rating system available on its tire Web
site.
Regarding labeling, as noted above,
NHTSA is not specifying the content or
requirements of the consumer
information program at this time. In
light of the important objectives of this
rulemaking, we are continuing to work
to improve the content and format of the
label so that consumers will, in fact, be
adequately informed. After additional
consumer testing, NHTSA will publish
a new proposal for the consumer
information portion of this new program
in a supplemental NPRM.
As for requirements for tire retailers,
for similar reasons discussed above, in
order to have the full benefit of any new
understanding of how consumers best
comprehend information gained from
the agency’s new consumer research,
NHTSA will re-propose requirements
for tire retailers in the supplemental
NPRM on the consumer information and
education portion of the tire fuel
efficiency consumer information
program.
5. Uniform Tire Quality Grading
Standards
NHTSA is retaining the UTQGS
requirements at this time, including the
UTQGS treadwear, traction, and
17 Although NHTSA neither proposed to publish
such data submitted to the agency, nor to post such
data on the comprehensive tire Web site, such
information in the possession of the agency would
be subject to Freedom of Information Act requests
and the agency does not believe it could deny such
a request.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

temperature resistance ratings.
However, if a future final rule finalizes
that ratings under the tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program must be
printed on a paper label on each
passenger car replacement tire, NHTSA
will consider removing the UTQGS
requirement of molding UTQGS ratings
onto tires, and the UTQGS requirement
of printing UTQGS information on the
paper tire label when a tire is labeled in
accordance with the tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program
requirements. The requirements to
report UTQGS grading information to
NHTSA would remain. As such, the
UTQGS ratings would still be available
to interested consumers, vehicle
manufacturers, and tire retailers, but a
consumer looking at a tire would not be
confronted with different and confusing
rating scales. NHTSA wants to study
further the likely consequences of
discontinuing the temperature
resistance rating before making a
decision about the future UTQGS
requirements. NHTSA is making no
changes to UTQGS requirements in this
final rule.
6. Consumer Education Program
For similar reasons discussed above,
in order to have the full benefit of any
new understanding of how consumers
best comprehend information gained
from the agency’s new consumer
research, NHTSA will re-propose its
ideas for the consumer education
portion of the program in the
supplemental NPRM on the consumer
information and education portions of
the tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program. The supplemental
NPRM will newly propose and seek
comment on numerous ways that
NHTSA could implement a consumer
education program to inform consumers
about the effect of tire properties and
tire maintenance on vehicle fuel
efficiency, safety, and durability. The
supplemental NPRM will also discuss
some of the messages that NHTSA
believes will be key to a successful tire
fuel efficiency consumer information
program.
Within the next year, NHTSA will
begin developing a new government
Web site on tires, which will be linked
directly from http://www.safercar.gov/.
It will contain all the information on
NHTSA’s current tire Web site (also
located within http://www.safercar.gov),
as well as links to other useful Web sites
that contain educational information
about tire maintenance.18 In furtherance
18 NHTSA’s

current online tire information can be
found at http://www.nhtsa.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/
menuitem.c6b5d461a04337a1ba7d9d1046108a0c/

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

15901

of the objectives of consumer education
program, the supplemental NPRM will
seek comment on the structure and
content of the tire Web site. NHTSA’s
tire Web site will eventually contain a
database of all tire rating information.
7. Benefits and Costs
It is hoped that the final rule will
have benefits in terms of fuel economy,
safety, and durability. At the very least,
the final rule should enable consumers
to make more informed decisions about
these variables, thus increasing benefits
in ways that most matter to them. It is
possible that the rule will help promote
innovation that will provide benefits to
consumers in all three areas of tire
performance. Because the agency cannot
foresee precisely how much today’s
consumer information program will
affect consumer tire purchasing
behavior and cannot foresee the
reduction in rolling resistance among
improved tires (we estimate the
potential range of rolling resistance
improvement to be between 5 and 10
percent), the FRIA 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. For example, if
we assume that 1 percent of targeted
tires (1.4 million tires) are improved and
that the average reduction in rolling
resistance is 5 percent, then under these
hypothetical assumptions, the proposal
is estimated to save 3 million gallons of
fuel and prevent the emission of 29,000
metric tons of CO2 annually. The value
of these savings is $11.6 million at a 3
percent discount rate.
If 1 percent of targeted tires are
improved at an average cost of $3 per
tire, the annual cost of NHTSA’s final
rule is estimated to be $9.4 million. This
includes annual testing costs of $3.8
million, annual reporting costs of
around $113,000, annual costs to the
Federal Government of $1.3 million,
and annual costs of $4.23 million to
improve tires. This does not include
annual costs for labeling. Since this
final rule does not require a label,
NHTSA will account for costs of a label
when the requirement is re-proposed in
the supplementary NPRM addressing
consumer information requirements. In
the first year, NHTSA anticipates onetime costs of $34.8 million, including
the same costs noted above except
changes in initial testing costs of $33.1
million, no one-time costs to improve
and http://www.safercar.gov/portal/site/safercar/
menuitem.13dd5c887c7e1358fefe0a2f35a67789/
?vgnextoid=0e0aaa8c16e35110VgnVCM1000002
fd17898RCRD (last accessed Sept. 24, 2009).

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

15902

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

tires (NHTSA only assumes this as a
subsequent annual cost, not an initial
cost), and reporting start-up costs of
almost $400,000.
Table 1 shows cost and benefit
estimates developed to date, which may

change based on further study on the
design of the consumer information
requirements. The assumptions are that
silica technology is used at a cost of $3
per tire, that this technology improves

rolling resistance and has no or slightly
favorable impacts on wet traction and
treadwear. The estimates below assume
that 1 percent of targeted tires are sold
with improved rolling resistance.

TABLE 1—TOTAL BENEFITS AND COSTS ESTIMATES
[In millions of dollars]
3 Percent discount rate
Fuel Efficiency Improvement ...........................................................................
Costs (first year) ..............................................................................................
Costs (annual) .................................................................................................
Benefits a ..........................................................................................................
Annual Net Benefits (Costs) b ..........................................................................
a Average

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

b Counting

5%
$34.8
$9.4
$11.6
$2.2

7 Percent discount rate

10%
$34.8
$9.4
$23.2
$13.8

5%
$34.8
$9.4
$10.6
$1.2

10%
$34.8
$9.4
$21.2
$11.8

annual benefit through 2050.
only annual costs in the future; assuming 1% of replacement tires are sold with improved fuel efficiency.

8. Lead Time
Lead time will be determined based
on the timing of the final rules that will
specify the requirements and content of
the consumer information and the
specification of a reference laboratory or
laboratories. If the later of the final rules
is the one in which NHTSA announces
the selection of a reference laboratory or
laboratories with the capability to test
LATs, NHTSA will require tire
manufacturers to meet applicable
requirements for replacement tires they
manufacture in stages, by tire size. In
that case, tire manufacturers must meet
applicable requirements for 15 and 16inch tires, the most popular rim sizes,19
first; tire manufacturers must meet
applicable requirements for other
passenger car tire sizes at a later date.
That phase in would be tied to the
publication of a final rule specifying the
availability of certified LATs from the
reference laboratory or laboratories. As
noted above, in the near future NHTSA
will announce one or more private
laboratories to operate the reference test
machine(s). The agency is working
expeditiously to establish and
implement procedures for the selection
of a reference laboratory or laboratories.
Soon after, NHTSA will publish a
Federal Register notice of the readiness
of the reference laboratory or
laboratories to provide LATs under ISO
28580.
If the final rule specifying the
requirements and content of the
consumer information portion of the
program occurs after the final rule
19 The RMA Preliminary 2010 Factbook estimated
that 15 and16-inch passenger replacement tires
constituted about 22% of the replacement passenger
tire sales in the U.S. in 2009. See Rubber
Manufacturers Association, Tire Industry Factbook,
available at http://www.rma.org/rma_resources/
market_information/tire_industry/ (last accessed
March 11, 2010).

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

specifying the reference laboratory or
laboratories, NHTSA may establish a
lead time different from the phase in
described above since tire
manufacturers will have had since the
final rule specifying the reference
laboratory or laboratories to begin
testing to the test procedures specified
in this final rule.
In that case, NHTSA would also
announce in the final rule specifying the
requirements and content of the
consumer information and consumer
education portion of the program the
first date by which tire manufacturers
must submit required data to NHTSA on
replacement tires, and the compliance
dates for any other tire manufacturer or
tire retailer requirements established in
that rulemaking. For new tires
introduced after those compliance dates,
NHTSA is requiring reporting of
information at least 30 days prior to
introducing the tire for sale, as is
currently required for UTQGS
information.
The lead time is longer than the 12
months proposed in the NPRM for
several reasons. First, as commenters
correctly pointed out, tire manufacturers
will need some additional time to
validate correlation equations between
ISO 28580 and other rolling resistance
test methods many manufacturers
presently use if they are using
laboratories other than Smithers
Scientific Services, Inc. (Smithers) and
Standards Testing Laboratories (STL).
Second, because the safety rating test
requires recording of the peak
coefficients of friction, it is unlikely that
manufacturers have established much (if
any) correlation of their peak traction
measurements to the peak values at
NHTSA’s San Angelo test facility.
Therefore, it will likely take tire
manufacturers more than a year to test
enough tires to establish a correlation

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

for all of their tire sizes to include
estimated values in the reporting
formula.
Finally, manufacturers cannot start
rating for fuel efficiency until they can
obtain certified reference tires from a
reference lab so that they can use the
ISO 28580 lab alignment procedure.
NHTSA has determined that upon the
availability of certified LATs,
manufacturers will be able to accurately
rate all tires within 24 months.
However, recognizing that the deadlines
imposed by EISA indicate a desire to
have information available to consumers
as quickly as possible, NHTSA would
phase in the availability of this
consumer information. Because tires
with 15 and 16 inch rim sizes make up
more than 22 percent of sales in the
replacement passenger car tire market,
NHTSA believes there will be a
significant benefit for requiring these
most popular tire sizes to be rated as
soon as possible. Recognizing the
uncertainty of the rulemaking timeline
for finalizing the requirements and
content of the consumer information
and consumer education portions of the
tire fuel efficiency program, NHTSA
will tie all compliance dates to the latter
of the consumer information and
education final rule, or the final rule
announcing the availability of the
reference laboratory or laboratories to
test LATs under ISO 28580.

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

further. The fourth, 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 1 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,
which creates resistance, decreasing fuel
efficiency.

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, also increasing rolling
resistance. Therefore, properly inflated
tires have less rolling resistance and
higher fuel efficiency than underinflated tires. Moreover, all tires need
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.24
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.25 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

20 This discussion is substantially the same as the
Background discussion in the NPRM, but is
repeated here to provide context for this new
regulatory program and for the convenience of the
reader. Comments on EISA section 111’s
preemption provision are discussed in this section.
Discussions of the European Union’s efforts towards
increasing on-road fuel economy by reducing

average rolling resistance is also updated. See Tire
Fuel Efficiency NPRM, supra note 9, at 29547–
29552.
21 See http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml
(last accessed Sept. 24, 2009); 2006 NAS Report,
supra note 4, at 29.
22 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).
23 Id.
24 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 5, 97.
25 Id. at 1.

II. Background 20
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

As noted above, 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.22 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.23
2. Relationship between tire
maintenance and tire fuel efficiency and
vehicle fuel economy

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

15903

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

ER30MR10.019

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

15904

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

car tires.26 Thus, the tires consumers
purchase will not only affect the
handling, traction, ride comfort, and
appearance of their cars, but also the
fuel economy.27
Fuel economy improvements are a
large part of ensuring a more secure
energy future.28 EISA will help reduce
America’s dependence on oil by
reducing U.S. demand for oil by
requiring the light duty vehicle industry
to achieve a national average fuel
economy of at least 35 miles per gallon
by 2020 for passenger cars and light
trucks combined. Achieving this will
entail increasing fuel economy
standards by 40 percent and resulting in
saving billions of gallons of fuel. In
accordance with the President’s May 19,
2009 announcement, on September 28,
2009, NHTSA and EPA issued a joint
NPRM, with NHTSA proposing CAFE
standards under EPCA, as amended by
EISA, and EPA proposing greenhouse
gas emissions standards under the Clean
Air Act.29 This proposal would require
a fleet-wide fuel economy of 34.1 miles
per gallon (mpg) by 2016, thus nearly
reaching the EISA target four years
earlier than the EISA deadline. Today’s
rule complements that proposal by
establishing 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
CO2.30 The need to take action to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, e.g., motor
vehicle tailpipe emissions of CO2, in

26 H.R. Rep. No. 109–537, at 3 (June 28, 2006);
2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 1.
27 Most passenger tires are replaced every 3 to 5
years because of wear. Id.
28 See Proposed Rulemaking to Establish LightDuty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards
and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 74
FR 49454, 49631 (Sept. 28, 2009).
29 Id.
30 Id. at 24356.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

order to forestall and even mitigate
climate change is well recognized.31
3. 2006 National Academy of Sciences
report
In the Consolidated Appropriations
Act of 2004,32 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.33 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).34 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.35
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
31 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.
32 H.R. Rep. No. 108–401, at 971 (Nov. 25, 2003)
(Conf. Rep.).
33 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.
34 Transportation Research Board Special Report
286, Tires and Passenger Vehicle Fuel Economy,
National Research Council of the National
Academies (2006). Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0121–
0008.
35 Id. at 2–3.

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

of tire inflation pressure may further
this outcome as well.36 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.37
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.38 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.39 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 promulgated in today’s notice
begins this undertaking.
B. Efforts by Other Governments To
Establish Consumer Information
Programs To Address These Issues
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.
1. 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.40 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,
36 Id.

at 3.

37 Id.
38 Id.

at 2, 4.

39 Id.
40 See Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 25000.5, 25722–
25723 (2009); 2001 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 912 (S.B.
1170) (West).

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

in October 2003, the California state
legislature adopted Assembly Bill No.
844 (AB 844),41 which required the CEC
to develop a comprehensive fuel
efficient tire program.42
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.43 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.44 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.45
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.46
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.47 The draft regulation would
specify testing and reporting
requirements for manufacturers, and
describes the database the CEC will
maintain. The draft regulation would
define a ‘‘fuel efficient tire’’ as a tire with
‘‘a declared fuel efficiency rating value
41 See Cal. Pub Res. Code §§ 25770–25773; 2003
Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 645 (A.B. 844) (West).
42 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.
43 See id. at § 25771.
44 See id. at § 25772. By contrast, 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.
45 See id. at § 25773.
46 Id.
47 See http://www.energy.ca.gov/transportation/
tire_efficiency/documents/index.html#061009 (last
accessed Sept. 24, 2009).

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

no higher than 1.15 times the lowest
declared fuel efficiency rating value for
all tires in its combined tire size
designation and load index.’’ 48
2. European Union
Europe is approaching the issue of tire
fuel efficiency from two directions. On
July 13, 2009, Regulation (EC) No 661/
2009 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of the European Union
concerning new type-approval
requirements for the general safety of
motor vehicles was adopted.49 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.50 The
rolling resistance rating is determined
using the same test procedure as in ISO
28580:2009(E), Passenger car, truck and
bus tyres—Methods of measuring rolling
resistance—Single point test and
correlation of measurement results. The
ratings must be provided to consumers
in a label on the tire, or at the point of
sale (e.g., in cases where the tire itself
is not visible at the point of sale), and
also in technical promotional literature,
including Web sites. The label design is
the same A to G scale as that used to rate
the energy efficiency of household
appliances in Europe.51 It will apply to
tires fitted to passenger cars as well as
light and heavy duty vehicles. Tire
manufacturers are required to have a
link on their Web site to the European
Commission Web page covering the new
Regulation. The new regulation will go
into effect on November 1, 2012, but tire
manufacturers are encouraged to
comply earlier.
48 Publication # CEC–600–2009–010–SD (posted
May 29, 2009), available at http://
www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-6002009-010/CEC-600-2009-010-SD.PDF (last accessed
Nov. 12, 2009).
49 Commission Regulation 661/2009, 2009 O.J. (L
200) 1, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:200:
0001:0024:EN:PDF (last accessed Nov. 12, 2009).
50 See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/
FindByProcnum.do?lang=2&procnum=COD/2008/
0221 (last accessed Nov. 12, 2009). Mandatory
requirements are also proposed to begin in October
2010 for wet grip and external rolling noise.
51 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).

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

15905

3. 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.52 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).53
Japan has been participating in the
development of ISO 28580.
C. 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 54
following the recommendations in the
2006 NAS Report.55 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.56 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
52 See http://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/data/
20081226_01.html (last accessed Nov. 12, 2009).
53 Tire manufacturers in Japan have recently
proposed a voluntary rating system that includes
rolling resistance and wet grip. Rolling resistance is
divided into five categories labeled AAA, AA, A, B,
and C. Wet grip is divided into four categories
labeled a, b, c, and d. For additional information,
see http://translate.google.com/
translate?u=http%3A%2F%2
Fwww.tftc.gr.jp%2Ftirepark%2
Fperformance%2Flabel%2Flabel.html&sl=
ja&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8 (last accessed March 11,
2010).
54 H.R. 5632, 109th Cong. (2d Sess. 2006).
55 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.
56 See H.R. Rep. No. 109–537 (2006).

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

15906

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

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.

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

1. Tires Subject To the Consumer
Information Program
The national tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program
mandated by EISA and established 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.57 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.
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)].’’ 58 Accordingly, the tire
fuel efficiency consumer information
program described in today’s notice
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
durability.’’ 59 EISA specifies that the
regulations establishing the program are
57 49

U.S.C. 32304A(a)(3).
CFR 575.104(c)(1).
59 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(1).
58 49

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

to be issued not later than December 19,
2009.60
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.’’ 61 However, NHTSA may
‘‘not require permanent labeling of any
kind on a tire for the purpose of tire fuel
efficiency information.’’ 62
The only Committee Report
commenting on the legislation that
eventually became section 111 of EISA
explained that the 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.63 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 and traction.64 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 economy is an attribute that is
likely to be of interest to many tire
60 EISA 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).
61 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(2)(A).
62 Id. at § 32304A(d).
63 H.R. Rep. No. 109–537, at 3 (2006).
64 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.

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

buyers.65 NHTSA has attempted to keep
these key observations in mind in the
development of this final rule.
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.’’ 66 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.67
As noted above, 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.’’ 68 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,69 and tire dealers/
retailers and distributors.
4. Specification of Test Methods
Section 111 of EISA also mandates
that this rulemaking include
‘‘specifications for test methods for
manufacturers to use in assessing and
rating tires to avoid variation among test
equipment and manufacturers.’’ 70 See
section IV of this notice for a discussion
of NHTSA’s specification of the ISO
28580 test procedure to measure rolling
resistance.
We note that the 2006 NAS Report,
the recommendations from which
formed the basis for the legislation that
became section 111 of EISA, indicated
65 2006

NAS Report, supra note 4, at 4.
U.S.C.32304A(a)(2)(B).
67 See H.R. 5632, 109th Cong. (2d Sess. 2006).
68 See H.R. Rep. No. 109–537, at 5 (2006).
69 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.
70 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(2)(C).
66 49

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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.’’ 71 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.72
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.’’ 73 NHTSA already has some
information regarding tire maintenance
on its safercar.gov Web site.74
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.75 NHTSA
has focused on these principles in
determining 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.’’ 76 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
other Government agencies, to seek their
views.
71 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). Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0019.
73 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(2)(D).
74 See generally http://www.safercar.gov/portal/
site/safercar/menuitem.
13dd5c887c7e1358fefe0a2f35a67789/
?vgnextoid=0e0aaa8c16e35110VgnVCM1000002fd1
7898RCRD (last accessed Sept. 24, 2009).
75 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 96.
76 Id.

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

72 See

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

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.’’ 77
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.’’ 78 NHTSA has fulfilled 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 (FTC) 79 who
work in energy efficiency consumer
information and rating programs. These
agencies provided feedback on
NHTSA’s draft final rule 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,
a State or political subdivision thereof may
adopt or enforce a law or regulation on tire
fuel efficiency consumer information enacted
77 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.
78 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 4.
79 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
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/homes/
rea14.shtm (last accessed Sept. 24, 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.

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

15907

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.80

In the NPRM, NHTSA sought 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 (AB 844).81 We discuss these
comments in section XIV.D below.
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.

The RMA recommended that NHTSA
clarify how it intends to enforce this
provision and subject its interpretation
to comment. See section XI for more
detail on RMA’s comments on this
provision and NHTSA’s response.
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.’’ 82 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.’’ 83
III. Scope of the Tire Fuel Efficiency
Consumer Information Program
A. Which tires must be rated?
As explained above in section II.C.1 of
this notice, EISA specifies that the tire
80 49

U.S.C. 32304A(e).
Pub Res. Code §§ 25770–25773; 2003 Cal.
Legis. Serv. Ch. 645 (A.B. 844) (West). This
California legislation mandated that the California
Energy Commission (CEC) develop and implement
both a tire efficiency program and a corresponding
consumer information program, and was passed on
October 1, 2003.
82 49 U.S.C. 32304A(c).
83 Id.
81 Cal.

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

15908

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

fuel efficiency requirements are to
‘‘apply only to replacement tires covered
under [49 CFR] section 575.104(c)’’
(NHTSA’s UTQGS regulation).84 Title
49 CFR, section 575.104 applies only to
‘‘new pneumatic tires 85 for use on
passenger cars’’ with some exclusions of
particular types of tires.86 All terms in
49 CFR Part 575 are as defined by the
Safety Act or in 49 CFR Part 571,
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSSs).87 Some commenters had
questions about whether or not certain
tires were excluded from the program.
Others asked about the voluntary rating
of tires not covered under the program.
These comments are addressed in the
sections below.
1. Passenger Car Tires
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, as stated in the NPRM, the
tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program applies only to
replacement passenger car tires, which
are tires intended for use on passenger
cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles,
and trucks, that have a GVWR of 10,000
pounds or less.88
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
84 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
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.
86 49 CFR 575.104(c)(1).
87 49 CFR 575.2, Definitions.
88 This FMVSS No. 139 definition of ‘‘passenger
car tires’’ is consistent with past agency
interpretations of the scope of 49 CFR 575.104. See
April 24, 1980 Letter to Mr. Robert A. Eddy
(McCreary Tire & Rubber Company) (explaining that
tires ‘‘which are manufactured solely for use on a
traction test trailer would not fall within the
application of the UTQG Standards’’); October 27,
1978 Letter to Mr. Ken Yoneyama (Bridgestone)
(explaining that ‘‘UTQGS applies to a tire type
whose predominant contemplated use is on
passenger cars, even if the manufacturer knows the
tire type is also used as original equipment on
multi-purpose passenger vehicles’’).

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

85 The

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

designated without the P, sometimes
referred to as ‘‘hard metric’’ sizes. Many
smaller sport utility vehicles (SUVs),
pickup trucks, and vans are equipped
with passenger car tires, even though
these vehicles are classified as light
trucks by NHTSA.89 Ordinarily, 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.90 EISA
excludes replacement LT tires from the
tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program.91 JATMA asked
for confirmation of their understanding
that LT tires are not included in the
scope of the tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program.92 As
explained in this section, that
understanding is correct.
Providing information on LT tires:
ICCT asked that NHTSA, since EISA
does not appear to contain any
restriction on NHTSA providing
information to consumers, investigate
whether our data combined with
California and European Union tire
testing data would provide enough data
for NHTSA to provide consumers with
information on LT tires on the agency’s
online Web site.93 ICCT commented that
this is especially important given the
high rolling resistances that NHTSA
reported for LT tires.94
Agency response: NHTSA agrees that
educating consumers about the general
qualities and trends of rolling resistance
for tires excluded under the program,
including LT tires, is worthwhile
because consumers currently do not
have any information about the relative
fuel efficiency between different types
of tires. While section 111 of EISA is
limited to ‘‘only * * * replacement tires
covered under [NHTSA’s UTQGS
regulation],’’ 95 nothing in EISA appears
to restrict NHTSA from educating the
public about motor vehicles and motor
vehicle equipment using information
generated by the agency, as it already
does for many different tire
characteristics. As noted in the NPRM,
the agency expects test data to be
available for many LT tires, as these
tires are covered by the Europe and
California programs, in addition to some
LT tires having been included in
NHTSA’s Phase 1 research for this
89 2006

NAS Report, supra note 4, at 14.

90 Id.
91 49

U.S.C. 32304A(a)(3).
No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0031.1 at 1.
93 Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0042.1 at 2.
94 See Tire Fuel Efficiency NPRM, supra note 9,
at 29553.
95 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(3).

rulemaking.96 NHTSA tested some LT
tires in its Phase 1 research because that
research was initiated in July 2006,
subsequent to the release and based on
the recommendations in the 2006 NAS
Report, before the passage of EISA.
Moreover, by educating consumers
about what type of comparative fuel
efficiency they can expect between
replacement passenger car tires and
original equipment (OE) tires or LT
tires, the agency would not be
mandating anything of tire
manufacturers or tire retailers, but
merely using information that has
already been generated by NHTSA and
other government regulatory bodies, and
is available under the Freedom of
Information Act.
Passenger car tires used on trailers:
The National Association of Trailer
Manufacturers (NATM) commented it
did not believe Congress intended to
include replacement tires sold for use
on trailers to be within the scope of the
tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program.97 NATM
explained that some of its trailer
manufacturer, trailer dealer, and trailerparts distribution members sell ‘‘P’’ tires
to consumers for replacement use on
light-duty trailers, particularly small
utility trailers. NATM believes that
NHTSA’s proposed definition of
passenger car tire could be read to
include those replacement ‘‘P’’ tires sold
by NATM members for use on light-duty
trailers. Specifically, NATM stated that
the ‘‘intended for use’’ language in the
passenger car tire definition could be
interpreted to bring under the
jurisdiction of this program ‘‘P’’ tires that
may have been designed and
manufactured primarily for use on
passenger cars but that ultimately are
sold for use on trailers. NATM suggests
that NHTSA modify the definition of
passenger car tire to read: ‘‘Passenger car
tire means a tire sold for use on
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger
vehicles, and trucks, that have a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000
pounds or less.’’
Agency response: NHTSA disagrees
with NATM’s suggested definition for
passenger car tires. The statute provides
that the tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program is ‘‘for replacement
tires designed for use on motor
vehicles.’’ 98 The statute’s applicability
section states that this section shall
apply ‘‘only to replacement tires covered
under [49 CFR] section 575.104(c)’’ as of
December 19, 2007, when the Ten-in-

92 Docket

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

96 See Tire Fuel Efficiency NPRM, supra note 9,
at 29552–29553.
97 Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0029.1.
98 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(1).

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Ten Fuel Economy Act 99 became
law.100 For this reason, NHTSA believes
Congress intended the agency look to
the UTQGS regulation for appropriate
definitions of different types of tires.
Section 575.104(c) provides that section
575.104, Uniform tire quality grading
standards, apply ‘‘to new pneumatic
tires for use on passenger cars,’’ subject
to some exclusions, such as for wintertype snow tires, space-saver or
temporary use spare tires, and tires with
nominal rim diameters of 12 inches or
less.
The definitions governing 49 CFR Part
575 are contained in 49 CFR 575.2. This
section states that all terms in 49 CFR
Part 575 are as defined by the Safety Act
or in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards, 49 CFR Part 571. Neither
‘‘passenger car tires’’ nor ‘‘tires for
passenger cars’’ is defined in the Safety
Act.101 Therefore, NHTSA looked to the
FMVSSs for definitions. As of December
2007, NHTSA had regulations on
passenger car tires.102 Those regulations
define passenger car tire as follows:
‘‘Passenger car tire means a tire intended
for use on passenger cars, multipurpose
passenger vehicles, and trucks, that
have a gross vehicle weight rating of
(GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less.’’ 103 In
view of the applicability statement in
EISA referring to the UTQGS regulations
(§ 575.104), the UTQGS definitional
reference to the Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards (§ 575.2), and the fact
that passenger car tire is defined in a
FMVSS, NHTSA interprets the
consumer tire information program in
EISA as applying to passenger car tires
as defined in 49 CFR 571.139. For these
reasons, NHTSA’s definition of
passenger car tires is taken from FMVSS
No. 139. This FMVSS No. 139 definition
of ‘‘passenger car tires’’ is consistent
with past agency interpretations of the
scope of the UTQGS regulations.104
However, based on EISA’s
applicability only to replacement

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

99 The

‘‘Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act’’ is the
short title of EISA Title I, Energy Security Through
Improved Vehicle Fuel Economy. Public Law 110–
140, § 101.
100 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(3).
101 See 49 U.S.C. 30102.
102 See FMVSS No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial
Tires for Light Vehicles, 49 CFR 571.139.
103 49 CFR 571.139 S3.
104 See April 24, 1980 Letter to Mr. Robert A.
Eddy (McCreary Tire & Rubber Company)
(explaining that tires ‘‘which are manufactured
solely for use on a traction test trailer would not
fall within the application of the UTQG
Standards’’); October 27, 1978 Letter to Mr. Ken
Yoneyama (Bridgestone) (explaining that ‘‘UTQGS
applies to a tire type whose predominant
contemplated use is on passenger cars, even if the
manufacturer knows the tire type is also used as
original equipment on multi-purpose passenger
vehicles’’).

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

passenger car tires (with some limited
exclusions), NHTSA does agree with
NATM that EISA did not contemplate
that the tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program would include
information to educate consumers about
tires they are purchasing for trailers.105
Accordingly, tire retailers that sell only
replacement passenger car tires for use
on trailers, and not for use on any other
motor vehicles, would not be
considered tire retailers for the purposes
of today’s final rule. See section III.B.2
below.
2. Replacement Tires
In this final rule, NHTSA is retaining
the proposed definition of replacement
passenger car tire as ‘‘any passenger car
tire other than a passenger car tire sold
as original equipment on a new
vehicle.’’ 106 As explained in the NPRM,
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.’’ 107
NHTSA is using this language as the
basis of a definition of replacement tires
for the purposes of the tire fuel
efficiency consumer information
program because EISA specifies that the
tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program ‘‘shall only apply
to replacement tires covered under [the
UTQGS regulations].’’ 108 For this
reason, NHTSA believes Congress
intended the agency look to the UTQGS
regulation for appropriate definitions of
different types of tires.
The agency believes the definition of
what a replacement tire is (as
distinguished from an OE tire) needs to
be in terms of the actual sale of the tire,
not the intention when
manufactured.109 NHTSA understands
105 See

49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(3).
Fuel Efficiency NPRM, supra note 9, at
29553, 29584.
107 49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B).
108 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(3).
109 NATM inappropriately cited this statement
from the NPRM in its rationale for its request that
NHTSA change the definition of passenger care tire
addressed above in section III.A.1. The agency used
this rationale as a way to ensure that a manufacturer
could not state that it intended a passenger car tire
to be original equipment, but then it just ended up
being sold as a replacement car tire, allowing it to
fall outside of the scope of ‘‘replacement passenger
car tire.’’ The concern NATM attempted to analogize
would be a manufacturer manufacturing a tire
intending its use only on trailers, but then
eventually the tire gets sold for use on a passenger
car. NHTSA does not believe that this is a likely
situation that outweighs the inefficiencies that
would be created using the ‘‘sold for use’’ language
in the passenger car tire definition described above.
106 Tire

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

15909

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.
Original equipment tires: Michelin
commented that it supported the
application of this rulemaking to OE
tires. Michelin stated that it is in the
best interest of consumers to have the
tire performance grading information
available for OE tires and clearly
displayed on a new vehicle because it
will be meaningful for the consumer to
have such tire performance information
on the vehicle at the point of sale.110
Public Citizen et al. similarly stated that
it supports molding 111 the ratings on all
tires, both OE and replacement tires.112
Agency response: NHTSA proposed a
definition of replacement passenger car
tire to be ‘‘any passenger car tire other
than a passenger car tire sold as original
equipment on a new vehicle.’’ As
indicated above, NHTSA interprets
EISA’s repeated use of the word
‘‘replacement tires’’—including in the
statute’s applicability provision—to
indicate that EISA does not give NHTSA
authority to mandate a rating system for
any tires other than replacement tires;
that is, tires sold for use on a new
vehicle (OE tires). Therefore, as NHTSA
interprets the statute, the agency does
not have the authority under EISA
section 111 to require vehicle
manufacturers to display tire
performance information for OE tires.
Likewise, EISA expressly forbids
NHTSA from requiring any permanent
labeling of this information on tires, so
the Public Citizen et al. comment is not
adopted.113
However, if tire manufacturers submit
rating information on OE tires to
NHTSA, the agency will post that
information on its tire Web site for
consumers to look up by vehicle make
and model, or by size designation.
NHTSA notes that if OE tires are not
rated, consumers will not be able to
compare replacement tires with the tires
that were originally on their vehicle.
Therefore, the agency encourages tire
manufacturers to voluntarily report OE
tire rating information to NHTSA so that
consumers are able to compare the
performance of their OE tires with what
they can expect from potential
replacement tires.
110 Docket

No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0048.1 at 13.
111 of EISA explicitly prohibits
NHTSA from requiring the molding of anything for
the purposes of tire fuel efficiency information onto
tire sidewalls. 49 U.S.C. 32204A(d).
112 Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0043.1 at 4.
113 49 U.S.C. 32304A(d).
111 Section

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

15910

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Original equipment tires sold as
replacement tires: Tire Rack commented
that it is an independent tire dealer
selling OE and replacement tires and
that it believes that the fuel efficiency
rating of all OE tires under the scope of
the program should be made public to
provide consumers with a basis of
comparison from which they can begin
their search and selection.114
Agency response: NHTSA notes that
for purposes of the tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program, ‘‘OE’’
passenger car tires sold to consumers at
a tire retailer are considered
replacement tires under the definition
above because they are not being sold as
original equipment on a new vehicle.
These tires were sold from tire
manufacturers to Tire Rack for resale.
Hence, the manufacturers must provide
all of this consumer information for
those tires and consumers will be able
to look up ratings for those tires on the
agency’s tire Web site. Although
NHTSA is not requiring consumers be
provided with the tire ratings mandated
today when they purchase a new
passenger car, retailers like Tire Rack
could choose to tell consumers what
fuel efficiency rating they are currently
operating under by finding a
replacement passenger car tire that is
identical to the specifications of the
original tires on their vehicle.
Additionally, consumers could look up
ratings for these tires on the tire Web
site.
3. 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.’’ 115 49 CFR 575.104(c)(1). Since
114 Docket

No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0026.1 at 2–3.
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),

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

115 For

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

EISA specifies that the tire fuel
efficiency requirements are to ‘‘apply
only to replacement tires covered under
[NHTSA’s UTQGS regulation],’’ these
exclusions were included in the NPRM
and are included in the new regulations
for the tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program established in
today’s final rule.116
Public Citizen et al. commented that
it supported requiring deep tread,
winter-type snow tires, and space-saver
or temporary use spare tires to be rated
under the tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program.117 Public Citizen
et al. explained that deep tread tires are
sometimes not intended for sustained
highway use, and may create handling
problems when used in normal driving,
and that NHTSA has not addressed
whether improper operation on these
specialized tire types is more dangerous.
Public Citizen et al. stated that
consumers may be interested in
performance characteristics of these
specialized tire types.
Agency response: As indicated above,
because the applicability provision of
EISA section 111 specifically limits this
program to replacement tires covered
under NHTSA’s UTQGS regulation, and
the UTQGS regulations specifically
exclude requiring deep tread, wintertype snow tires, and space-saver or
temporary use spare tires,118 as NHTSA
interprets EISA and its UTQGS
regulation, NHTSA does not have the
authority under EISA to require vehicle
manufacturers to display tire
performance information for these
specialty tires. To the extent the agency
has the information, NHTSA will
include information on deep tread,
winter-type snow tires, and space-saver
or temporary use spare tires on the tire
Web site.
Regarding the use of tires not
intended for sustained highway use in
normal driving, NHTSA has historically
recognized that improper operation of
any tire can be dangerous. For instance,
the recent ‘‘What’s your PSI’’ campaign
and the brochure Tire Safety:
Everything’s Riding on It, available on
http://www.safercar.gov stress the
importance of proper tire selection and
maintenance.
4. Voluntary Rating of Tires Not Subject
to the Program
As noted above in section III.A.1 and
III.A.2, EISA excludes LT tires and OE
tires from the tire fuel efficiency
and (iii) of this section, does not exceed 35,000
tires.’’ 49 CFR 575.104(c)(2).
116 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(3).
117 Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0043.1 at 11.
118 49 CFR 575.104(c)(1).

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

consumer information program.119
Some commenters noted concerns with
the exclusion of OE tires and LT tires
from the EISA mandated tire fuel
efficiency consumer information
program.120 For instance, Tire Rack
commented that ‘‘[w]hile not required
by the rulemaking, it is hoped there
would be a future opportunity for tire
manufacturers producing LT-sized tires
to voluntarily provide rolling resistance
information.’’ 121
Agency response: 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 and prior to the
passage of EISA.122 LT tires represented
approximately 16.7 percent of the U.S.
replacement tire market in 2007.123
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. The
same would be true for other tires
excluded from the tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program
including original equipment tires, or
any other excluded tires. That is, while
these tires are not required to be rated
under today’s final rule, NHTSA has no
objection to voluntary rating by
manufacturers or importers, and would
include any tires voluntarily reported in
its database.
5. Each Different Stock Keeping Unit
Must Be Rated
As the agency proposed in the NPRM,
this final rule is requiring each different
stock keeping unit (SKU), or each size
within each model within each brand,
to be rated separately for fuel efficiency
(using a rolling resistance value), safety
(using a wet traction test value), and
durability (using a treadwear test value).
119 49

U.S.C. 32304A(a)(3).
Rack Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–
2008–0121–0026.1 at 2–3; ICCT Comments, Docket
No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0042.1 at 2; Public Citizen
et al. Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0121–
0043.1 at 4.
121 Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0026.1 at 2–3.
122 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 F 2493–
06 P225/60R16 97S Standard Reference Test Tire
(SRTT).
123 Rubber Manufacturers Association,
Preliminary 2008 Factbook, see https://
www.rma.org/publications/market_information/
index.cfm?CFID=23483353&CFTOKEN=70640000
(last accessed Sept. 26, 2009).
120 Tire

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

15911

As explained in the NPRM, tire
manufacturers may have different
brands, and within each brand different
tire models (or tire lines),124 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. Each of these

brands is available in different tire sizes,
for example a 185/65R14 or a 215/
70R15. See Figure 2.125 The model of
tire (Pilot) then may be available in
several performance levels. Figure 2
illustrates there are three 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 sizes 185/60R14 to 235/
40R17. Similarly, 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.

The NPRM also explained that in
passenger car tire sizes (e.g., 185/
65R14), the first three numbers indicate
the nominal width of the tire, i.e., the
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, or biasbelted construction, which is indicated

by a ‘‘B’’ in the size specification. Radial
ply construction of tires has been the
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.
Rolling resistance varies among tires
of the same size. 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.126 Rolling resistance can also
vary widely across different sized tires

in a brand. In data reported by the
California Energy Commission (CEC),
passenger car tires of the same brand
and model with different sizes ranged in
rolling resistance from 7.5 to 22.8
pounds.127 For these reasons, NHTSA is
requiring 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 wet traction test value), and
durability (using a UTQGS treadwear
test value). Consumers researching tires
should be able to compare tire models
and sizes with some reliability.
Research done for the CEC to evaluate
test facility capacity to conduct rolling
resistance testing indicated that there
are well over 20,000 different brand/

124 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.
125 Although this figure was in the NPRM, this
discussion is repeated here because the agency

believes a proper understanding of the replacement
tire market is key to the understanding of certain
requirements of the tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program.
126 See NHTSA Rolling Resistance Rating System
Test Development Project: Phase 1—Evaluation of

Laboratory Test Protocols (October 2008). Docket
No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0019.
127 To examine California’s rolling resistance test
data, please contact Ray Tuvell of the California
Energy Commission. See http://www.energy.ca.gov/
transportation/tire_efficiency/index.html (last
accessed Feb. 13, 2009).

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

ER30MR10.020

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

15912

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

model/size combinations (or SKUs) 128
of replacement passenger car tires sold
in the United States.129 The CEC
research also indicated that it could take
up to 2.7 years to test one tire of each
SKU once.130 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
estimate values by interpolating or
extrapolating test values for certain
SKUs from knowing the actual test
values of other SKUs). Tire
manufacturers have this same ability to
estimate UTQGS traction test values and
UTQGS treadwear test values by having
actual traction and treadwear test values
of other, similar tires of different SKUs.
For these reasons, NHTSA concludes, as
the agency did in the NPRM, that it is
not reasonable or necessary to require a
physically-tested value of rolling
resistance, traction, or treadwear test
value for every combination of tire
model, construction, and size (SKU).
NHTSA is not requiring tire
manufacturers to report a test procedure
value for rolling resistance, traction, and
treadwear for each different SKU, as
proposed in the NPRM. NHTSA
explained that a tire manufacturer
would be free to reasonably estimate the
test values it would report, and the
agency sought comment on this
approach.
Interpolation versus required testing:
RMA commented that it supports the
128 A 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 will 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 the
Regulatory Text section at the end of this notice.
129 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 was also posted to the NPRM
docket. See http://www.energy.ca.gov/
transportation/tire_efficiency/documents/
index.html (last accessed Sept. 28, 2009); Docket
No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0007.
130 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 82⁄3 years, or 2.7 years.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

ability for tire manufacturers to provide
predicted (interpolated) tire ratings.131
RMA stated that tire manufacturers
routinely develop and utilize accurate
computer models to predict tire
performance of tires not physically
tested, using proprietary information
about tire chemistry, design,
construction, and test data available for
similar tires. RMA commented that
permitting interpolation-based ratings
would allow a tire manufacturer to
efficiently rate affected tires while
minimizing costs. RMA recommended
that NHTSA modify the regulatory text
to make clear that interpolation is
acceptable as a basis for tire ratings.
NRDC, Ford, and Alan Meier each
expressed concern with NHTSA’s
proposal to allow manufacturers to
report a tire’s ratings without running a
test. NRDC commented that requiring
tire manufacturers to submit actual test
values would ensure that reported data
is accurate and not requiring actual
testing threatens to undermine the
rating system credibility and the
program’s effectiveness.132 Further,
NRDC stated that not specifying a limit
on the number of SKUs that can be
reported with estimated, non-tested
values would overburden NHTSA’s
compliance testing obligation, which
they call NHTSA’s only accurate
validation mechanism. Ford stated that
it did not support interpolating test
values from one tire to another because
of potential significant differences in
tire construction from one tire to
another, even within a tire line.133 Alan
Meier of the University of California,
Davis argued that requiring a direct
measurement of each tire is a vital
element of the program because a
measurement for each tire model is
essential for the credibility of any
information system.134 Mr. Meier also
stated that only if NHTSA could
substantiate and verify the idea that test
values can be accurately interpolated
should a simulation model be allowed.
Similarly, Consumers Union
commented that NHTSA should require
a standard statistical process and
corresponding sample size for verifying
that the assigned test value is
determined with sufficient significance
that no production tire will exceed the
maximum test value assigned.135
131 RMA Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0036.1 at 12.
132 NRDC Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0040.1 at 2, 4.
133 Ford Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0038.1 at 3.
134 Alan Meier Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–
2008–0121–0037.1 at 1–2.
135 Consumers Union Comments, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0034 at 2.

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Agency response: As an initial point,
as discussed in section VII.B.2 below,
NHTSA is not requiring tire
manufacturers to report test values to
the agency, but merely the actual ratings
it is assigning to each tire SKU. The
agency will continue to not require any
amount of actual testing in the
regulations for this rating program. First,
EISA does not require particular tests.
Second, as noted above, a tire
manufacturer has the ability to estimate
with relative accuracy the test values of
a tire with a given size specification if
it knows the test value of a tire in the
same model line. NHTSA agrees with
RMA’s understanding of the industry
that tire manufacturers routinely
develop and utilize accurate computer
models to predict tire performance of
tires not physically tested, using
information available for similar tires.
Additionally, the CEC research
discussed above indicates that requiring
testing of all tire SKUs would cause a
significant delay in the implementation
of this program and would increase the
cost burden of this regulatory program
on tire manufacturers unnecessarily.
Finally, not specifically requiring
testing is consistent with the
enforcement mechanism known as ‘‘self
certification,’’ which was established by
statute for Federal motor vehicle safety
standards,136 and is the process NHTSA
follows to ensure compliance with its
other programs and regulations as well.
Under self certification, the burden for
ensuring that all new vehicles and
equipment (e.g., tires) comply with
Federal regulations is borne by the
manufacturer. NHTSA does not perform
any pre-sale testing, approval, or
certification of vehicles or equipment,
whether of foreign or domestic
manufacture, before introduction into
the U.S. retail market. To ensure
compliance with agency regulations,
NHTSA randomly tests certified
vehicles or equipment (in accordance
with the test procedures laid out in the
regulations) to determine whether the
vehicles or equipment fails to comply
with applicable standards. For such
enforcement checks, NHTSA purchases
vehicles and equipment and tests
according to the procedures specified in
the standards. If the vehicle or
equipment passes the test, no further
action is taken. If the vehicle or
equipment fails, NHTSA has the
authority to request additional
information from the manufacturer on
the basis for certification and to assess
136 49

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

U.S.C. 30115.

30MRR3

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
civil penalties for any confirmed
violation.137
Neither EISA (nor other statutes
NHTSA administers) nor NHTSA
standards and regulations require that a
manufacturer base its certifications (or
ratings) on any particular tests, any
number of specified tests or, for that
matter, any tests at all. A manufacturer
is required to exercise due care in
certifying its tires. It is the responsibility
of the tire manufacturer to determine
initially what test results, computer
simulations, engineering analyses, or
other information it needs to enable it
to certify that its tires comply with
applicable Federal safety standards. The
enforcement of the UTQGS rating
system follows the same concept, and
the rating system established under the
tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program will do the same.
For instance, the UTQGS do not
require that manufacturers test their
tires at NHTSA’s test track at San
Angelo, Texas. Manufacturers may test
their tires where they choose, and may
even choose not to test their products at
all. However, the specification in the
UTQGS regulations that testing is done
at San Angelo means that NHTSA must
use that track in any compliance testing
of tires. In order to protect themselves
against the possibility that the agency
will find a noncompliance based on
testing at San Angelo and initiate an
enforcement action, it would be prudent
for tire manufacturers to base their
assigned grades on their own testing at
San Angelo or on some substitute means
whose results demonstrably correlate
with the results of testing at San Angelo.
Mr. Meier commented that there is
considerable evidence that identical
models and SKUs manufactured in
different facilities (or at different times)
will have significantly different rolling
resistances. For this reason, Mr. Meier
stated a clear and unambiguous audit
trail is needed to link a manufacturer’s
claimed values to tires that actually
exist. This is not necessary. Since
NHTSA conducts annual compliance
testing and could buy and test a tire at
any time to compare to the ratings a
manufacturer has reported to the
agency, tire manufacturers are
responsible for monitoring the
consistency and accuracy of its ratings
throughout the production run. It is in
the best interest of manufacturers, thus,
to establish a comprehensive quality
control program to periodically test tires
randomly selected to ensure the
137 See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 30165, 30166 (safety
standards); 49 U.S.C. 32308, 32309 (consumer
information); 49 U.S.C. 32507 (bumper standards);
49 U.S.C. 32706, 32709 (odometer fraud).

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

accuracy of the rating through the entire
production cycle.
Therefore, consistent with self
certification and in the spirit of other
NHTSA standards, 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. Because this is
the agency’s general practice, NHTSA
does not think it is necessary to make
this clear in the regulatory text, as
suggested by RMA. A tire manufacturer
will be responsible for the accuracy of
the ratings they report to NHTSA 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.
Manufacturers currently rate
treadwear by tire line: RMA commented
that since many manufacturers currently
rate tires for UTQGS treadwear by tire
line, it is difficult to assess how tires
would be rated for UTQGS treadwear
under the proposed SKU-based rating
system.138
Agency response: Tire manufacturers
will be able to use their judgment to
determine how many and which tires
they must test to enable them to
accurately assign ratings. The
manufacturer ultimately bears the
responsibility for establishing ratings
considering the variability of its tire line
and the variability of the testing process
for that category.
Notice: Lastly, RMA commented that it was
unable to understand the tire selection for
rating protocol due to an inconsistency
between the preamble and the proposed
regulatory text. RMA claimed it was unclear
as to whether NHTSA is proposing that each
SKU be rated, or whether each tire of a
different size is to be rated. RMA stated that
this inconsistency obstructed its ability to
comment on which tires are to be rated for
rolling resistance, and that this—along with
other alleged concerns—caused RMA to be
uncertain about what was being proposed or
NHTSA’s intent. Therefore RMA stated that
it was unable to meaningfully comment on
the NPRM and requested that NHTSA issue
a supplemental NPRM.

Agency response: As noted by RMA in
its comments, the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking
provisions require that general notice of
a proposed rule must be published in
the Federal Register and must include
138 RMA Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0036.1 at 11.

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

15913

‘‘either the terms or substance of the
proposed rule or a description of the
subjects and issues involved.’’ 139
NHTSA satisfied this APA requirement
in the NPRM.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit has
explained that the APA’s notice
requirements ‘‘are designed (1) to ensure
that agency regulations are tested via
exposure to diverse public comment, (2)
to ensure fairness to affected parties,
and (3) to give affected parties an
opportunity to develop evidence in the
record to support their objections to the
rule and thereby enhance the quality of
judicial review.’’ 140 Thus, adequate
notice and opportunity for comment
exists ‘‘if it affords interested parties a
reasonable opportunity to participate in
the rulemaking process, and if the
parties have not been deprived of the
opportunity to present relevant
information by lack of notice that the
issue was there.’’ 141 An agency NPRM
‘‘must provide sufficient detail and
rationale for the rule to permit
interested parties to comment
meaningfully.’’ 142
RMA commented that the
inconsistencies between the preamble
and the proposed regulatory text deny
RMA and other interested parties a
meaningful opportunity to comment
because it was difficult to understand
exactly what was being proposed.
NHTSA’s notice of proposed rulemaking
consisted of a lengthy preamble
discussion and proposed regulatory text.
Courts have found sufficient APA notice
where the NPRM was not entirely clear
on what was being proposed, but where
the NPRM at least discussed an issue
such that interested parties had reason
to comment on it.143 This is the case
here. RMA was on notice of the subject
and issues involved. It knew the
possible outcomes under discussions in
the preamble to the NPRM and under
the proposed regulation. It also knew
139 5

U.S.C. 553(b)(3).
Integrity Project v. EPA, 425
F.3d 992, 996 (DC Cir. 2005) (quoting Int’l Union,
United Mine Workers of Am. v. Mine Safety &
Health Admin., 407 F.3d 1250, 1259 (DC Cir.
2005)).
141 American Radio Relay League v. Federal
Communications Commission, 524 F.3d 227, 236
(DC Cir. 2008) (citing WJG Tel. Co., Inc. v. Federal
Communications Commission, 675 F.2d 386, 389
(DC Cir. 1982)).
142 Fertilizer Institute v. EPA, 935 F.2d 1303, 1311
(DC Cir. 1991) (quoting Florida Power & Light Co.
v. United States, 846 F.2d 765, 771 (DC Cir. 1988)).
143 See Nat’l Small Shipments Traffic Conference,
Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 618 F.2d 819, 833
(DC Cir. 1980) (finding sufficient notice where a
NPRM was not ‘‘a paragon of clarity’’ but the
preamble implied the prohibition that was
ultimately adopted in the final rule).
140 Environmental

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

15914

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

that a logical outgrowth of either was
possible.
RMA commented that contradictions
between the preamble and regulatory
text means that the final rule runs a risk
of not being a ‘‘logical outgrowth’’ of the
proposed rule. ‘‘A rule is deemed a
logical outgrowth if interested parties
‘should have anticipated’ that the
change was possible, and thus
reasonably should have filed their
comments on the subject during the
notice-and-comment period.’’ 144
NHTSA disagrees with RMA that
NHTSA’s requirement that each SKU
must be rated separately is not a ‘‘logical
outgrowth’’ of the NPRM merely because
the proposed regulatory text stated
something different, i.e., that ‘‘every size
designation must be rated
separately.’’ 145 The preamble discussed
at length why NHTSA was considering
it important to require each tire SKU to
be rated separately.146 Further, as
indicated above, many commenters had
something to say about this aspect of the
NPRM, which serves as evidence that
the rest of the interested public was
sufficiently aware of the possibility that
the agency may adopt such a
requirement. In fact, RMA commented
on this aspect of the proposal, even
though it asserted it was confused about
what NHTSA was actually proposing.147
Elsewhere, RMA commented that it
was unable to meaningfully comment
on all aspects of the proposed rule
because the proposed regulations were
inconsistent with the rulemaking’s
preamble and are, thus, not a logical
outgrowth of the preamble. With this
argument RMA misapplies the ‘‘logical
outgrowth’’ principle. As noted above,
courts have established the principle
that to satisfy the notice requirement
under the APA, a final rule must be a
‘‘logical outgrowth’’ of the agency
proposal. The proposal is not limited to
a particular part of the NPRM. As a
general matter, where RMA professes
confusion as to whether, for example,
option A or option B was proposed in
144 Miami-Dade County v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1049,
1059 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Northeast Md. Waste
Disposal Auth. v. EPA, 358 F.3d 936, 952 (DC Cir.
2004)) (quotation and citation omitted); see also
First Am. Discount Corp. v. Commodity Futures
Trading Comm’n, 222 F.3d 1008, 1015 (DC Cir.
2000) (explaining that notice must be ‘‘sufficient to
advise interested parties that comments directed to
the controverted aspect of the Final Rule should
have been made.’’) (quotation and citation omitted).
145 Tire Fuel Efficiency NPRM, supra note 9, at
29585.
146 Id. at 29553–29554.
147 RMA Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0036.1 at 11 (commenting that since many
manufacturers currently rate tires for UTQGS
treadwear by tire line, it is difficult to assess how
tires would be rated for UTQGS treadwear under
the proposed SKU-based rating system).

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

the NPRM, NHTSA has fully satisfied
the APA notice requirements because
even if the NPRM was ambiguous, both
options were presented for comment,
thus sufficiently apprising the public of
the possibility that the agency was
considering each option.148
B. Entities Subject to Requirements of
the Program
1. Tire Manufacturers
Ford commented that tire importers
and private label manufacturers were
not considered tire manufacturers under
the proposed requirements in the NPRM
but that they should be held to the same
requirements.149
Agency response: As noted in the
NPRM, which entities are considered
tire manufacturers for purposes of the
tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program is determined by
statute. EISA codified section 111 by
adding section 32304A to Chapter 323
(Consumer Information) of Part C
(Information, Standards, and
Requirements) of Subtitle VI (Motor
Vehicle and Driver Programs) of Title 49
of the United States Code (U.S.C.).
Section 32101 of Title 49 of the U.S.C.
contains the definitions that are to apply
to the Part C noted above. Section
32101(5) defines 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.’’ Thus, for
all sections under Part C, including
section 32304A, the importer of any tire
is a tire 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.
As to private label manufacturers,
NHTSA assumes that Ford is referring to
when tire manufacturers produce tires
under contract with private companies
148 In addition to the SKU/size designation
confusion, RMA alleged other inconsistencies
between the NPRM preamble and the proposed
regulatory text including the following: inconsistent
figures regarding fuel savings; NPRM is unclear
about what compliance approach is proposed in the
NPRM versus where comments are sought on
potential alternative approaches; confusion as to
whether NHTSA intends to allow tire
manufacturers to estimate values or whether
NHTSA intends to require the testing of all tires;
using the term fuel efficiency rating and RRF rating
interchangeably; and inconsistent and inadequate
use of terms (i.e., citing typos). RMA Comments
Appendix 3, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0121–
0036.4 at 46–50. This response is intended to
respond to all of those allegations of being unable
to meaningfully comment on the proposal.
149 Ford Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0038.1 at 2.

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

such as Sears, Pep Boys, Discount Tire,
etc. These private entities then sell
those tires under its house-brand trade
names, e.g., Sears brand tires, Pep Boys
brand tires, etc. NHTSA intended this
regulation to treat a tire brand name
owner as a manufacturer in the case of
tires marketed under a brand name
different from the manufacturer name.
This is clear in the regulation which
requires 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 those ratings to
NHTSA. In the final regulatory text,
NHTSA has added a definition of brand
name owner for clarity.
2. Tire Retailers
When confronted with the need to
replace the tires on their vehicles,
consumers may choose from national
Internet and mail order companies, tire
dealers, manufacturer outlets, or retail
department stores. Typically, the tires
bought in the replacement market are
balanced and mounted by the tire dealer
or retailer.150 NHTSA proposed 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.’’ 151 The
agency used this language because this
is how Part 575 of Title 49 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) refers to
the locations where tires are offered for
sale.152
The National Automobile Dealers
Association (NADA) commented that
this proposed definition is inconsistent
with references to tire retailer
requirements in 49 CFR Part 574, Tire
Identification and Recordkeeping, and
suggested that NHTSA reconcile the
terms and definitions used to address
tire dealers in Part 574 and the new
regulatory text.
Agency response: Although the
agency believes that the proposed
definition of tire retailer would
encompass franchised automobile and
truck dealers that sell tires, NHTSA
agrees with NADA’s suggestion. Part
574 requires tire retailers to distribute
and report information, just as this
regulation will. Accordingly, NHTSA
150 2006
151 Tire

NAS Report, supra note 4, at 21.
Fuel Efficiency NPRM, supra note 9, at

29585.
152 See 49 CFR 575.6(c).

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
believes that the definition of ‘‘tire
retailer’’ in the new regulations
promulgated today should be consistent
with that of Part 574. Thus, consistent
with Part 574, this final rule defines tire
retailer to mean a dealer or distributor
of new tires and adds the following
definitions of dealer and distributor:
Dealer means a person selling and
distributing new motor vehicles or
motor vehicle equipment primarily to
purchasers that in good faith purchase
the vehicles or equipment other than for
resale.
Distributor means a person primarily
selling and distributing motor vehicles
or motor vehicle equipment for resale.
As mentioned above, NATM
commented they did not believe
Congress intended to include
replacement tires sold for use on trailers
to be within the scope of the tire fuel
efficiency consumer information
program.153 NATM explained that some
of its trailer manufacturer, trailer dealer,
and trailer-parts distribution members
sell ‘‘P’’ tires to consumers for
replacement use on light-duty trailers,
particularly small utility trailers. NATM
believes that NHTSA’s proposed
definition of passenger car tire could be
read to include those replacement ‘‘P’’
tires sold by NATM members for use on
light-duty trailers. NATM stated that the
proposed tire retailer definition may be
read to encompass trailer retailers who
offer a tire for sale and have a legal
relationship with businesses defined in
the rule as replacement car tire
manufacturers, but that EISA does not
contemplate subjecting these trailer
retailers to the rule’s requirements.
Agency response: As explained above,
NHTSA concludes that all passenger car
tires, even those sold for use on other
vehicles, must have the information
provided by the tire manufacturer.
However, we agree that dealers that sell
passenger car tires only for use on
trailers should not be considered tire
retailers for this program, since EISA
did not mandate a tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program to
educate consumers about replacement
tires for trailers. Accordingly, NHTSA is
modifying the definition of tire retailer
as suggested by NATM to be in terms of
the purpose of the sale of the tire.
Today’s final rule defines tire retailer to
mean ‘‘a dealer or distributor of new
replacement passenger car tires sold for
use on passenger cars, multipurpose
passenger vehicles, and trucks, that
have a gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less.’’ A
retailer that sells tires only for use on
153 Docket

No. NHTSA–2008–0029.1.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

trailers would not be within this
definition.
C. EISA Does Not Give NHTSA
Authority To Establish a Rolling
Resistance Performance Standard for
Replacement Passenger Car Tires
A few commenters urged NHTSA to
consider establishing a maximum
rolling resistance standard that would
prohibit sale of the worst rolling
resistance tires.154 The European Union
has adopted a maximum rolling
resistance standard and California’s fuel
efficient tire program requires that the
CEC consider whether to adopt
standards for replacement tires to
ensure that replacement tires are at least
as energy efficient as original equipment
tires.155 As estimated by ExxonMobil,
the reduction in the average rolling
resistance of replacement tires that
would result from such a maximum
rolling resistance standard would
increase on-road fuel economy obtained
in motor vehicles and, thus, result in
fuel savings (and GHG reductions).156
Agency response: Such a standard is
not within the scope of the new
authority granted to NHTSA under
EISA. EISA mandates NHTSA must
‘‘promulgate rules establishing a
national tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program for replacement
tires * * * to educate consumers about
the effect of tires on automobile fuel
efficiency, safety, and durability.’’ 157
NHTSA cannot interpret the mandate to
establish a consumer information
program as providing it with the
authority to regulate the fuel efficiency
of replacement tires.
IV. Rolling Resistance Test Procedure
A. Test Procedure
As in the NPRM, today’s final rule
specifies that tire manufacturers must
rate the fuel efficiency of their tires. To
test for compliance with this
requirement, NHTSA will use rolling
resistance force measurements that
would be achieved using the recently
finalized test procedure ISO
28580:2009(E), Passenger car, truck and
154 Public Citizen et al. Comments, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0043.1 at 11; ExxonMobil
Chemical Company Comments, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0044.1 at 10; Michelin North
America Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0043.1 at 6.
155 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 25772.
156 Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0044.1 at 10.
157 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(1). EISA states what that
rulemaking must include: (1) A tire fuel efficiency
rating system for replacement tires; (2) requirements
for providing information to consumers; (3)
specifications for test methods for manufacturers to
use in assessing and rating tires; and (4) a tire
maintenance consumer education program. Id. at
32304A(a)(2).

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

15915

bus tyres—Methods of measuring rolling
resistance—Single point test and
correlation of measurement results.158
Today’s final regulations further specify
that NHTSA will conduct the ISO 28580
test procedure using certain
methodology and equipment options
available in the test procedure as further
discussed below.
As explained above, rolling resistance
is simply the manifestation of all of the
energy losses associated with the rolling
of a tire under load.159 Accordingly, in
a laboratory, rolling resistance is
measured by running a tire under load
on a test wheel (referred to as
‘‘roadwheel’’). At constant speed, the
energy consumed by the rolling tire is
directly proportional to the reaction
forces in the form of torque on the
roadwheel, or force on the axle. These
forces are then used to calculate the
forces at the tire-roadwheel interface.
The less force, the less energy converted
to heat and, thus, the more fuel efficient
the tire.
As discussed in the NPRM, NHTSA
examined five test methods to measure
rolling resistance of light vehicle tires
(Phase 1 Research).160 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
detail in the NPRM, agency research
shows that all of the available test
procedures could meet these
requirements. Among these, the ISO
28580 test procedure is one of the
preferred test procedures because,
unlike some others, it evaluates a tire’s
rolling resistance at a single
combination of load, pressure, and
speed (i.e., a single-point test method).
A single-point test method is sufficient
for rating tires against each other yet is
less costly to conduct than a multi-point
test method. For additional detail on
NHTSA’s Phase 1 Research and
background on the test equipment and
methodologies used to measure rolling
resistance, see the NPRM.161
The ISO 28580 test procedure is also
unique because it specifies a procedure
158 See http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/
catalogue_tc/catalogue_
detail.htm?csnumber=44770 (last accessed Sept. 24,
2009).
159 National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, The Pneumatic Tire, DOT HS 810
561, at 483 (February 2006).
160 See NHTSA Rolling Resistance Rating System
Test Development Project: Phase 1—Evaluation of
Laboratory Test Protocols (October 2008). Docket
No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0019.
161 Tire Fuel Efficiency NPRM, supra note 9, at
29555–29559.

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

15916

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

to correlate results between different
test equipment (i.e., different rolling
resistance test machines), which our
research shows is a significant source of
variation. Because other established test
methods lack such a procedure, NHTSA
would need to develop a new procedure
to address this variation before any of
those test methods could be required.162
As mentioned above, EISA mandates
that this rulemaking include
‘‘specifications for test methods for
manufacturers to use in assessing and
rating tires to avoid variation among test
equipment and manufacturers.’’ 163
Further, the ISO 28580 test procedure is
the specified test method in the
proposed European Union Directive and
the California draft staff regulation,
allowing manufacturers to do one test to
determine ratings for both proposed
regulations.
NHTSA’s proposed regulations
included the specification of only two of
four energy loss measurement methods,
as well as the use of a 1.7-meter indoor
roadwheel with a grit surface, as
opposed to a bare steel roadwheel. All
four force measurement methods are
permitted under ISO 28580, as is testing
on roadwheels with diameters greater
than 1.7 meters using either roadwheel
surface.
Many commenters misinterpreted the
specification of two particular methods
by NHTSA, the roadwheel diameter,
and the specification of the grit surface
as indication that we were proposing to
prohibit the other options allowed
under ISO 28580. These commenters
stated that they support ‘‘full adoption’’
of the ISO 28580 test procedure.164 This
indicates a misunderstanding of the
purpose of NHTSA’s regulations and of
NHTSA’s enforcement mechanism
generally. The procedures specified in
NHTSA’s standards and regulations
specify the precise procedures NHTSA
will follow when conducting
enforcement checks. As explained above
in section III.A.5, this enforcement
162 Since there was development and validation
of the ISO 28580 lab alignment procedure, NHTSA
believes that using ISO 28580 with its lab alignment
procedure is preferable to developing a new lab
alignment process from scratch. See Transcript of
Staff Workshop Before the California Energy
Resources Conservation and Development
Commission, at 104 (April 2009), available at
http://energy.ca.gov/transportation/tire_efficiency/
documents/2009-04-08_workshop/2009-04-08_
TRANSCRIPT.PDF (last accessed Nov. 11, 2009).
163 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(2)(C).
164 Tire Rack Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–
2008–0121–0026.1 at 1; European Commission
Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0028.1
at 2; JATMA Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0031.1 at 2–3; Consumers Union Comments,
Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0034 at 2; RMA
Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0036.1
at 8–9; Michelin Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–
2008–0121–0048.1 at 2–3.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

approach does not require that a
manufacturer base its certifications (or
ratings) on any particular tests, any
number of specified tests or, for that
matter, any tests at all. A manufacturer
is only required to exercise due care in
certifying its tires. It is the responsibility
of the tire manufacturer to determine
initially what test results, computer
simulations, engineering analyses, or
other information it needs to enable it
to certify that its tires comply with
applicable Federal standards.
NHTSA has selected specific sections
of ISO 28580 to allow compliance
testing in the United States on existing
independent laboratory equipment.
Also, specifying the equipment and
variant of testing NHTSA will use for
compliance testing provides users of
other equipment or variants of testing
with a better known target for
comparison of their testing. Therefore
adopting only part of the specification
does not hinder companies from using
‘‘in-house’’ equipment of another design
that meets the ISO 28580 specification.
ISO 28580 has more provisions
available for testing based on worldwide
equipment availability and therefore has
set specifications and procedures to
permit using all the different types of
equipment and test variants. NHTSA,
therefore, agrees with commenters who
call for full adoption of ISO 28580 as a
global test procedure. Equipment and
test variants once aligned using the
provisions in ISO 28580 can be
compared. Therefore correlations can be
established by the users of the other
types of equipment to the type of
equipment and test variants used by
NHTSA.
For example, NHTSA agrees with the
comment that both the bare steel
roadwheel and 80 grit surface are
scientifically equivalent.165 As
alignment and correlation procedures
are available in ISO 28580 testing on
bare versus the grit, force measurements
can be corrected to report the same.
NHTSA suggested grit as the surface for
compliance testing so that companies
would know exactly what they need to
compare their result against. Companies
testing on a bare roadwheel can develop
correlations to adjust the numbers they
report. The agency is specifying the use
of an 80-grit surface on the roadwheel
used in its compliance testing, instead
of a bare steel roadwheel. The grit
surface is the most common surface
165 However, ISO 28580 indicates that the skim
test reading accuracy can be improved by use of a
‘‘textured’’ (i.e., grit) roadwheel surface. See ISO
28580:2009(E), Passenger car, truck and bus tyres—
Methods of measuring rolling resistance—Single
point test and correlation of measurement results,
section 5.1.2, Surface.

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

used in the laboratories available to
NHTSA. 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. However, there was some
evidence of potential problems for
smooth steel-surfaced roadwheels in
NHTSA Phase 1 testing.166 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. Since the discrepancy in
results between a smooth and steel
roadwheel could lead to rating
compliance disputes, today’s final rule
specifies the use of the grit surface since
it was found to be more repeatable and
is the most common surface in the
laboratories available to NHTSA.
Similarly, test equipment available in
the United States at this time for
compliance testing is limited to 1.7meter rolling resistance test machines
that use the force or torque
measurement method. ISO 28580 has
configured the alignment and
correlation processes to take into
account differences in roadwheel size
and measurement methods. As
alignment and correlation procedures
are available, testing on a 2.0-meter
roadwheel, or with the power or
deceleration measurement methods, can
be corrected to report the same values
as measured using the force or torque
methods on a 1.7-meter roadwheel.
NHTSA suggested force or torque for
compliance testing so that companies
would know exactly what they need to
compare and correlate the result against.
With the machine tolerance, calibration,
and alignment procedures specified in
ISO 28580, NHTSA has confidence that
correlations can be made with the
power and deceleration methods.
Commenters generally supported
adoption of the ISO 28580 test
procedure.167 However, MTS, a tire test
equipment manufacturer, questioned a
single-point test (as opposed to a multipoint test) 168 and the use of a curved
166 We note that these wheels did not have the
micro-texture required by ISO 28580 for steelsurfaced roadwheels.
167 See id.
168 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 even a
different number of test points in the set of
conditions. The goal of multi-point 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.

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

test surface. As for ISO 28580 being a
single point test, MTS commented that
a single reading for one tire is a small
sample size and there is no
corroborating data to provide assurance
the test value is truly representative of
the tire.169 As RMA pointed out and as
NHTSA explained in the NPRM,
research conducted by both NHTSA and
the CEC show that both single point and
multi point tests can accurately produce
tire rolling resistance data and that tires
tested using either type of test
procedure rank order the same for those
conditions. Equations were derived to
accurately convert data from any one
test to the expected data from any other
test at a single load and pressure.
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 16-inch Standard Reference
Test Tire (SRTT), the ASTM F 2493.170
Single-point tests are less expensive and
shorter than multi-point test methods.
Additionally, with single-point tests,
data from any method can be correlated
to data from any other method.
Accordingly, NHTSA still believes that
a single-point, rather than a multi-point,
test will better serve the purposes of this
program.171
As for the use of a curved test surface,
MTS questions the use of 1.7 and 2.0meter test wheel machines for the ISO
28580, as opposed to their flat surface
test machine because of curvature
effects that result from using a curved
surface to measure rolling resistance.
MTS states that rolling resistance
measurements made on flat surface test
equipment would be more accurate
measurements because flat surface test
equipment more closely resembles
actual usage conditions.172 NHTSA
agrees that a more accurate
measurement of rolling resistance force
could be made using flat surface test
equipment. NHTSA could not evaluate
flat surface rolling resistance equipment
during the research and testing as none
were available in independent
laboratories. Thus, NHTSA believes that
the industry as a whole does not have
the capacity to rate tires on a flat
laboratory machine at this point in time.
These conditions are designed to be near the
average conditions that a tire would see in its
intended service.
169 MTS Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0027.1 at 2.
170 See NHTSA Rolling Resistance Rating System
Test Development Project: Phase 1—Evaluation of
Laboratory Test Protocols (October 2008). Docket
No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0019.
171 Tire Fuel Efficiency NPRM, supra note 9, at
29558.
172 MTS Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0027.1 at 6–9.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

ISO 28580 was developed by industry
experts and does have provisions for
conversion from flat to the 2.0-meter
curved reference surface.173 However
MTS itself questions these conversion
equations. Therefore NHTSA suggested
1.7-meter as the surface for compliance
testing so that companies would know
exactly what they need to compare their
result against.
MTS also questioned the use and
meaning of capped inflation pressure.
As explained in the NPRM, NHTSA
Phase 1 Research examined differences
resulting from the method of inflation
maintenance, specifically whether
inflation pressure was capped 174 or
regulated.175 The Phase 1 Research
showed that 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. The use and definition of
‘‘capped air’’ is defined in ISO 28580 as
follows: ‘‘The test consists of a
measurement of rolling resistance in
which the tire is inflated and the
inflation pressure allowed to build up
(i.e., ‘‘capped air’’).’’ The purpose is to
evaluate the tire and its reaction to
flexing and running in the same
environment as other tires as if they are
on the highway.
One change that NHTSA is adding to
its test procedure specified in the
regulation, is that the agency must
specify a break-in procedure for bias ply
tires, since these tires are included
within the scope of the tire fuel
efficiency consumer information
program.176 Older tire rolling resistance
standards contain an option for an
addition break-in for tires that ‘‘undergo
173 The Clark equation to correct for the effect of
diameter is an accepted approximation. Deviations
from total accuracy for correction to a flat surface
are introduced by differences in tire construction
such as aspect ratio and stiffness of the tire
construction, especially sidewalls.
174 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.
175 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.
176 In tire size terminology, bias ply construction
is indicated by a ‘‘D’’ in the size specification, as
opposed to an ‘‘R’’ in a tire size specification, which
indicates that a particular tire is a radial tire. Radial
ply construction of tires has been the industry
standard for the past 20 years.

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

15917

significant permanent change in their
dimensions or material properties with
first dynamometer test operation,’’ (SAE
J1269/SAE J2452) which the agency
interprets to apply to bias-ply or beltedbias tires. Modern radial tire designs,
which constitute over 99 percent of the
current replacement passenger tire
market, have sufficient dimensionally
stability to not require the optional
break-in.177 The greater dimensional
stability of radial tires is a result of their
construction with inextensible belts.
Similarly, bias-belted tires are
dimensionally stable due to their
construction with inextensible belts.
The body ply materials have been
improved to enhance the overall
dimensional stability of tires. Therefore,
the dimensional stability of biasconstruction tires depends upon the
body-ply fabric used in their
construction. Nonetheless, the agency
must establish provisions for biasconstruction tires that may use less
dimensionally stable fabric technologies
since bias ply tires are covered under
the scope of the tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program.
The break-in procedure we are
specifying for bias ply tires is one that
is found in FMVSS No. 109, New
Pneumatic and Certain Specialty Tires,
and FMVSS No. 139, New Pneumatic
Tires for Light Vehicles.178 However, we
are specifying that the roadwheel breakin need only be for one hour, as
opposed to two hours as in FMVSS Nos.
109 and 139, because one hour is found
to be generally sufficient to achieve
initial break-in and achieve thermal
stabilization.179 We do not believe that
ISO 28580 was developed with bias ply
tires in mind. Radial ply construction of
tires has been the industry standard for
the past 20 years. However, bias ply
tires do still exist and are included
within the statutorily defined scope of
the tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program. Therefore, the
agency’s test procedure must specify
how we would test bias ply tires.
B. Lab Alignment Procedure
As discussed in the NPRM, some of
the technical challenges involved in
selection of a test procedure to measure
rolling resistance include specifying a
test method that avoids variation among
laboratories/machines. NHTSA’s Phase
1 Research evaluation indicated that all
177 See National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, The Pneumatic Tire, DOT HS 810
561, at 80 (February 2006).
178 See 49 CFR 571.109, S5.5.1, S5.5.2, S5.5.3; 49
CFR 571.139, S6.2.1.2.
179 See National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, The Pneumatic Tire, DOT HS 810
561, at 500 (February 2006).

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

15918

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

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.180 There was a significant and
consistent difference in the data
generated by the two laboratories/
machines used in NHTSA’s Phase 1
Research. Therefore, development of a
method to account for lab-to-lab
variability is required.
One significant difference between
ISO 28580 and the other test methods is
that ISO 28580 includes a procedure
which uses two reference tires to
correlate any laboratory/machine to a
reference rolling resistance test machine
(‘‘Reference Machine’’). NHTSA’s
research showed a significant difference
between the two laboratories’ machines
used, and therefore addressing this
variation is a significant advantage for
the ISO standard. Use of any other
rolling resistance test procedure would
have required NHTSA to develop its
own procedure to address lab-to-lab
variation, which would also necessitate
the specification of a reference rolling
resistance test machine.
Reference machine: As commenters
points out, under ISO 28580, use of the
lab alignment procedure requires the
specification of a ‘‘Reference Machine’’
against which other machines will align
their measurement results.
Because the ISO has not yet specified
a Reference Machine for the ISO 28580
test procedure, NHTSA must specify
this machine so that tire manufacturers
know which test machine they must
correlate their test results against. In the
near future NHTSA will announce one
or more private laboratories to operate
the Reference Machine.181 The selected
reference laboratory or laboratories will
meet the conditions for a reference
machine specified in ISO 28580, and
may be required to meet other
180 For this program, each manufacturer will ‘‘selfcertify’’ the ratings for its tires. The test procedure
specified in this proposal is what NHTSA will use
for compliance testing. 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.
181 It is not the intent of NHTSA to unilaterally
establish the reference machine for ISO or other
global regions. Rather, the agency must define a
‘‘regional’’ reference machine for the tire fuel
efficiency consumer information program that is
independent of entities we regulate and is
accessible to the agency by standard contractual
mechanisms. This will allow reporting under the
program and agency compliance testing that meet
the requirements of EISA. It is our understanding
that the output of a given ‘‘candidate’’ machine can
be corrected using different correlation equations
and therefore different entities/rating systems could
also designate their own reference machines.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

conditions specified by NHTSA.182 The
agency is working expeditiously to
establish and implement procedures for
the selection of a reference laboratory or
laboratories to operate the Reference
Machine(s).183
In order for other test machines to
align with the reference laboratory or
laboratories, the reference laboratory
will test two alignment tires in
accordance with ISO 28580 test
procedures, and convey the tires to the
testing laboratory with the data
produced during the testing of those
tires. The specification of specific
alignment tires is discussed
immediately below.
Alignment tires: Under the ISO 28580
lab alignment procedure, laboratories
seeking to correlate its machines’ results
with the Reference Machine would use
sets of two alignment tire models, for
which ISO 28580 also specifies
requirements, as discussed below.184
These alignment tires (‘‘Lab Alignment
Tires,’’ or LATs) are used to align other
‘‘candidate’’ machines with the
Reference Machine by comparing the
measured rolling resistance results for
those tires measured on the candidate
machine to their stated values measured
on the Reference Machine. An
alignment formula is then established
and is used to translate the results
obtained on a candidate machine into
results aligned with the Reference
Machine. Since the requirements for
LATs are specified in ISO 28580, but
specific sizes or models of LATs are not
specifically identified, NHTSA must
specify which LATs tire manufacturers
should use to align other rolling
resistance machines to the Reference
Machine.
The agency has been aware that ISO
has been working to certify two
passenger car alignment tire models,
and when completed, the identity and a
source for procurement by interested
rolling resistance laboratories would be
promulgated in a technical report to ISO
182 See ISO 28580:2009(E), Passenger car, truck
and bus tyres—Methods of measuring rolling
resistance—Single point test and correlation of
measurement results, section 10.2, Conditions for
reference machine.
183 If NHTSA selects more than one private
laboratory to operate the ‘‘Reference Machine,’’ the
agency would work with those laboratories to
implement a program that would establish initial
correlations between the machines, and that would
continuously monitor the variability in the
correlation between the two machines.
184 See ISO 28580:2009(E), Passenger car, truck
and bus tyres—Methods of measuring rolling
resistance—Single point test and correlation of
measurement results, section 10.4, Alignment tyre
requirements. In the ISO 28580 test procedure,
rolling resistance test machines other than the
Reference Lab machine are referred to as ‘‘candidate
machines.’’

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

28580. In its NPRM comments, RMA
noted that tires that qualify as LATs
under ISO 28580 would be available by
the end of 2009. However, in January
2010, the ISO Technical Committee 31
Working Group 6 Convenor notified
NHTSA and other interested parties by
memo of the identity and source for the
tires that it intends to certify as LATs
under ISO 28580, but that its official
promulgation by technical report has
been delayed until June 2010.185
Since specifications and source of
supply for these LATs has not yet been
officially promulgated by ISO, NHTSA
will postpone the specification of LATs
to a later date. NHTSA will address
available LAT options in the
forthcoming supplemental NPRM
relating to the consumer information
requirements and consumer education
portions of the program.
During the development of this final
rule, NHTSA did consider the option of
specifying existing reference tires as
LATs for purposes of NHTSA’s tire fuel
efficiency consumer information
program. However, the agency
determined that specifying existing
reference tires as LATs was not the
optimal approach. NHTSA examined
three established and widely available
ASTM reference tires, as shown in Table
2.186 These reference tires are widely
used for monitoring a wide variety of
tire performance measurements, but the
agency has no knowledge of them
having been used as a standard or
reference tire for tire rolling resistance
testing.
As noted above, ISO 28580 specifies
requirements for LATs in section 10.4,
Alignment tyre requirements. These
specifications are as follows:
(1) RRC values of the two LATs must
have a minimum range of 3 Newtons per
Kilonewton (N/kN).
(2) The LAT section width 187 should
be less than or equal to 245 millimeters
(mm).
(3) The LAT outer diameter should be
between 510 mm and 800 mm.
(4) Load index values of the two LATs
should adequately cover the range for
the tires to be tested, ensuring that the
185 This memo will be placed in the final rule
docket.
186 Reference tires are specially designed and
built to American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) standards to have particularly narrow
limits of variability. For instance, the designation ‘‘F
2493’’ refers to the standard specification of
materials and construction practices codified by
ASTM as suitable for control tires for scientific
experimentation.
187 A tire’s section width (the measurement in
millimeters from the widest point of a tire’s outer
sidewall to the widest point of its inner sidewall)
is indicated by the first three numbers of a tire’s
size designation.

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

15919

RRF values of the LATs also cover the
range for the tires to be tested.

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

TABLE 2—ASTM REFERENCE TIRES
Tire

ASTM E 501

ASTM E 1136

ASTM F 2493

Tire description

G78 15 Bias/belted grooved tire
used for traction monitoring

P195/75R14 for monitoring performance including treadwear,
and snow traction

P225/60R16 ‘‘modern’’ radial tire
proposed for performance monitoring

Section width .................................
Outer diameter ...............................
Load Index .....................................
RRF, lbf ..........................................
RRC, N/kN .....................................

212 mm .........................................
648 mm .........................................
Unknown188 ..................................
19 ..................................................
14.8 ...............................................

196 mm .........................................
648 mm .........................................
92 ..................................................
11 ..................................................
9.8 .................................................

widely available in the near future. The
agency believes this will occur on a
timeline that will allow NHTSA to
address available LAT options in the
forthcoming supplemental NPRM
relating to the consumer information
requirements and consumer education
portions of the program, and the agency
will do so at that time.

All three ASTM reference tires satisfy
the above ISO 28580 LAT specifications
for section width and outer diameter. As
for the first and fourth specifications
above, the RRF values of the ASTM E
501 and ASTM E 1136 tires cover the
middle portion of the range of RRF
values of the tires to be rated under this
program, and their load index values are
similar, both of which seem to run
contrary to the intent of the fourth ISO
28580 alignment tire criterion listed
above.
Additionally, the properties that are
specified and reportedly tightly
controlled in the three ASTM reference
tires are meant to provide repeatable
results in traction, treadwear, and like
tests. This does not necessarily assure
that the tires will have good
repeatability for rolling resistance,
which is not explicitly controlled for in
their specifications and is a product of
many different facets of a tire’s design
and construction. Therefore, the agency
is investigating how tightly specified
and controlled the rolling resistance
properties are in the proposed ISO
Alignment Rolling Resistance Reference
Tire (ARRRT) models (LATs), which the
agency will confirm with independent
testing. For these reasons, in the
agency’s expert judgment, it is
preferable to postpone the specification
of LATs under the tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program, in the
hopes that ISO finalizes the
specification of rolling resistance
alignment tires in the anticipated
timeframe, rather than specifying a pair
of existing reference tires that were not
developed specifically to be rolling
resistance LATs.
As indicated above, reference tires
specifically designed for use as rolling
resistance LATs are expected to be

V. 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.189 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. In the
NPRM, NHTSA proposed to base the
tire fuel efficiency rating on the RRF
metric. NHTSA had tentatively
concluded that a rating based on RRF is
more descriptive and would provide
more information to consumers, than a
rating based on RRC.
Tire Rack and ExxonMobil
commented that RRF is the appropriate
metric since it directly relates to the
tire’s contribution to vehicle fuel
consumption.190 Tire Rack commented
that RRF is the most intuitive value
available to educate consumers about
the influence tires have on vehicle fuel
consumption because tire RRF is

188 This tire is not rated by Load Index, however
the maximum sidewall load of 1620 pounds is
similar to a 97 Load Index.
189 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.
190 Tire Rack Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–
2008–0121–0026.1 at 1; ExxonMobil Chemical
Company Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0044.1 at 2, 9.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

228 mm.
676 mm.
97.
12.
9.3.

directly related to the energy required to
maintain a vehicle in motion and offers
a scale that can be applied to all tires
within the rulemaking’s scope.
Michelin, although it expressed support
for RRC, stated that NHTSA was correct
that RRF is more directly related to fuel
consumption.191 Consumers Union
expressed support for using RRF as the
fuel efficiency rating metric and
commented that RRF is appropriate for
comparing tires of the same size, load
index, and speed rating designation.192
Consumers Union also pointed out that
it is the metric that is consistent with
California’s proposed regulations.
ExxonMobil explained that because RRC
is RRF divided by the test load
(generally 80 percent of the maximum
load rating for the tire), RRCs can only
be compared within a single load rating/
tire size. ExxonMobil further noted that
since larger tires generate more rolling
resistance and have greater test loads,
the resulting RRCs for those tires can
sometimes be lower than those of
smaller tires (i.e., they would get a
higher fuel efficiency rating than the
small tire in a rating system based on
RRC).193
MTS, the European Commission,
JATMA, RMA, NRDC, GM, and
Michelin supported basing the fuel
efficiency rating on RRC. RMA,
Michelin, and GM commented that they
support basing a rolling resistance rating
on RRC because using RRF will cause
the ratings for tires available to a
consumer (i.e., those of the same size) to
be clustered. They state that because
RRF is an absolute rating, ratings for
small tires will be clustered around high
ratings, ratings for large tires will be
191 Michelin Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–
2008–0121–0048.1 at 4.
192 Consumers Union Comments, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0034 at 2.
193 ExxonMobil Chemical Company Comments,
Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0044.1 at 2, 9.

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

15920

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

clustered around low ratings.194 These
commenters stated that consumers may
be discouraged to find no highly-rated
tires for large vehicles. They contend
that RRC would spread out all ratings
for tires available to a single consumer
so that they would be able to get a top
rated tire.
MTS and Michelin commented that a
fuel efficiency rating system based on
RRF yields an artificial advantage for
the lower load index tire.195 These
commenters noted that RRF will tend to
rank tires with less load capacity higher
than tires with high load capacity and
that a RRC-based rating would rank tires
by the relative technology applied to the
tire to reduce rolling resistance. These
commenters stated that this is because
RRF is dependent on the load capacity
of the tire, and RRC is independent from
tire load carrying capacity or the size of
the tire.196
Commenters in support of RRC
additionally noted that RRC is the
metric that the European system bases
its tire fuel efficiency rating system
on,197 and Michelin and GM stated that
RRC is the industry standard for
measurement of rolling resistance. The
European Commission and JATMA
supported RRC because they stated RRC
is more appropriate to compare tires of
different size and load indexes.198
NRDC commented that the fact that
larger tires will have lower ratings may
discourage consumers from seeking fuel
efficient tires for those vehicles.199
Some commenters also stated that a
rating based on RRF will encourage
people to undersize, or purchase tires
with too low of a load index.200
Agency response: Based on the large
number of comments received on this
issue, and to retain flexibility to use
what the agency learns about consumer

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

194 RMA

Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0036.1 at 3; GM Comments, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0046.1 at 3–4; Michelin
Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0048.1
at 3–4.
195 MTS Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0027.1 at 2–3; Michelin Comments, Docket
No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0048.1 at 5–6.
196 See id.; GM Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–
2008–0121–0046.1 at 3–4.
197 MTS Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0027.1 at 2–3.
198 European Commission Comments, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0028.1 at 3; JATMA
Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0031.1
at 1.
199 NRDC Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0040.1 at 6–10.
200 MTS Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0027.1 at 2–3; RMA Comments, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0036.1 at 4; RMA Comments,
Appendix 6, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0121–
0036.7 at 24–25; GM Comments, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0046.1 at 3; Michelin
Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0048.1
at 5.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

comprehension from the future
consumer research, NHTSA will defer a
decision on which rolling resistance
metric should be used for the fuel
efficiency rating and consider that
matter further in the future
supplemental NPRM and final rule that
will finalize the consumer information
and education portions of the program.
However, to aid in guiding further
discussion, in the FRIA we have
analyzed some of the issues addressed
by commenters relating to basing a fuel
efficiency rating on RRF versus RRC.201
VI. Rating System
A. What Information Will the Rating
System Convey to Consumers?
1. Fuel Efficiency
As explained above in section II.A,
the national tire fuel efficiency rating
system will 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. No
commenter challenged these statements
in the NPRM and no commenter
suggested an alternate method by which
to directly compare the fuel efficiency of
replacement tires. Therefore, NHTSA
still plans on basing the fuel efficiency
rating of a given replacement passenger
car tire on the rolling resistance force
test value measured using the ISO 28580
test procedure. The form of the rating
and how it will be communicated to
consumers will be determined in the
near future in the rulemaking to finalize
the content of the required tire fuel
efficiency consumer information
program label.
2. Safety
i. Potential Safety Consequences
As noted in the NPRM, there is 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 could be 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
201 See FRIA, section IV. The companion Final
Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA) to this final rule
provides an analysis on the potential economic
impacts of this consumer information program and
is available in the docket for this final rule.

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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.202 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.
Commenters to the NPRM confirmed
that a tradeoff in traction or treadwear
need not occur to achieve higher fuel
efficiency for a given tire.203
By providing information on all three
parameters, a consumer could factor any
possible tradeoffs between rolling
resistance, traction, and treadwear, and/
or cost differences between tires. That
is, with all three ratings, a consumer
could see whether they were opting for
a decrease in traction and treadwear to
gain improved fuel efficiency.
Advocates agreed that because tire
design and manufacture involve an
interdependent relationship between
fuel efficiency and durability on the one
hand, and tire safety, adhesion to the
roadway or traction, on the other, it is
vitally important that safety information
also be communicated to the public as
part of any tire consumer information
program.204
Technical literature extensively
indicates that the tradeoff between fuel
economy and safety performance can be
significantly reduced 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 new
technologies, such as silica treads, will
vary between 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.
Therefore, NHTSA is concerned about
the potential negative safety
consequences that may occur if
202 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). Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0035.
203 Michelin Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–
2008–0121–0048.1 at 8, NRDC Comments, Docket
No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0040.1 at 7; see also
California Energy Commission, California State
Fuel-Efficient Tire Report: Volume II, 1 (2003),
Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0010.
204 Advocates Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–
2008–0121–0049.1 at 1–2.

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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.
Also, as was detailed in the 2006 NAS
Report, manufacturers can generate an
improvement in a conventional tire
tread by reducing initial tread depth.205
However, the committee determined
that due to the economics, ‘‘reductions
in tread depth and other measures to
reduce rolling resistance that have
significant impacts on tire wear life
could be unwise and may be
unacceptable.’’ 206 Regarding safety
implications, the committee ultimately
concluded: ‘‘Discerning the safety
implications of small changes in tire
traction characteristics associated with
tread modifications to reduce rolling
resistance may not be practical or even
possible. The committee could not find
safety studies or vehicle crash data that
provide insight into the safety impacts
associated with large changes in traction
capability, much less the smaller
changes that may occur from modifying
the tread to reduce rolling
resistance.’’ 207 ‘‘As tread depth is
reduced due to tire wear, reductions in
driving and braking forces occur in wet,
snow and muddy conditions compared
to dry road performance. The critical
speed for the onset of hydroplaning on
rain covered highways is similarly
lowered with increasing tire wear due to
the reduced drainage capacity of the
grooves, sipes (kerfs), and slots in the
tread design.’’ 208 Results from a 2006
survey by the RMA of more than 14,000
scrap tires showed that, excluding the
first year of service, 59 percent of tires
were replaced due to wear out (had
tread at or below wear indicators).209
Therefore, the study suggests that a large
percentage of consumers use tread wear
indicators to signal the need for tire
replacement. However, the agency is

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

205 2006

NAS Report, supra note 4, at 74.
206 Id. at 93.
207 Id. at 3.
208 National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, The Pneumatic Tire, DOT HS 810
561, at 657 (February 2006).
209 See Rubber Manufacturers Association News
Release, Tire Industry Study: Chronological Age
Alone Does Not Determine When Tires Are
Removed From Service (May 23, 2006), available at
http://www.betiresmart.org/newsroom/
release.cfm?ID=185 (last accessed March 11, 2010).

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

aware that some consumers may have
expectations of achieving a certain
number of miles or years of use for a
given set of tires, and starting with less
initial tread depth could result in some
increase in the operation of tires at or
below recommended removal depths. In
those cases, consumers may fail to
perceive that the reductions in the
treadwear grade from reducing initial
tread depth can result in less safety.
Therefore, the new FMVSS No. 139
continues to require treadwear
indicators to be molded into the tread of
a light vehicle tire to allow a person
visually inspecting the tire to determine
that it has worn to 1⁄16″ (2⁄32″).
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 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 the 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.
NHTSA’s recent consumer research
indicates that consumers care more
about the durability and safety
characteristics than the fuel efficiency of
a replacement tire.210 Specifically, more
than two-thirds of survey respondents
are willing to pay more for tires with
above average performance ratings for
traction (70 percent of survey
respondents), treadwear (70 percent of
survey respondents), and fuel efficiency
(67 percent of survey respondents).
When asked ‘‘when you think about tire
performance, what attributes or
performance measures are most
important to you personally,’’ 47 percent
of survey respondents stated some form
of durability (e.g., tread life, reliability)
210 NHTSA conducted additional consumer
research after the notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) was issued to improve understanding of
the typical tire purchaser and the tire purchasing
process for the average consumer. See NHTSA
Rolling Resistance Survey (Aug. 19, 2009). This and
other reports relied on in the final rule will be
placed into the docket.

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

15921

and 37 percent of survey respondents
answered that traction/handling were
important to them (e.g., all season usage,
wet road handling). Fourteen percent of
survey respondents specifically
responded with the words safety or
security. All other responses got much
less significant results, including
performance, which includes the words
mileage and general performance,
accounting for 17 percent of those
surveyed. Additionally, when asked
how important are each of the following
tire performance metrics to you
personally, 93 percent of respondents
stated that tire traction was either
extremely important or very important
to them, 91 percent of respondents
stated that tire treadwear was either
extremely important or very important
to them, while 80 percent of
respondents stated that fuel efficiency
was either extremely important or very
important to them. These survey results
mitigate the concerns about potential
negative safety consequences resulting
from consumers sacrificing traction to
maximize the fuel efficiency of
replacement tires.
Advocates expressed concern that due
to the fact that only the most expensive
tires may be able to maintain a high
traction rating while improving fuel
efficiency, consumers may be misled
into choosing tires with good fuel
efficiency and durability but poor or
inadequate safety. Thus, Advocates
commented that NHTSA must carefully
conceive and format a tire label to
ensure that it does not promote cost
savings at the expense of safety.
Agency response: NHTSA agrees with
Advocates on the need to not emphasize
the fuel efficiency rating above the
traction rating and will consider this
when finalizing the consumer
information and consumer education
portions of the program. However, the
concerns expressed by Advocates and
NHTSA in the NPRM about the
possibility that consumers might
sacrifice safety for improved fuel
efficiency are certainly mitigated by the
results of recent NHTSA consumer
research.
ii. Test Procedure
Although 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 or the European wet grip
rating use different test procedures that
do not evaluate the same elements.

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

15922

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to use
the traction test procedure specified in
the agency’s UTQGS regulation to rate
tires for safety,211 reasoning that this
test procedure for measuring wet
traction is the only metric for which
consistent data are widely available for
a range of tires.212 NHTSA explained
that the wet traction test procedure
measures a tire’s coefficient of friction
during braking. In the context of tires on
a passenger vehicle, the amount of force
available to the braking system to
decelerate the vehicle is determined by
the tire, the road surface, and the
conditions of their interaction. This
value is measured by the coefficient of
friction, μ (mu), which is the ratio of the
longitudinal force divided by the
vertical load on the tire. The higher the
coefficient of friction is for a given tire,
the more friction available to decelerate
the vehicle. The choice of tire can affect
the amount of reduction in friction on
wet surfaces.213 Thus, different tires’
measurements of the coefficients of
friction during a braking test provide
objective comparative information on
tire’s traction performance.
The UTQGS traction test procedure
measures a tire’s coefficient of friction
when it is tested on wet asphalt and
concrete surfaces. The test tire is
installed on an instrumented axle of a
traction trailer, which is towed by a
truck at 40 miles per hour (mph) over
wet asphalt and concrete surfaces. The
tow truck is equipped with an on-board
water supply system that sprays water
in front of the test tire. The brakes, from
the test tire only, are momentarily
locked, and sensors on the axle measure
the longitudinal and vertical forces as it
slides in a straight line. The coefficient
of friction for the pair, test tire and
surface, is then determined as the ratio
of the longitudinal and vertical forces.
Which test procedure: Michelin
suggested an alternate test method for
measuring traction because it stated the
measurement of a tire’s wet traction
capability with a traction trailer is an
attempt to quantify the tire’s role in the
vehicle stopping distance, which is the
actual tire performance experienced by
211 See

49 CFR 575.104(f).
Fuel Efficiency NPRM, supra note 9, at
29560–29561.
213 The instantaneous level of friction that can be
developed by a tire-road surface pair is dependent
on parameters such as the amount of lubrication
(water, ice, snow, etc.) between the surfaces, speed,
temperature, and many other factors. The effects of
these parameters can be significant. For instance, in
the case of the wet friction coefficients measured in
the agency’s tire traction safety rating, the water on
the road surface substantially reduces the
intermolecular adhesion of the tire rubber to the
road surface aggregate, yielding a 20 to 30 percent
reduction in available friction compared to dry
conditions.

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

212 Tire

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

the consumer.214 Michelin commented
that the poor reproducibility of the
UTQGS traction test can result in
misrepresentation of tire traction.
Michelin stated that this poor
repeatability has a lot to do with the fact
that the ASTM E 501 ribbed bias ply tire
is used as a reference to ensure that the
grip of the test lane is within tolerance
and to correct test data for evolution of
test conditions. Michelin commented
that because the evolution of the E 501
tire between two test days is
significantly different than the change
in test tire performance, this causes poor
repeatability.
Accordingly, Michelin suggested an
ISO test method that it argued better
measures the tire’s role in vehicle
stopping distance: ISO 23671, Passenger
car tyres—Method for measuring
relative wet grip performance—Loaded
new tyres. Michelin argued that this ISO
23671 test method is better than the
UTQGS test method for several reasons
including: (1) The standard provides for
flexibility of test location (allowing
manufacturers the possibility of selfcertification); (2) either traction trailer
or on-vehicle braking can be used for
measurement, allowing for greater
flexibility; and (3) the design and
materials of the control tire (14-inch
Standard Reference Test Tire (SRTT),
ASTM E 1136) more closely resemble
modern passenger car tires (than the tire
used in the UTQGS test method).
Michelin urges NHTSA to consider a
vehicle braking method for measuring
traction based on its greater imitation of
in-service conditions and on its superior
repeatability and reproducibility.
Agency response: NHTSA declines to
use a test procedure other than a
modified version of what is already
specified for UTQGS. Based on the tight
statutory deadline for this program,
NHTSA cannot perform the research
necessary to validate and establish a test
procedure other than the wet traction
trailer test that is already specified in
another NHTSA regulation. Since our
equipment and procedure is well known
throughout the tire industry, we propose
using the existing procedure, as the
primary traction method, but modifying
current equipment to collect peak
coefficient of friction data to rate tires
for this program, as discussed
immediately below.
The agency did not adopt Michelin’s
recommendation to use the 14-inch
SRTT (ASTM E 1136) or 16-inch SRTT
(ASTM F 2493) as the traction test
control tire instead of the current ASTM
E 501 Standard Rib tire. This decision
214 Michelin Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–
2008–0121–0048.1 at 7–8.

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

was based on a number of factors. First,
Michelin provided no data
demonstrating that the test results
would be more accurate or less variable
when using a SRTT as the traction
control tire instead of the E 501
Standard Rib tire. The agency
understands that the RMA traction data
provided in comments was also
collected using the E 501 tire as the
control tire. Therefore, no additional
data was available for the agency for
evaluation. Due to the tight statutory
deadline for this program, NHTSA does
not have the time necessary to conduct
its own test program to evaluate the
performance of either of the SRTT tires
against the current E 501 tire. Second,
the agency has not evaluated the
durability of the all-season tread pattern
of the 14- or 16-inch SRTT radial tires
as compared to the smooth-ribbed tread
design of the E 501 tire during
prolonged locked-slide traction testing.
Less durable tires could increase the
annual costs of testing. Third, the
UTQGS traction test includes by
reference test procedures and apparatus
from ASTM E 274–79, ‘‘Standard
Method for Skid Resistance of Paved
Surfaces Using a Full-Scale Tire,’’ which
itself references the E 501 tire as a
standard tire (but not E 1136 or F 2493).
Therefore, the agency recommends that
Michelin initially work with ASTM to
evaluate the suitability of upgrading the
E 274 test procedure to reference the
ASTM E 1136 or F 2493 tires as control
tires.
Regarding the ISO 23671 test
procedure recommended by Michelin,
this ISO procedure offers the option of
using a trailer or vehicle as the test
equipment for means of collecting data
to measure peak traction. This approach
may be practiced elsewhere, but we do
not have data to base a wet traction
rating using this method. Further, this
ISO test method specifies a high
coefficient of friction surface, which is
currently unavailable for use by the
agency. Currently, NHTSA only has data
for concrete and asphalt surfaces used
in the UTQGS testing method, which
uses a traction trailer.
Traction testing is preferred over
vehicle testing (stopping distance)
because one traction trailer may be used
for various tire sizes. Depending on the
vertical load applied on the test tire, the
brake rate application may vary from
tire to tire, but it may be adjusted when
using a traction trailer. Thus, one
traction trailer may be used to evaluate
various tire sizes, while test conditions
for various tire sizes may be maintained
during testing using a trailer. Using a
vehicle for testing would better imitate
real world conditions, but would

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
introduce vehicle dependent effects
(due to the design of the vehicle’s brakes
and suspensions). Also, several vehicles
would be needed to evaluate different
size tires, which may be cost
prohibitive.
Measurements taken: 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.
More specifically, upon application of
the brakes, the tire is subjected to shear
between the wheel and the road surface,
and deforms towards the rear of the
vehicle. This generates a traction force
to oppose the motion of the vehicle. As
braking torque increases, the tire
deforms more and tread elements near
the rear of the contact patch with the
road begin to slip rather than grip. The
coefficient of friction rapidly reaches a
maximum value at about 10–20 percent
slip, and then declines as the
longitudinal slip values increase to 100
percent, which represents a fully-locked
tire. The maximum coefficient of
friction in the 0–100 percent slip range
is termed ‘‘peak’’ coefficient of friction,
and the lower coefficient value for the
fully-locked tire is termed ‘‘slide’’
coefficient of friction.
When UTQGS was designed in the
1960s, the fully-locked slide coefficient
of friction represented the tire-road
friction available to conventional
braking systems that frequently locked
their tires during hard braking.
However, modern anti-lock braking and
stability control systems use wheel
speed sensors and complex computer
algorithms to modulate the brake
pressure in order to operate near the
peak coefficient of friction instead of
locking the tire (slide), thus utilizing
more available friction from the tireroad surface pair.
Because it uses the sliding coefficient
of friction, the UTQGS traction 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 vehicles
equipped with ABS or ESC will exhibit
safer behavior on wet pavement (i.e.,
better traction) than the sliding

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

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
many ESC system activations), the tires
are constantly operating at or near peak
coefficient of friction. Thus, since most
new cars offer ABS as either standard or
optional equipment, and ESC is being
mandated on new light vehicles via a
phase-in, NHTSA proposed 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.215 The
machinery that conducts this test
already measures peak coefficient of
friction, so the NPRM proposed
specification of the UTQGS traction test
method, but using the peak coefficients
of friction measured, rather than the
slide.
However, recognizing that the median
age for the U.S. passenger car fleet is 9.4
years,216 NHTSA requested comments
on whether it was premature to suggest
moving to an ABS–ESC focused rating
based on new vehicles. The NPRM
explained that the agency was
considering 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 NPRM requested
comments on whether it should instead
consider a composite test, and if the
four friction numbers should be
weighted equally or differently.
NHTSA sought comment on an
empirically developed traction rating
formula that included both peak and
slide coefficients of friction as an
example of how the agency might do
this.217 RMA commented that the
agency’s proposal for an alternate
traction rating formula is ad-hoc and not
science based.218 RMA commented that
215 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.
216 See http://usa.polk.com/News/LatestNews/
News_20080215_scrappage.htm (last accessed Sept.
27, 2009).
217 Tire Fuel Efficiency NPRM, supra note 9, at
29580.
218 RMA Comments Appendix 7, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0036.8 at 8.

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

15923

it is no doubt possible to devise any
number of formulas to provide a 0 to
100 rating for wet traction, but in RMA’s
opinion, unless there is some
underlying scientific principle to
support them, it is not a productive
exercise. Michelin, in contrast,
commented that the alternate traction
formula more closely follows accepted
industry practices for quantifying tire
performance.219 Michelin agreed with
the NPRM that peak traction values
correspond more directly to advanced
braking system performance and
expressed support for this move toward
a characterization more in line with
consumer’s needs. JATMA supported
adopting the current UTQGS traction
grading test method, and not using peak
coefficient of friction.220 Tire Rack
supported basing the traction rating on
a combination of peak and slide
coefficients of friction.221 Tire Rack
stated that adding the coefficients of
friction measured on wet asphalt and
concrete surfaces better reflects the tire
performance available through
advanced braking technologies.
Agency response: Based on the fact
that vehicles not equipped with
advanced braking technologies will be
on the road for many years, NHTSA has
determined that the safety rating should
be based on a combination of slide and
peak coefficients of friction on asphalt
and concrete. However, since the agency
will be finalizing the form of the ratings
and the consumer information
requirements in a future rulemaking, we
will not discuss the comments on the
proposed formula for a safety rating in
this final rule.
Basing a safety rating on a composite
index using both peak and slide
coefficients of friction measurements
creates a safety rating that considers the
safety performance for both old vehicles
without advanced braking technologies
(wet traction performance correlates to
slide), and new vehicle types with
advanced braking technologies (wet
traction performance correlates to peak).
A safety rating based only on slide or
only on peak coefficient of friction
would be essentially meaningless to
either vehicles with advanced braking
technologies or to vehicles with
conventional brake technology,
respectively. NHTSA considered
weighing the slide and peak coefficients
of friction in the rating formula to create
an index that reflected the percentage of
the types of vehicles on the road. The
219 Michelin Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–
2008–0121–0048.1 at 7–8.
220 JATMA Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0031.1 at 1.
221 Tire Rack Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–
2008–0121–0026.1 at 3.

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

15924

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

agency realizes that the ratio of new
braking technology vehicles on the road
to conventional braking vehicles on the
road will persistently increase for
decades until all conventional brake
technology vehicles are essentially
phased out, at which point peak
coefficient of friction will be the only
measure of traction that is relevant to
the way that all vehicles brake. NHTSA
will continuously monitor the fleet
turnover, and will likely transfer the
safety rating to an index based mostly
on peak. Until that point, the agency
believes it is best to have a rating based
on a combination of indices that
indicate something useful and
comparative to everyone, as opposed to
a rating based only on peak or slide,
which would mean nothing to some.
Continuously changing the formula to
reflect these shifting percentages would
likely cause some changes in ratings of
existing tires, and NHTSA believes there
is a benefit to keeping the ratings stable
for a period of time, both in terms of
reducing costs to NHTSA and
manufacturers, and reducing potential
confusion for consumers.
Additionally, and as will be discussed
in the forthcoming supplemental NPRM
on the consumer information and
consumer education portions of this
program, a combination of peak and
slide coefficients of friction also reduces
the variability of the ratings. A safety
rating based only on peak coefficient of
friction results in ratings with high
variability.
RMA suggested that wet traction be
weighted for the percentage of asphalt
and concrete road surfaces in the U.S.,
since concrete now accounts for less
than 4 percent of roads. The agency
analyzed the number of fatal crashes in
the Fatality Analysis Reporting System
(FARS). For the years 2002 to 2008,
approximately 8.2 percent of fatal
crashes occurred on wet concrete road
surfaces.222 After consideration of
comments, NHTSA has determined that
a safety rating should be based on both
wet concrete and asphalt road surfaces.
While wet concrete is likely not a
condition that occurs often for any
particular motorist, it potentially is the
most dangerous because coefficients of
friction can be lower/worse on concrete
than on asphalt. Thus, wet concrete
represents the ‘‘worse case scenario’’ in
terms of the type of roadways on which
a motorist might find him/herself
222 This analysis excluded the ‘‘Water (standing or
moving)’’ roadway surface condition category,
which was added in 2007 and not indicative of the
water depths used in UTQGS wet traction testing.
This analysis also excluded blank, other or
unknown roadway surface conditions and roadway
surface types.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

driving. Arguably, if manufacturers will
design tires with the goal of achieving
a higher safety (wet traction) rating,
NHTSA should include concrete
coefficients of friction in the rating
index so that manufacturers take all
likely driving wet surfaces into account
when designing tires. NHTSA, therefore,
believes that concrete coefficients of
friction should be included in the safety
rating as they likely represent a ‘‘worse
case scenario.’’
In response to the comments on the
alternate traction formula NHTSA
sought comment on in the NPRM,223
since publication of the NPRM the
agency has realized that the formula it
sought comment on is weighted by
taking the test tire’s friction coefficient
and divided by a weighted sequence of
two control tires. Mathematically, it is
still a fraction number, which is typical
for a friction coefficient, but
unfortunately it no longer means it still
represents a ‘‘friction.’’ Physically, it
would just be a ratio or factor.
Therefore, the agency does not think
this is a correct approach. NHTSA
believes that an empirically developed
wet traction index is an appropriate
metric for a wet traction rating, as
NHTSA will discuss in the forthcoming
supplemental NPRM on the content of
the consumer information and
consumer education portions of the tire
fuel efficiency consumer information
program.
Authority to establish safety and
durability ratings: NHTSA’s proposal
provided that alongside a fuel efficiency
rating, tire manufacturers would
provide safety and durability ratings.
RMA and Ford argued that EISA does
not give NHTSA authority to establish a
new rating system for consumer
information on safety or durability.
According to RMA and Ford, because
EISA only directs NHTSA to establish a
national tire fuel efficiency rating
system, NHTSA is not authorized by
EISA to create new ratings or consumer
information requirements for the safety
and durability of replacement tires.224
Agency response: Section 111 of EISA
directs NHTSA to promulgate rules
establishing a ‘‘national tire fuel
efficiency consumer information
program for motor vehicle replacement
tires * * * to educate consumers about
the effect of tires on automobile fuel
efficiency, safety and durability.’’ 225
RMA recognizes that NHTSA has the
authority under EISA to require
223 Tire

Fuel Efficiency NPRM, supra note 9, at

29580.
224 RMA Comments, Appendix 3, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0036.4 at 2–3; Ford Comments,
Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0038.1 at 2–3.
225 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(1).

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

replacement tire fuel efficiency rating
information. And RMA concedes that
EISA gives NHTSA the authority to
include traction and treadwear ratings
in the label.226 But RMA states that
because EISA directs NHTSA to
promulgate regulations that include ‘‘a
national tire fuel efficiency rating
system,’’ EISA provides limited
authority regarding new ‘‘safety’’ and
‘‘durability’’ ratings. More particularly,
RMA contends that EISA does not give
NHTSA authority to create new ‘‘safety’’
or ‘‘durability’’ consumer rating systems
or mandate new consumer information
on these attributes at the point of sale.
RMA instead suggests that as to these
concerns, NHTSA is limited to the
UTQGS ratings: ‘‘[t]he fact that the
UTQGS system already exists enables
NHTSA to use the existing wet traction
and treadwear to satisfy the
requirements.’’ 227
NHTSA interprets EISA to provide
NHTSA authority to establish new
‘‘safety’’ and ‘‘durability’’ rating systems
and to require consumer information on
these attributes of tires. The Congress
spoke clearly. NHTSA is required to
establish a national tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program for
replacement tires. Congress specified
that this program is to educate
consumers about the effect of tires on
automobile fuel efficiency, safety and
durability.228 Congress further stated
what the consumer information program
is to include. Among others, it is to
include a national tire fuel efficiency
rating system to assist consumers in
making more educated tire purchasing
decisions.229 It also is to include
requirements for providing information
at the point of sale.230 Thus, the scope
of the national tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program is set
forth in subsection (a)(1). It covers
consumer information on automobile
fuel efficiency, safety, and durability for
replacement tires. For each of these
attributes, under subsection (a)(2), the
national tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program is to include,
among others, a national tire fuel
efficiency rating system and consumer
information. This is a new program,
because the rule was to ‘‘establish’’ a
program.231 EISA does not use the terms
modify or amend with reference to an
existing program. For this new program,
the rating system under subsection (a)(2)
226 RMA Comments, Appendix 3, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0036.4 at 3.
227 Id. at 3.
228 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(1).
229 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(2)(A).
230 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(2)(B).
231 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(1).

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
of Section 32304A is not limited to
‘‘automobile fuel efficiency’’ of tires
because both subsection (a)(1) and
subsection (a)(2)(A) refer to the rule
establishing a ‘‘national tire fuel
efficiency’’ consumer information
program, and automobile fuel efficiency
is only one attribute of the information
program. The others are safety and
durability.232 Moreover, subsection
(a)(2)(A) does not differentiate the
agency’s authority on that aspect of the
consumer information program
providing a rating on ‘‘automobile fuel
efficiency’’ and those aspects of the
program providing ratings on ‘‘safety’’
and ‘‘durability.’’ 233 Accordingly, EISA
requires NHTSA to establish a new
program with ratings on safety and
durability.
To the extent that the Congress did
not speak directly to the question
whether it intended that NHTSA
promulgate rules creating new ‘‘safety’’
or ‘‘durability’’ consumer rating systems
or mandate new consumer information
on these attributes at the point of sale,
NHTSA interprets EISA to provide that
authority. As noted above, Section 111
of EISA requires NHTSA to establish a
‘‘national tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program for motor vehicle
replacement tires * * * to educate
consumers about the effect of tires on
automobile fuel efficiency, safety and
durability.’’ 234 The statute provides
broad authority for a consumer
information program rule to cover
automobile fuel efficiency, safety and
durability. It does not prescribe the
contours of the rule covering automobile
fuel efficiency, safety and durability
consumer information. It sets only
minimum requirements on what the
rulemaking shall ‘‘include.’’ 235 Nothing
in EISA limits NHTSA, in promulgating
the national tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program, to
adopting existing ratings from the
UTQGS program. In fact, the UTQGS
ratings are not mentioned in 49 U.S.C.
32304A. Moreover, as reflected in EISA,
tires have a number of attributes in
which consumers would be interested.
In addition to fuel economy, these
include safety and durability. Congress
left it to NHTSA how to rate safety and
durability. The effectiveness of the
consumer education program depends
in part on having effective and
consistent methods of rating fuel
efficiency, safety, and durability, and by
including all ratings at the point of sale.
In view of the Congressional direction
232 See
233 See

49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(1).
id.

NAS Report, supra note 4, at 58.
Rack Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–
2008–0121–0026.1 at 3.
238 See 49 CFR 575.104(e).
237 Tire

U.S.C. 32304A(a)(2).

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

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
loss. The same tread deformation
contributes to the tire’s traction
capabilities. A loss in wet traction
capability because of treadwear is the
main reason for tire replacement.236
For purposes of this program, NHTSA
believes 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 to 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. In the NPRM, NHTSA sought
comments on other potential ways to
communicate durability, but no
commenter suggested anything other
than tread life as a measure for
durability. Tire Rack commented that it
believed that treadwear life has been the
most important rating to consumers
under the UTQGS program and is the
most frequently researched tire
rating.237
NHTSA stated in the NPRM that the
UTQGS rating system for treadwear is
the only metric for which consistent
data are widely available for a range of
passenger car tires. Accordingly,
NHTSA proposed to specify the UTQGS
treadwear procedure to rate tires for
durability on the same scale and label
as fuel efficiency via rolling resistance
rating.238 Consumers Union commented
that it disagreed with incorporating the
UTQGS treadwear rating system into
another rating system because in its
experience, consumers do not
236 2006

234 Id.
235 49

that NHTSA establish ‘‘a national tire
fuel efficiency consumer information
program’’ that includes a ‘‘rating system
* * * to assist consumers in making
more educated tire purchasing
decisions,’’ NHTSA interprets EISA to
give the agency authority to establish a
rating system that would educate
consumers on tire characteristics that
may offer tradeoffs among the important
tire characteristics of fuel efficiency,
safety, and durability. Under the statute,
this may or may not be based upon
measurements from established UTQGS
test procedures.

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

15925

understand the current UTQGS
treadwear rating.239 Consumers Union
stated that because ratings are assigned
by the tire manufacturers, tire
manufacturers do not always disclose
the full potential of a tire’s treadwear
performance. Michelin commented that
to have the current UTQGS treadwear
test method yield truly representative
wear results, changes to the test
procedure are necessary.240 Michelin
conceded that changes of this nature are
likely beyond the scope of this
rulemaking.
Agency response: As noted in
Michelin’s comments, the NPRM
acknowledged the limits of the existing
UTQGS system.241 However, given the
statutory deadline for NHTSA to
establish this program, NHTSA believes
that using already established test
procedures specified in the UTQGS
regulations is the only viable option at
this time to fulfill the statutory
requirement that this consumer
information program educate consumers
about tires’ relationships to fuel
efficiency, safety, and durability. The
UTQGS test method for measuring tread
life is the only metric for which
consistent data are widely available for
a range of passenger car tires. NHTSA
will continue, however, to explore other
test methods that could be used to
establish a metric for a durability rating.
NHTSA will consider future revisions of
the treadwear test procedure if
information suggests those revisions
would enhance the program.
B. How Will the Rating System
Information Be Conveyed to Consumers?
As noted above, NHTSA is not
specifying the content or requirements
of the consumer information and
education portions of the program. In
light of the important objectives of this
rulemaking, we are continuing to work
to improve the content and format of the
consumer information so that
consumers will, in fact, be adequately
informed. Specifically, NHTSA will be
conducting additional consumer testing
to explore how consumers will best
comprehend information in each of the
three categories discussed above. After
additional consumer testing, NHTSA
will publish a new proposal for the
consumer information and education
portion of this new program.
NHTSA will be conducting additional
consumer research to identify candidate
239 Consumers Union Comments, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0034 at 5.
240 Michelin Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–
2008–0121–0048.1 at 9.
241 Tire Fuel Efficiency NPRM, supra note 9, at
29561, 29573–29575. The UTQGS is discussed in
more detail later in this notice.

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

15926

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

label designs (and variations), examine
consumer comprehension of such
concepts, and examine consumer
preferences for information
transmission formats. NHTSA has been
reviewing recommendations on
regulatory reform in a recent White
House report to Congress and is taking
those ideas into consideration in
developing the new research plan.242
NHTSA has also been consulting with
other government agencies, including
EPA, DOE, the Food and Drug
Administration, and the Federal Trade
Commission, to help identify best
practices for research for consumer
education programs. NHTSA is also
taking into consideration its own
previous research before and after the
NPRM was published.
NHTSA received numerous comments
in response to the consumer information
proposals in the NPRM. These included
comments for and against a combined or
overall rating, comments on NHTSA’s
proposed 0–100 rating scale, suggestions
for alternatives to this scale, and
comments on providing additional
context for the ratings. However, in
most instances, these comments
reflected little other than the
commenter’s opinion on what would
constitute an effective consumer
information program. NHTSA wishes to
gather more concrete information to
guide its decision-making process on
these requirements. However, NHTSA
will take these comments into
consideration when developing the
research plan and also in the future
proposal for these requirements.
To further the development of the
consumer information and consumer
education portions of the tire fuel
efficiency consumer information
program, NHTSA recently announced
that it will hold a public meeting on a
new draft consumer research plan on
Friday, March 26, 2010 at the U.S.
Department of Transportation
Headquarters building.243 The agency
has opened a new docket for the public
meeting, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0018, and on that docket interested
members of the public can access the
draft research plan, early agency
consumer research, and any written
comments submitted at the meeting or
in response to the meeting notice.
242 Office of Management and Budget, 2009
Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of
Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on
State, Local, and Tribal Entities (Jan. 27, 2010),
available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/
legislative_reports/
2009_final_BC_Report_01272010.pdf (last accessed
March 10, 2010).
243 Notice of Public Meeting; Tire Fuel Efficiency,
75 FR 11806 (March 12, 2010), Docket No. NHTSA–
2010–0018–0001.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

NHTSA will consider the public
comments received in developing a
research plan to aid in the development
of consumer information requirements
and NHTSA’s consumer education plan
regarding tire fuel efficiency. Depending
on the results of that meeting, NHTSA
may conduct some focus groups to help
it refine the concepts that will be tested.
The primary focus of the research will
be a comprehension survey, the final
design of which will depend on the
final number of concepts and variations
identified in the public meeting and
focus groups (if conducted). The
research design may include both
within and between-subjects factors. In
particular, the draft research plans
specifies that subjects will be randomly
assigned to a given label, however,
variations of the same label may be
presented within subjects. The main
factors will be counterbalanced and the
presentation order randomized as
needed to provide internal validity.
Performance measures will include
percent of correct response (response
rate) and purchase intention. The survey
and experimental designs will also
consider the potential for subject fatigue
by keeping the number of questions and
survey duration as short as possible.
There is a need to collect quantitative
information about consumer
comprehension of label concepts
describing tire attributes, given the
availability of new information about
tires’ fuel efficiency. The information on
consumer comprehension will ensure
that the selected label will provide
accurate, consistent and valuable
information to consumers purchasing
replacement tires. Some of the key
questions include:
• What information would be
provided to consumers of replacement
tires?
• What is the best format (metric(s),
format(s)) to provide the information?
• How does the difference in the
scale/rating system affect consumer
comprehension of the information
provided?
• Do consumers understand the
information provided when generalized
statements (i.e., caveats) are provided?
The draft consumer research plan
identifies three objectives for new
consumer research:
• Develop label concepts displaying
information on tire fuel efficiency,
safety, and durability.
• Collect data on consumer
comprehension of the information
provided by various label concepts and
data on purchase intention.
• Rank order concept labels based on
quantitative data on consumer
comprehension.

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

As discussed above, after additional
consumer testing, NHTSA will repropose the consumer information
component of this new program. These
requirements may include labels and
retailer requirements such as originally
proposed, or alternative and/or
additional requirements based upon the
results of the research.
VII. Information Dissemination and
Reporting Requirements for Tire
Manufacturers and Tire Retailers
A. Requirements for Tire Retailers
1. NHTSA Will Re-Propose Information
Dissemination Requirements for Tire
Retailers
Based on NHTSA’s pre-NPRM
understanding of the average tire
purchaser and on the tire purchasing
process generally, NHTSA proposed 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 would print and provide to
retailers. The NPRM explained that the
agency believed that this requirement
would be the most successful method of
encouraging consumers to consider the
new ratings at the point of sale. As for
poster content, the NPRM stated that
this poster would make consumers
aware that there are comparative
government tire ratings available, and
would communicate the importance of
comparing replacement tire ratings as
well as the importance of proper tire
maintenance.
NHTSA sought comment on the
following principles it proposed be
conveyed in the poster:
• Your choice of tires you buy to put
on your vehicles 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 need 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.
• More information about this ratings
program and a complete listing of the
ratings for all these tires is available at
http://www.nhtsa.gov.
• Whatever tire you choose, you need
to keep it properly inflated to get the

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
best fuel efficiency, safety, and tire life
that the tire can deliver.
RMA commented that NHTSA should
require tire retailers to display the
proposed poster and make the rating
information available to consumers in
the tire retailer showrooms or waiting
areas. RMA recommended that NHTSA
give tire retailers options for making this
information available and require that
each retailer choose one or more options
that suits their business model and
needs.244 RMA suggested these retailer
requirements should be in lieu of
requiring the ratings on a tire label, for
reasons discussed below in section
VII.B.1. RMA and Consumers Union
both suggested that NHTSA produce
and distribute to tire retailers
nationwide a tire fuel efficiency
program booklet, as NHTSA produces
for the UTQGS program.245
TIA stated that the proposed tire label
and poster requirement are passive
communication tools and only a starting
point for consumer education.246 TIA
commented that it believes NHTSA is
underestimating the importance of the
dialog between the sales associate and
the consumer at the point of sale. TIA
stated that results from NHTSA’s focus
group research and the UC Davis
Workshop point out the importance of
the seller in the process of educating the
consumer. Accordingly, TIA
recommended a training program for
tire retailer sales associates, which TIA
would run ‘‘with proper funding.’’ TIA
stated that it is in the best position to
run an education and incentive program
for tire retailer sales associates.
Consumers Union commented that
NHTSA should provide better guidance
on how to best ensure that consumers
can see the proposed educational poster
at the point of sale.247 Regarding the
content of the proposed informational
poster, Consumers Union recommended
that point of sale information and
posters emphasize the benefits of proper
car and tire care, including maintaining
proper tire inflation pressure, checking
wheel alignment, and rotating tires to
optimize tire fuel efficiency, traction,
and tread wear.248 Public Citizen et al.
supported NHTSA’s proposed
‘‘principles’’ as laid out above of what

information should be included on the
poster.249 Additionally, Public Citizen
et al. commented that the proposed
informational poster should include at a
minimum explanations of what each of
the ratings categories means, as well as
direction to NHTSA’s Web site and a
statement about the importance of
proper tire inflation.
Agency response: In order to have the
full benefit of any new understanding of
how consumers best comprehend
information gained from the agency’s
new consumer research, NHTSA will repropose requirements for tire retailers in
the supplemental NPRM on the
consumer information and education
portion of the tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program.

244 RMA Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0036.1 at 7.
245 Consumers Union Comments, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0034 at 3; RMA Comments,
Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0036.1 at 7.
246 TIA Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0039.1 at 1–10.
247 Consumers Union Comments, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0034 at 6.
248 Consumers Union recommended this language
instead of the proposed poster language that
emphasized tire inflation ‘‘to get the best fuel
efficiency, safety, and tire life.’’

249 Public Citizen et al. Comments, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0043.1 at 6.
250 Note that NHTSA uses the term ‘‘paper label’’
in the colloquial sense; many labels on tires are
actually made of plastic.
251 Ford Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0038.1 at 3. A Monroney label is the price
sticker label required on new automobiles that
contains the safety rating information developed by
NHTSA in its New Car Assessment Program
(NCAP). See 49 CFR 575.301.
252 ICCT Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0042.1 at 1–2.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

2. NHTSA Will Re-Propose
Requirements Regarding the Label
The NPRM proposed 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.250
Ford recommended that NHTSA add
a requirement to the proposed
regulation that explicitly states that tire
retailers are required to maintain labels
on tires through the point of sale similar
to prohibitions from removing
Monroney window labels on
vehicles.251 Ford suggested that an
exception to such requirement be made
where the tires have been installed onto
a customer’s vehicle, but that NHTSA
should still require that the tire retailer
convey the information on the label to
the consumer. Ford reasoned that if the
regulations do not require that the
information be explained or even
received by the consumer the potential
benefits of the program will be
substantially reduced.
Similarly, ICCT suggested that
NHTSA require tire retailers who mount
tires provide tire efficiency information
to consumers before the tire is
purchased and mounted.252 ICCT stated
that providing this information at the
point of purchase through a label that is
in many cases visible to the consumer
only after installation would undermine
the effectiveness of the program.

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

15927

Agency response: As noted above, in
order to have the full benefit of any new
understanding of how consumers best
comprehend information gained from
the agency’s new consumer research,
NHTSA will re-propose requirements
for tire retailers in the supplemental
NPRM on the consumer information and
education portion of the tire fuel
efficiency consumer information
program.
B. Requirements for Tire Manufacturers
1. NHTSA Will Re-Propose
Requirements Regarding
Communication of Ratings
In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed two
alternatives for tire manufacturers to
present the required rating information
on a paper label affixed to each subject
replacement tire. A tire manufacturer
could fulfill the requirement by placing
the required rating graphic somewhere
on the paper labels already required to
be affixed to each individual tire by
UTQGS requirements.253 Alternatively,
a tire manufacture could fulfill the tire
fuel efficiency labeling requirements by
affixing a separate paper label with just
the tire fuel efficiency label graphic on
it.
RMA opposed the requirement of a
tire label as a means of providing point
of sale information to consumers.254
RMA commented that the proposed
label would be extremely costly to
produce, especially in color, and would
lead to little, if any, benefit, since
consumers would be unlikely to see the
label.255 RMA suggested that instead of
requiring tire manufacturers to put
ratings on a tire label, NHTSA should
require tire retailers to make the ratings
information available to consumers.
Consumers Union also expressed
concerns that a consumer might not see
a label on the tire they purchase if the
tire retailer is installing the tires.
Consumers Union commented that a
paper label affixed to a tire may be
insufficient because if the tire is
purchased online, consumers may not
have the ability to comparatively view
the label and compare to labels on other
tires.256
TIA similarly commented that a
requirement to place rating information
on the paper tire label would not help
253 See

49 CFR 575.104(d)(i)(B).
Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0036.1 at 7.
255 For a full discussion of RMA’s comments on
NHTSA’s cost estimates of the label, see section IX
below and the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis,
which will be placed in this docket and will be
available on NHTSA’s Web site, http://
www.nhtsa.gov.
256 Consumers Union Comments, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0034 at 3.
254 RMA

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

15928

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

consumers make a tire choice for their
vehicle.257 NADA commented that
rather than requiring the ratings on the
tire label, consumers would be better
served by the comparative tire rating
information Web site that could be
referenced by point of sale posters.258
Many commenters expressed support
for NHTSA’s proposed paper label
requirement. Public Citizen et al.
supported ratings appearing on
individual tires, and stated a preference
for requiring molding the information
on tire sidewalls.259 Tire Rack
commented that tire labels will
positively confirm the rating of specific
tires.260 AAA commented that the tire
labeling will provide enhanced benefits
for consumers, but also requires
considerable consumer education to
achieve the full potential of the
proposed labeling recommendations.261
ICCT commented that physically
attaching a paper label to each tire is an
important step forward.262 Ford
supported the label requirement by
stating that in addition NHTSA should
add the requirement that explicitly
states that tire retailers must maintain
labels on tires through the point of
sale.263 NRDC stated in several places
that rating and labeling was an
important first step towards a
comprehensive program.264
Several commenters also implicitly
supported requiring tire manufacturers
to print the ratings information on the
tire label by calling the ratings ‘‘the
label’’ and by commenting on various
proposed requirements associated with
the content of the label. For instance,
the European Commission did not
oppose the label requirement and
commented that tires that are already
stamped with the week of production
should not need to print that
information on the label. Ford, GM,
Advocates, and NRDC called the ratings
graphic ‘‘the label’’ on multiple
occasions.
Agency response: As noted above,
NHTSA is not specifying the content or
requirements of the consumer
information program at this time. In
257 TIA Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0039.1 at 1.
258 NADA Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0041.1 at 1.
259 Public Citizen et al. Comments, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0043.1 at 3.
260 Tire Rack Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–
2008–0121–0026.1 at 1.
261 AAA Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0047.1 at 2.
262 ICCT Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0042.1 at 1.
263 Ford Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0038.1 at 3.
264 NRDC Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0040.1.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

light of the important objectives of this
rulemaking, we are continuing to work
to improve the content and format of the
label so that consumers will, in fact, be
adequately informed. After additional
consumer testing, NHTSA will publish
a new proposal for the consumer
information portion of this new
program.
In the NPRM, we proposed to specify
a minimum size for the tire fuel
efficiency rating system graphic (4.5
inches high and 5.5 inches wide). The
minimum size specification was
proposed to ensure that the rating
graphic will be legible on the label. Tire
Rack commented that even if the label
was oriented differently, the proposed
4.5 inch requirement would be too wide
for many tire sizes.265 NHTSA agrees
with Tire Rack that the proposed size
requirement may pose a problem for
some tires and will explore alternative
options in the forthcoming
supplemental NPRM to re-propose the
required label.
2. Data Reporting
The NPRM proposed to require tire
manufacturers to report to NHTSA for
each tire SKU that is individually rated
under this tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program the following data:
• Rolling resistance force (RRF), as
computed from the ISO 28580 test (in
Newtons) and followed in parenthesis
by the equivalent pounds-force, e.g., 5
Newtons (1.12 lbf).
• Test load, as specified in the ISO
28580 test procedure (in Newtons) and
followed in parenthesis by the
equivalent pounds-force, e.g., 5
Newtons (1.12 lbf).
• Rolling resistance rating.
• Wet traction rating.
• Average peak coefficient of friction
for asphalt, as measured during the
UTQGS traction test procedure (49 CFR
575.104(f)).
• Average peak coefficient of friction
for concrete, as measured during the
UTQGS traction test procedure (49 CFR
575.104(f)).
• Adjusted peak coefficient of friction
for asphalt (μAPA).
• Adjusted peak coefficient of friction
for concrete (μAPC).
• Treadwear rating.
• Wear rate of tested tire, as measured
during the UTQGS treadwear procedure
(49 CFR 575.104(e)).
NHTSA gave several reasons for
proposing that the tire manufacturer
submit these various measurements to
the agency, which included (1) it would
help with enforcement of the ratings;
265 Tire Rack Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–
2008–0121–0026.1 at 6.

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

and (2) it would contribute to NHTSA’s
online tires database.
Submission of test values: RMA
opposed the requirement of reporting
any measured or calculated test values
because they state that submission of
data are not necessary for either
enforcement of a self-certified rating
system or as a method of estimating
potential fuel savings.266 RMA
commented that requiring tire test data
or calculated values to be submitted to
NHTSA to assure compliance is overly
broad, costly, and unnecessary to meet
the requirements of the EISA or ensure
compliance. Further, RMA stated that
reporting this type of information would
cause tire manufacturers to suffer
competitive harm because a company’s
approach to risk would be accessible by
competitors.
From a legal standpoint, the RMA had
concerns that direct submission of test
data values circumvents NHTSA
procedures to determine whether such
information qualifies for confidential
treatment as is done in safety
investigations, is overly burdensome,
and conflicts with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. The RMA contended
that competitors would not be able to
determine RRF rolling resistance values,
which they consider proprietary, from
the fuel efficiency rating on the sticker
and the published formulas. Therefore,
a government database would give
competitors access to tire characteristics
without the expense of testing and
calculations, thus causing competitive
harm. RMA expressed worries that
competitors could send misconstrued
data to another producer’s dealers,
which would strain the producer-dealer
relationship. RMA also commented that
making data publicly available is likely
to confuse the public and result in
unintended misuse and
misunderstandings of the data, and may
be used in contexts that prejudice RMA
members.
JATMA did not support the
requirement to report average and
adjusted peak coefficients of friction for
asphalt and concrete.267
NRDC supported requiring
manufacturers to report rolling
resistance data for all replacement tire
models offered for sale.268 NRDC
commented that to correct the lack of
consumer information market failure
effectively, the rating system must be
based on credible information. NRDC
266 RMA Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0036.1 at 11–12; RMA Comments Appendix
3, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0036.4 at 8–17.
267 JATMA Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0031.1 at 1.
268 NRDC Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0040.1 at 2–4.

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
further argued that by requiring data
reporting, NHTSA can use independent
testing to verify manufacturer rating
claims. Additionally, NRDC stated that
fully disclosed rolling resistance data
will make it suitable for widelyrecognized endorsement labels like
Energy Star or SmartWay.
Ford recommended that tire’s test
load information be provided to
consumers since the test is performed at
a fixed percentage of a tire’s maximum
load.269 Therefore, the consumer and
retailer might be confused when they
observe significantly different rolling
resistance rating for different sizes
within a tire line.
Agency response: Based on
comments, the agency is significantly
decreasing the scope of data
manufacturers are required to submit
under this program from ten items to
only the three ratings, eliminating any
proposed requirements for detailed test
data. In specific, the agency will require
manufacturers to report for each tire
rated under this program the following
data:
• Rolling Resistance rating, based on
the rating formula established in a
future notice finalizing the consumer
information component of the program.
• Wet Traction rating, based on the
rating formula established in a future
notice finalizing the consumer
information component of the program.
• Treadwear rating, based on the
rating formula established in a future
notice finalizing the consumer
information component of the program.
• Which tire models and sizes it
manufactures which the manufacturer
are claiming are excluded under the
applicability of this rule and, thus, are
not rated.
The agency agrees with the RMA’s
comments that data submission is not
specifically required by statute.
However, the agency is requiring the
three ratings for each tire in the system
in order to provide consumers with a
database that allows cross-comparisons
of tire brands, and for the functioning of
the online fuel economy calculator.
Requiring data submission is not
contrary to NHTSA practice, as the
agency requires data submission in
other programs, such as the Early
Warning Reporting (EWR) data
submission requirements for tire
manufacturers.
Citing the lack of mandatory data
submission for tire safety standards as a
basis for not requiring data submission
for consumer information overlooks the
purpose of the two types of regulations.
269 Ford Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0038.1 at 3.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

15929

The purpose of the tire safety standards
is to establish minimum safety
performance requirements for new tires
sold in the United States. Selfcertification under the safety standards
generates the consumer information on
performance, as all tires sold in this
market must achieve a ‘‘Pass’’ in a ‘‘Pass/
Fail’’ test. In contrast, consumer
information standards additionally
contain relative levels of performance
that must be communicated to
consumers.
In terms of past practice, when
UTQGS was designed in the 1960s,
online databases did not exist.
Information for that consumer
information program was molded on the
tire by the manufacturer in hopes that
consumers would be able to weigh
relative choices at the point of sale.
Today, it is common for consumers to
conduct online research in advance of
purchases, or even purchase tires
online. Requiring tire manufacturers to
submit their ratings for each tire SKU
rated will allow NHTSA to give
consumers one central database for tire
ratings. With all tire ratings on NHTSA’s
Web site cross-comparisons of tire
performance characteristics will be far
more effective than if consumers had to
visit the Web sites of multiple
manufacturers and vendors. Compliance
audits of manufacturers may be
sufficient to assure that the reported
ratings are accurate, but it does not
make information for all rated tires
available to consumers. It is
significantly more cost-effective to
require tire manufacturers to submit the
ratings to the agency than NHTSA
creating the database itself due to the
time and labor the government would
need to expend to collect all the ratings
for 20,000 tire SKUs.
In terms of data submission being
costly, mandatory submission of data
does not require any manufacturer to
conduct any additional tests on top of
what they would need to do to selfcertify the ratings given to the tires.270
The only direct costs borne by a
manufacturer due to a data reporting
requirement are those of the actual
collection and submission of the data.
However, each tire manufacturer
already collects information on each
SKU to submit for EWR data submission
requirements.271 Therefore, adding a

few more columns onto that submission,
as discussed immediately below, will
not be a significant additive cost.
The agency has agreed to not require
submission of the base test values from
which tire manufacturers calculate the
ratings based on comments that it would
make public each manufacturer’s
statistical approach to risk in terms of
how each manufacturer is rating tires to
prevent the possibility of noncompliance. Should a non-compliance
of a tire arise, the agency has sufficient
regulatory processes to obtain the base
test values from the manufacturers used
to generate the ratings.
NHTSA finds technical merit in
Ford’s request that the actual test load
of the tire be provided to consumers to
provide context on why rolling
resistance may vary by vehicle
application. However, this information
is far too complex and confusing for the
average consumer to understand and
would add unnecessary cost. The
agency’s tire Web site will note that the
tire fuel efficiency rating is derived from
a measure of a tire’s rolling resistance at
a fixed percentage of a tire’s maximum
load, and that rolling resistance can vary
based on a tire’s load.
Excluded tires: In the NPRM, NHTSA
requested comments on whether it
should mandate in the manufacturer
reporting requirements 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. The NPRM
explained that the limited production
exclusion is not obvious just by
examining the tire, and requiring
manufacturers to report this information
would allow NHTSA to quickly verify
whether or not the lack of a label was
an enforcement concern.
The Specialty Equipment Market
Association (SEMA) opposed the
requirement that tire manufacturers
report which limited production tires
they manufacture which are excluded
from the label requirements of this
rule.272 SEMA commented that the
exclusion of certain tires recognizes that
the limited production tire
manufacturers are small businesses and
that it would be cost-prohibitive to
apply the consumer information
requirements, in any form, to these
companies. Further, SEMA commented

270 See section III.A.5 of this notice for a
discussion of self certification.
271 Responding to the Transportation Recall
Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation
(TREAD) Act requirements in 2002, NHTSA issued
rules requiring that motor vehicle and equipment
manufacturers provide communications regarding
defective equipment, information on foreign safety
recalls and certain early warning data. 49 CFR Part

579; see Final Rule, Reporting of Information and
Documents About Potential Defects Retention of
Records That Could Indicate Defects, 67 FR 45822
(July 10, 2002); Final Rule, Reporting of Information
About Foreign Safety Recalls and Campaigns
Related to Potential Defects, 67 FR 63295 (Oct. 11,
2002).
272 SEMA Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0045.1 at 2.

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

15930

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

that consumers purchasing specialized
tires that fall under the exemption will
not be seeking comparative fuel
efficiency ratings for these tires, because
consumers purchase these specialized
tires based on factors and requirements
other than fuel efficiency (e.g., style,
performance, specialized shape and
size). Accordingly, SEMA stated that
there would not be any consumer
confusion in the marketplace on why
these specialized tires do not have fuel
efficiency ratings. SEMA stated that if
NHTSA believes it must require the
reporting of excluded tires, however,
that it should be in the form of a onetime statement from tire manufacturers
that are claiming the exemption, rather
than requiring them to submit this
information in the EWR data
submission.
Michelin expressed support for
requiring the reporting of tires that
qualify for the low volume exemption
and are not rated or have performance
grades substituted.273 Michelin
commented that making public this data
will provide better quality information
for consumers in that it will prevent
uncertainties as to why consumers
cannot find information on a particular
tire.
ICCT agreed that manufacturers
should be required to report which tires
are exempted, and the basis for the
exemption.274 ICCT further commented
that the exemption data should be
included in the NHTSA database to
inform consumers that those tires have
been excluded.
Agency response: The agency has
decided to require the submission of
information on excluded tires in the
reporting requirements. For
manufacturers that are otherwise
required to report ratings data, this
information should be included with
those data submissions. For
manufacturers that only produce limited
production tires, or other tires that are
excluded from the applicability of
today’s program, these manufacturers
must provide a one-time list of each one
of its tire models/sizes, and a statement
that every one of its tire models/sizes
are excluded from the applicability of
this regulation and, thus, are not rated.
When such a manufacturer introduces a
new tire model or size that it also
believes is excluded under the rule, it
must send a statement declaring as such
to NHTSA 30 days before it is first
offered for sale.
273 Michelin

Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–
2008–0121–0048.1 at 13.
274 ICCT Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0042.1 at 2.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

NHTSA agrees with Michelin and
ICCT that this information would be
useful to consumers who wish to
understand which tires are not rated
and why. Thus, NHTSA will make this
information available on its tire Web
site.
Requiring the submission of which
tires are not rated because they are
excluded under the statute will not be
an additional burden for manufacturers
that are already required to submit
periodic production data under EWR
requirements.275 Allowing a one-time
statement from manufacturers who only
produce tires that are excluded from
applicability of this final rule will
impose a minimal burden on those
manufacturers.
Format of the data submission: The
NPRM requested comment on what
format to require tire manufacturers to
submit data. NHTSA proposed that the
agency will design a Microsoft Excel
template for data submission and will
make this template available for
download from the agency Web site.
The NPRM explained that NHTSA was
also looking into using an online data
submission system and the possibility of
creating one centralized location where
tire manufacturers will submit all
required data submissions. The agency
sought comment on the feasibility of
using both a spreadsheet template and
an online data reporting system for
having tire manufacturers submit data
for the fuel efficiency consumer
information program ratings. No
commenter submitted suggestions
regarding methods for data submission.
NHTSA will require that the rating
information for each SKU to be
submitted as new columns in the EWR
submission. Tire manufacturers are
currently required to report quarterly
production information separately with
respect to each tire line, size, SKU, plant
where manufactured, and model year of
tire manufactured during the reporting
period and the four calendar years prior
to the reporting period, including tire
lines no longer in production.276 The
required production information
includes whether the tire is approved
for use as original equipment on a motor
vehicle, if so, the make, model, and
model year of each vehicle for which it
is approved, the production year, the
cumulative warranty production, and
the cumulative total production through
the end of the reporting period. As such,
submitting the ratings with the EWR
submissions is simply a matter of
275 49
276 49

PO 00000

CFR 579.26.
CFR 579.26.

Frm 00038

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

adding on three columns of data for
each tire SKU.
Since the three ratings for the tires
will be submitted as new columns in the
EWR submission, the identifying
information for each tire will follow the
current format specified in EWR. It
would also mean that this information
would be submitted quarterly. The exact
format of the new reporting
requirements (namely the additional
reporting columns for the three ratings
and exemption designation) will be
issued in a subsequent update to the
EWR reporting compendium, which is
currently available at: http://wwwodi.nhtsa.dot.gov/ewr/ewr.cfm. NHTSA
will take the ratings information from
the EWR submissions and create a
database with all ratings that can be
used on NHTSA’s comprehensive tire
Web site to view comparative tire
information and so that the fuel
efficiency rating can be used to estimate
fuel savings for consumers on the Web
site. Accordingly, this submitted data
would be considered public
information. The agency recognizes that
some information submitted via EWR
data submission requirements is nonpublic and this new submission would
not change the status of those categories
of data.
In summary, the data reporting
requirements for the final regulation are
to be reported as extra columns in the
EWR submissions that each tire
manufacturer already submits to the
agency. The data reported must include
the rolling resistance, wet traction, and
treadwear ratings, which will be based
on rating formulas established in a
future notice finalizing the consumer
information and education portions of
the tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program. In addition, any
tire manufacturer that manufactures tire
models and sizes it is claiming are
excluded under the applicability of this
rule must report at least once to the
agency which tire models and sizes it is
claiming are excluded. If a manufacturer
that is reporting its ratings using its
periodic EWR submission manufactures
tires that are excluded from the
applicability of this rule, then it may
report those tire models and sizes as
extra rows in its EWR submission. Any
manufacturer that introduces a new tire
brand, model, size, or construction that
it believes is excluded under this rule,
must report to the agency at least 30
days before the tire is first offered for
sale to consumers.
C. Uniform Tire Quality Grading
Standards
As mentioned above and discussed in
the NPRM, NHTSA has a tire rating

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
system that has been in place since
1975, the uniform tire quality grading
standards (UTQGS).277 NHTSA
established the UTQGS to fulfill a
statutory requirement established by
Title II, Tire Safety, of the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of
1966.278 This statutory requirement has
been codified and amended to read as
follows:
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.279

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,280 to report
those ratings to NHTSA,281 to
permanently mold those ratings onto
sidewalls,282 to attach a label containing
those ratings on replacement tires,283
and to provide information about the
UTQGS with tires and new motor
vehicles.284 As explained in the NPRM,
the treadwear, traction, and temperature
resistance characteristics were chosen
by NHTSA for rating under the UTQGS
because when the UTQGS regulations
were promulgated the agency believed
they provided the best balance of tire
properties for meaningful evaluation by
consumers.
As NHTSA is basing the safety and
durability ratings on the test procedures
for UTQGS traction and treadwear test
procedures, these characteristics were
discussed above. As explained in the
NPRM, 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
277 See

49 CFR 575.104 (2008).
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
Act of 1966, Public Law 89–563, § 203, 80 Stat. 718
(1966) (recodified as amended at 49 U.S.C.
30123(b)).
279 49 U.S.C. 30123(b).
280 49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i).
281 49 CFR 575.6(d)(2).
282 49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(A).
283 49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B).
284 49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(ii)–(iv).

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

278 See

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

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,
new tires perform below the level of
grade B.285
In 1995, NHTSA proposed
amendments to the UTQGS.286 At that
time, NHTSA proposed, based on
comments from the public,287 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.288 The rulemaking was
terminated 289 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.’’ 290 This language has been
included in every DOT Appropriations
Act since 1996.
In developing NHTSA’s proposal, we
considered the need and
appropriateness of continuing the
current UTQGS requirements. The
NPRM explained that NHTSA
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.
RMA, Michelin, Tire Rack, and
Consumers Union supported removing
the UTQGS requirements citing
potential confusion with two different
rating systems.
RMA supported replacing the existing
UTQGS traction and treadwear ratings
with the ratings imposed under the tire
285 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 No. 139. See 49 CFR
571.139.
286 60 FR 27472 (May 24, 1995).
287 See Request for Comments, 59 FR 19686 (Apr.
25, 1994).
288 Id. at 19689.
289 See 61 FR 47437 (Sept. 9, 1996).
290 Department of Transportation and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996,
Public Law 104–50, 109 Stat. 436 (1995).

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

15931

fuel efficiency consumer information
program and removing the UTQGS
temperature grading.291 RMA agreed
with NHTSA’s interpretation of the
current DOT Appropriations Act
language that NHTSA has the authority
to make the changes to the UTQGS
regulation contemplated by the NPRM’s
second UTQGS alternative: that the
UTQGS requirements could be amended
to conform with today’s requirements.
RMA and Michelin both noted that
since the new safety rating system
would be based on different test criteria,
some products rated highly in the
current UTQGS system could rate lower
under a proposed peak coefficient of
friction-based safety rating, which may
lead to consumer confusion.292
Consumers Union recommended that
the new label replace the present
UTQGS ratings requirements.293
Consumers Union commented that
consumer confusion would result from
presenting treadwear in two different
rating formats. Further, Consumers
Union stated that UTQGS traction
grading and the proposed wet traction
rating were different and could be
misinterpreted by consumers.
Consumers Union also commented that
the current UTQGS grading of
temperature is basically a two rating
system (‘‘As’’ and ‘‘Bs’’) because virtually
no tires are awarded a ‘‘C’’ rating.
Consumers Union, thus, suggested that
NHTSA remove the UTQGS sidewall
molding requirement and replace those
sidewall ratings with the ratings
established today molded onto the tire.
Consumers Union recognized that
legally NHTSA may not be able to
pursue that approach at this time, but it
urged the agency to monitor consumer
understanding of the labeling system
and perhaps seek the authority for such
a change, if necessary.
Tire Rack suggested that the UTQGS
branding and labeling requirements be
eliminated.294 Tire Rack stated that it
believes maintaining existing UTQGS
ratings and tire molding would prove
confusing to consumers. Further, Tire
Rack commented that the proposed
rating systems for durability (treadwear)
and safety (wet traction) serve the same
purpose as the corresponding existing
UTQGS ratings.
ExxonMobil commented that since no
statistical correlation is found between
the measured RRF or calculated RRC
291 RMA Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0036.1 at 13.
292 Id. at 11; Michelin Comments, Docket No.
NHSTA–2008–0121–0048.1 at 8–9.
293 Consumers Union Comments, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0034 at 3–4.
294 Tire Rack Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–
2008–0121–0026.1 at 6.

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

15932

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

values and the UTQGS ratings, the
current UTQGS system cannot be easily
extended to include a tire fuel efficiency
rating.295 ExxonMobil stated that the
new system proposed by NHTSA is
more advantageous as an educational
tool than the UTQGS rating system
since it provides actual numbers for
consumers to judge potential tire quality
at the time of purchase.
Public Citizen et al. supported
NHTSA continuing to provide the
temperature resistance rating along with
other UTQGS ratings, and
recommended that temperature
resistance should be incorporated into
the new tire labels.296 Public Citizen et
al. commented that NHTSA has been
blocked from making the proposed
changes to the UTQGS by the condition
contained in the DOT Appropriations
Act each year since 1996. Further,
Public Citizen et al. argued that this
appropriations rider has forestalled
more detailed study into the
consequences of discontinuing the
temperature resistance rating. In
addition, Public Citizen et al. pointed
out that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 109, New
Pneumatic and Certain Specialty Tires,
was upgraded in 2003 and that the new
standard raised the test speeds, which
reduces concern that discontinuing the
temperature rating diminishes
information about tire performance at
higher speeds.297 However, Public
Citizen et al. stated that the temperature
rating provides information about tire
safety and durability that is
substantially different from the rolling
resistance and treadwear ratings.
Therefore, Public Citizen et al.
commented that the UTQGS
temperature resistance grading will
continue to provide the information in
a format that is useful to consumers.
Public Citizen et al. expressed
skepticism at the perceived implication
in the NPRM that temperature ratings
are not useful because consumers are
not familiar with them.
Agency response: The agency agrees
with commenters that suggested that
having tires labeled with two different
rating scales for safety and durability
potentially could be confusing to some
consumers. NHTSA also recognizes, as
some commenters pointed out, the
potential confusion that might be
caused if the safety rating established
under this program is different than the
UTQGS safety rating. On the other hand,
295 ExxonMobil Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–
2008–0121–0044.1 at 10.
296 Public Citizen et al. Comments, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0043.1 at 3–4.
297 68 FR 38117 (June 26, 2003).

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

NHTSA also agrees with Public Citizen
et al. that NHTSA has not recently
studied in detailed the consequences of
discontinuing the temperature
resistance rating.
For these reasons, NHTSA is retaining
the UTQGS requirements at this time,
including the UTQGS treadwear,
traction, and temperature resistance
ratings. However, if a future final rule
finalizes that ratings under the tire fuel
efficiency consumer information must
be printed on a paper label on each
passenger car replacement tire, NHTSA
will consider removing the UTQGS
requirement of molding UTQGS ratings
onto tires, and the UTQGS requirement
printing UTQGS information on the
paper tire label when a tire is labeled in
accordance with the tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program
requirements. The requirements to
report UTQGS grading information to
NHTSA would remain. As such, the
UTQGS ratings would still be available
to interested consumers, vehicle
manufacturers, and tire retailers, but a
consumer looking at a tire would not be
confronted with different and confusing
rating scales. NHTSA wants to study
further the likely consequences of
discontinuing the temperature
resistance rating before making a
decision about the future UTQGS
requirements. NHTSA is making no
changes to UTQGS requirements in this
final rule.
Ideally the agency would combine the
two programs since both the UTQGS
statutory authority and the EISA
authority call for regulatory programs
intended to educate consumers about
tires. That is, under the first alternative
discussed in the NPRM (removing the
UTQGS ratings), NHTSA contemplated
announcing that the ratings established
under this new program satisfied both
the EISA statutory directive and the
statutory authority under which the
UTQGS ratings were created. However,
NHTSA has concerns that the
appropriations rider would be triggered
by the inclusion of the fuel efficiency
rating in today’s rating system.
As for the second alternative
contemplated in the NPRM (amending
the UTQGS requirements to conform to
the new ratings), NHTSA agrees with
Public Citizen et al. that NHTSA does
not have current research to show that
temperature resistance is not a useful
additional piece of information for
consumers. In a 1995 NPRM, the agency
concluded that most consumers are not
aware of and/or do not understand the
significance of the temperature
resistance rating.298 However, the
298 See

PO 00000

60 FR 27472, 27478–27481.

Frm 00040

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

agency has not explored the issue of
consumer understanding of the
temperature resistance rating since that
time. Further, a 1994 Request for
Comments on the issue of substituting a
rolling resistance rating for temperature
resistance drew comments from
manufacturers who insisted that rolling
resistance and temperature resistance
are separate properties.299 They asserted
that rolling resistance measures the
energy consumed by the tire, while
temperature resistance relates to the
ability of the tire structure and materials
to withstand the temperatures generated
by the flexing of the rubber and its
reinforced materials.300 The agency
decided to propose elimination of the
temperature resistance grading at that
time mainly based on consumer
research which showed that the
temperature resistance rating was less
understood and less useful to
consumers that other tire performance
ratings when making a decision.301 The
agency is not comfortable deleting a tire
grading previously determined by the
agency to be useful without both recent
consumer research testing consumer
understanding of the rating, and
researching the continued need given
the upgraded tire endurance
requirements of FMVSS No. 139.302
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). NHTSA
believes, and many commenters noted,
that the consumer education portion of
this tire fuel efficiency consumer
education program will be an important
factor in the success of the rating
system. The consumer education
program must be implemented in such
a way as to get consumers to understand
the importance of tire choice and tire
maintenance, and that tires impact
vehicle safety, fuel efficiency, and
general operation. The new rating
system will only be effective and useful,
if the consumer education program is
able to cultivate this interest and
understanding with consumers.
299 See

59 FR 19686.
FR at 27478.
301 Id. at 27279.
302 See 49 CFR 571.139.
300 60

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
For similar reasons discussed above,
in order to have the full benefit of any
new understanding of how consumers
best comprehend information gained
from the agency’s new consumer
research, NHTSA will re-propose its
ideas for the consumer education
portion of the program in the
supplemental NPRM on the consumer
information and education portions of
the tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program. The supplemental
NPRM will newly propose and seek
comment on numerous ways that
NHTSA could implement a consumer
education program to inform consumers
about the effect of tire properties and
tire maintenance on vehicle fuel
efficiency, safety, and durability. The
supplemental NPRM will also discuss
some of the messages that NHTSA
believes will be key to a successful tire
fuel efficiency consumer information
program.
Within the next year NHTSA will
begin developing a new government
Web site on tires, which will be linked
directly from http://www.safercar.gov/.
It will contain all the information on
NHTSA’s current tire Web site (also
located within www.safercar.gov), as
well as links to other useful Web sites
that contain educational information
about tire maintenance.303 In
furtherance of the objectives of
consumer education program, the
supplemental NPRM will seek comment
on the structure and content of the tire
Web site. NHTSA’s tire Web site will
eventually contain a database of all tire
rating information.
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. In
the NPRM, NHTSA requested comments
on the most effective way to establish
and implement a consumer education
program to fulfill the statutory
requirements and purposes behind the
tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program. NHTSA received
extensive comments about the messages
the agency should convey and the
strategic methods of communication
NHTSA should employ when
embarking on the consumer education
portion of the tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program. NHTSA
303 NHTSA’s current online tire information can
be found at http://www.nhtsa.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/
menuitem.c6b5d461a04337a1ba7d9d1046108a0c/
and http://www.safercar.gov/portal/site/safercar/
menuitem.13dd5c887c7e1358fefe0a2f35a67789/
?vgnextoid
=0e0aaa8c16e35110VgnVCM1000002fd17898RCRD
(last accessed Sept. 24, 2009).

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

will continue to consider all these
comments moving forward with the
supplemental NPRM discussed above.
IX. Benefits and Costs
The agency’s response to the specific
comments about benefits and costs
calculations are discussed below and in
greater detail in the agency’s Final
Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA).
ICCT and NRDC commented that
NHTSA underestimated benefits that
would result from the proposal.304 RMA
commented that NHTSA overestimated
benefits of the proposal and
underestimated costs.305
A. Benefits
In the NPRM, the agency identified
three categories of potential benefits (or
disbenefits) from this rule: fuel
economy, safety and durability.306 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 tire manufacturers make a
tradeoff between fuel economy and
safety, one effect of this rule may be to
increase safety while decreasing fuel
economy. NHTSA would like to be able
to quantify the value of all 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 requested comments on how it
might reduce the uncertainty regarding
the anticipated outcomes of this
proposal.
The NPRM further explained that 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.
For fuel efficiency, NHTSA would
like the fuel efficiency rating to provide
meaningful information relevant to their
replacement purchase, e.g., with a
statement such as ‘‘for every 10,000
304 NRDC Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0040.1 at 7–8; ICCT Comments, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0042.1 at 1–2.
305 RMA Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0036.1 at 14–15; RMA Comments Appendix
8, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0036.9 at 11–14.
306 As noted in the preamble, there are also
benefits in terms of reductions in emissions of CO2.
Reductions in fuel consumption necessarily and
directly result in reductions in those emissions.

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

15933

miles driven, a difference of A on the
fuel efficiency rating scale equates to B
gallons of fuel saved when 4 tires are
purchased, so a difference of C on the
fuel efficiency rating scale means a
savings of D gallons over 10,000 miles
driven for the average vehicle.’’ Given
such a statement, 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 two
different replacement tires a consumer
is considering purchasing, 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, for one
replacement tire versus another, to
operate the vehicle for 10,000 miles. By
using fuel price forecasts, a consumer
could 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. Because the agency
cannot foresee precisely how much
today’s consumer information program
will affect consumer tire purchasing
behavior and cannot foresee the
reduction in rolling resistance among
improved tires (we estimate the
potential range of rolling resistance
improvement to be between 5 and 10
percent), the FRIA 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. For example, if
we assume that 1 percent of targeted
tires (1.4 million tires) are improved and
that the average reduction in rolling
resistance is 5 percent, then under these
hypothetical assumptions, the proposal
is estimated to save 3.0 million gallons
of fuel and prevent the emission of
29,000 metric tons of CO2 annually. The
value of these savings through 2050 is
$11.6 million at a 3 percent discount
rate.
Benefit estimates for the safety rating
are more difficult to quantify. As noted,
definitive information is lacking about
likely consumer responses to these
ratings. 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

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

15934

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Y percent fewer crashes and Z dollars
less in resultant economic damages.’’
For durability, the UTQGS treadwear
test procedure results in a relative
measurement of tread wear rate as
compared to a control tire, which would
be rated 100 on the UTQGS treadwear
scale. A tire with a UTQGS treadwear
rating of 200 should last twice as long
as a tire rated a 100, and so forth.
Several assumptions would need to be
made to develop a rule of thumb for a
durability rating scale of the form ‘‘each
difference of X on the durability rating
scale 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.
Fuel savings estimates: NRDC and
ICCT commented that NHTSA may have
underestimated the fuel economy
benefits of the proposed rule.307 ICCT
commented that benefits may be
understated by as much as 40 percent
due to a flaw in the agency’s estimate of
the impact of reduced rolling resistance
on fuel economy. ICCT noted that
NHTSA’s testing used a two-wheeled
dynamometer to calculate the impact of
tire rolling resistance on fuel economy
at 1 percent and 1.1 percent for city and
highway driving, respectively. ICCT
stated that the 2008 Impala used for the
testing has 61 percent of its total weight
on the drive wheels. According to ICCT,
that means that the testing would only
capture the effect of 61 percent of the
on-road tire rolling resistance. The other
39 percent from the rear wheels is
incorporated into the dynamometer load
curve. ICCT stated that when the tires
were changed to measure the fuel
economy impact of tire rolling
resistance, its understanding was that
the 39 percent contribution from the
rear wheels contained in the
dynamometer load curve was not
changed to reflect the benefits of
improved rolling resistance from the
rear wheels. ICCT commented that if
this occurred, the benefits may be
under-predicted by about 40 percent for
similar front-wheel drive vehicles and
perhaps more for rear-wheel drive. ICCT
recommended that NHSTA re-assess
this test method to make sure that the
benefits of this important proposed
program are properly understood.
NRDC similarly commented that
NHTSA’s fuel savings estimates from
reduced rolling resistance could
potentially be underestimated in
307 NRDC Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0040.1 at 7–8; ICCT Comments, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0042.1 at 1–2.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

dynamometer tests if the results
computations account for tire changes
on only two (instead of all four) of the
wheels. NRDC requested that NHTSA
clarify how it conducted the
dynamometer testing and if the testing
properly accounted for rolling resistance
changes to all four tires.
Agency response: Based on data
analysis conducted in response to these
comments, NHTSA agrees with
commenters that the effect of tire rolling
resistance on vehicle fuel economy used
in the NPRM and PRIA were
underestimated. In response to the ICCT
comments, we examined vehicle
coastdown data and analyzed the effects
on the fuel economy dynamometer
coefficients versus changes in tire
rolling resistance. We integrated these
effects over the whole fuel economy
cycle. From these data, we estimate that
total fuel consumption vis-a-vis rolling
resistance was underestimated by
approximately 20 percent for all non-OE
tires—not the 40 percent claimed by
ICCT. Thus, we now believe that a 10
percent reduction in rolling resistance
increases fuel economy by 1.3 percent,
as compared to the 1.1 percent we
estimated in the PRIA, and have revised
the benefits in the FRIA accordingly.
Since issuance of the NPRM, the Tire
Rack has published a study of on-road
vehicle fuel economy for a 2009 Toyota
Prius using seven different tire
models.308 Using the fuel economy
results from the Prius, and the available
tire rolling resistance data from other
sources 309 for five of the seven tire
models, there was an approximate 1.38
percent improvement in fuel economy
for a 10 percent decrease in RRF. This
is only slightly higher than the agency’s
revised estimate of 1.30 percent.
Benefits not addressed: NRDC and
ICCT commented that NHTSA should
include the impacts on greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions (from both vehicle
emissions and upstream refining/
production emissions), other pollutants,
and energy security in quantifying
benefits.310 These commenters stated
that these benefits are important and are
quantified under NHTSA’s corporate
average fuel economy (CAFE) regulatory
impact analyses.
In a somewhat related comment, RMA
stated that NHTSA should estimate and

monetize GHG emissions impacts.311
RMA stated that because manufacturers
will need to do additional tire treadwear
testing, GHG emissions may increase.
Agency response: The FRIA contains
additional computations of GHG
impact—both the GHG emissions
emitted by manufacturer testing and the
GHG emission reductions as consumers
buy more fuel efficient tires. In addition,
CO2 is emitted from refineries and other
sources to produce fuel and deliver it to
gas stations, and so less fuel used by
vehicles also translates to reduced CO2
emissions from these sources (i.e.,
reduced upstream emissions).312
Projected consumer response: RMA
commented that NHTSA has no basis
for assuming that between 2 and 10
percent of consumers will purchase tires
with improved rolling resistance.313
RMA stated that it believes the percent
may well be less, since most consumers
will not see the label until after they
have purchased the tire, and the
informational posters displayed at tire
retailers will not contain information on
the tires the consumer is considering
purchasing. Thus, RMA contended that
the PRIA overestimated benefits.
Agency response: The PRIA
developed hypothetical estimates
assuming that between 2 percent and 10
percent of targeted tires are improved
and that the average reduction in rolling
resistance among improved tires is
between 5 percent and 10 percent. We
acknowledge that many consumers may
not see the ratings before they purchase
their tires. However, we presume that
based on consumer information
requirements implemented in a
forthcoming final rule, some will see the
ratings when purchasing replacement
tires, perhaps as a label on display tires,
or on posters or on dealer
advertisements for tires on sales or on
other promoted tires, or on
manufacturer or dealer Web sites for
consumers who conduct Internet
research prior to visiting a dealer. In
addition, salespersons at tire dealers
may discuss the ratings or show ratings
to consumers to display the favorable
properties of tire models they wish to
promote. In addition, some consumers
may see the ratings through other facets
of NHTSA’s consumer education
program.
Based on general economic
principles, we expect these sources of

308 See http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/
testDisplay.jsp?ttid=121 (last accessed Oct. 12,
2009).
309 RMA & ExxonMobil comments to the tire
rolling resistance docket.
310 NRDC Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0040.1 at 2, 7–8; ICCT Comments, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0042.1 at 2.

311 RMA Comments Appendix 8, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0036.9 at 20–21.
312 As in the agency’s most recent rulemaking on
Corporate Average Fuel Economy, we only
considered upstream emissions that would occur in
the U.S. (‘‘domestic upstream emissions’’).
313 RMA Comments Appendix 8, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0036.9 at 2, 17, 20–21.

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

information about the new rating system
to increase demand for tires that have
some degree of improvement in all three
areas of tire performance (wet traction,
fuel efficiency, and treadwear).
However, at this point the agency can’t
predict how the market will react to the
program. In addition, NHTSA’s
consumer research results on the
amount of money consumers would pay
for a tire with a higher rating in one of
the three scales indicate that consumers
who see the ratings (through one of the
sources in the previous paragraph) are
likely to buy tires with some degree of
improvement in all three areas.
The agency’s expert assessment is that
the rolling resistance of tires can be
reduced while sacrificing neither
traction nor treadwear at a cost of about
$3 per tire. NHTSA’s recent consumer
research indicates that buyers would
pay between $4 and $5 more per tire for
improved fuel efficiency. Therefore, we
believe that, while there will be
consumers who, when presented with
tire ratings, would choose to sacrifice
fuel efficiency for traction or treadwear,
in general consumers will drive a
market for tires that have improved fuel
efficiency with little or no reduction in
traction and treadwear.
For analytical purposes, NHTSA
examined a hypothetical example
assuming that 1 percent of eligible
replacement tires would have 5 percent
improved rolling resistance. Other
estimates of more tires or better
reduction in rolling resistance can be
determined by simply multiplying the
results of the example calculations by
factors. NHTSA’s expert assessment
continues to be (as in the PRIA) that the
average rolling resistance of improved
tires can be reduced by between 5
percent and 10 percent.
B. Costs 314
For this final rule, there are three sets
of costs involved for tire manufacturers:
Costs to test tires to obtain rating
information, costs of reporting ratings to
NHTSA, and, assuming the program
induces consumers to demand and
manufacturers to produce improved
tires, costs to improve tires. If
consumers use the ratings information
to purchase tires and demand different
tires, or if manufacturers believe the
information will have such an effect,
there will be costs that manufacturers
will spend to improve tires.
The NPRM and the PRIA explained
that these costs are difficult to estimate.
There are many different ways that a
manufacturer might chose to improve
314 All costs discussed below are presented in
2008 economics.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

the rolling resistance rating of their
tires. The PRIA estimated 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.315 However, total costs for this
category are dependent on market
demand for different tires as a result of
this program. The PRIA assumed 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 agency estimated the costs to
improve tires to be between $8.5 and
$42 million. The agency requested
comments on this cost estimate.
Based on a report from Smithers
Scientific Services, Inc. (Smithers)
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 for each SKU. 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 estimated
that 125 new/redesigned tires would
need to be tested annually, for ongoing
testing costs of $22,500. Since the
UTQGS already requires testing for
treadwear and traction, the PRIA
explained that those costs are already in
the baseline and were not incremental
costs of the agency’s proposal.
The PRIA explained that information
program costs include manufacturer
costs to report information to NHTSA
and to label tires. Since NHTSA is not
requiring tire manufacturers label tires
at this time, the manufacturer costs to
label tires is not a consideration in the
FRIA accompanying this final rule.
NHTSA will account for costs of a label
when the requirement is re-proposed in
the supplementary NPRM addressing
consumer information requirements.
Tire manufacturers are required to
provide information to NHTSA on the
rating system. NHTSA proposed to
require manufacturers to report to
NHTSA for each tire that is individually
rated under the tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program data on
315 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 believes it is important to have
rolling resistance, traction, and treadwear on the
same label.

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

15935

each of the three ratings: Fuel efficiency,
traction, and treadwear. There are 20
tire manufacturers that report to the
agency under NHTSA’s Early Warning
Reporting (EWR) data submission
requirements. The PRIA and NPRM
explained that each manufacturer would
need to set up the software in a
computer program to combine the
testing information, organize it for
NHTSA’s use, etc. We estimated this
cost to be a one-time cost of about
$10,000 per company. In the analysis of
the EWR data submission requirements,
we estimated the annual cost per report
per tire manufacturer to be $287.316
There are also computer maintenance
costs of keeping the data up to date, etc.
as tests are conducted throughout the
year. In the EWR analysis, we estimated
costs of $3,755 per year per company.
Thus, the PRIA and NPRM estimated
the total annual cost is 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.
For tire retailers, the agency estimated
that the proposal would have no cost.
The only proposed requirements for
retailers were to leave the label on the
tire until it is sold and to display a
poster. Since manufacturers would
supply the label, and the NPRM
proposed that NHTSA would supply the
poster, the PRIA estimated there would
be no cost to retailers. As noted above,
because NHTSA is planning to repropose the consumer information
component of the program, tire retailer
costs are not a consideration in the FRIA
accompanying this final rule.
The PRIA explained that 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. As explained above,
NHTSA will re-propose the consumer
information requirements. Thus,
NHTSA will not be providing posters to
tire retailers at this time. NHTSA said it
anticipated spending $730,000 annually
to do compliance testing for this
program. Based on costs for the existing
areas of the NHTSA Web site, NHTSA
estimated that it would cost
approximately $550,000 per year to set
up and update the part of the Web site
to include information on 20,000 tires.
Testing costs: RMA commented that
the PRIA underestimated costs of
additional testing manufacturers would
need to conduct under the proposed
316 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\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

15936

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

rule.317 RMA estimates that the costs to
its eight member companies alone
would be $14.7 to $51.1 million in the
first year and $10.2 to $27.2 million in
subsequent years. RMA stated that
manufacturers would need to do more
treadwear and wet traction testing than
estimated because under ‘‘worst case’’
final rule scenario (i.e., if manufacturers
had to report the specific data values
supporting a tire’s rating and
noncompliance was determined using a
tolerance band approach), tire
companies would make upper end
assumptions regarding equipment and
labor needs and more SKUs would need
to be tested, rather than modeled, and
some might even be tested more than
once in order to narrow the confidence
bounds and avoid violating the
tolerance bands when reporting values.
RMA commented that cost increases
would involve both additional initial
costs (testing equipment and costs to
test existing SKUs) as well as ongoing
annual costs (continuing testing costs to
report values for each SKU). RMA
commented that small increases in costs
would result also from the need to
report peak instead of slide values for
the safety (wet traction) rating.
Agency response: First of all, as
explained above in section VII.B.2,
NHTSA is requiring only that tire
manufacturers report to NHTSA the
rating, and is not requiring the reporting
of the underlying test values the rating
is based on. We continue to believe that
only one test per tire SKU will be
necessary and that additional testing
would be at the tire manufacturers’
option, and will discuss this further in
the discussion of enforcement approach
in the supplemental NPRM on the
consumer information component of
this program.
Our concerns with RMA’s testing cost
estimates are discussed in the FRIA.
Nonetheless, we acknowledge RMA’s
points that the PRIA neglected to
include capital costs to purchase testing
equipment, and that the agency likely
underestimated the number of new
SKUs produced annually, while
overestimating the number of SKUs for
sale each year. We used the industry
estimates of SKU quantities that RMA
provided for predicting the costs of the
final rule. RMA’s ‘‘best case’’ capital cost
estimate of a one-time charge of $10.7
million appears reasonable, as a
combined cost to the industry. Our final
testing cost estimates assume one test
per SKU for rolling resistance, traction,
and treadwear, however, it is possible
that manufacturers could test far fewer
317 RMA Comments Appendix 8, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0036.9 at 11–14.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

tires. We believe that RMA’s estimates
of the cost to test a SKU for traction and
treadwear are overstated.
The FRIA contains a full discussion of
the agency’s cost estimates, but in
summary, NHTSA believes that we
underestimated testing costs in the PRIA
and are revising them. The FRIA
estimates that capital costs will increase
by $10.7 million in the first year, tire
testing costs will increase by $22.4
million in the first year and by $3.8
million in subsequent years, resulting in
total testing costs of $33.1 million in the
first year and $3.8 million in subsequent
years.
Label costs: RMA commented that
NHTSA underestimated label costs to
manufacturers.318 RMA stated that tire
manufacturers would have initial startup costs of $22 million to cover design
set-up and printing equipment, and
annual printing costs of $11.5 million.
Agency response: NHTSA estimated a
label cost of $0.05 per tire resulting in
a net label cost of $9 million in the PRIA
which is quite comparable with RMA’s
annual print cost of $11.5 million. Since
a final label has not been designed,
NHTSA will not include label costs in
the FRIA associated with this final rule.
However, NHTSA notes that RMA
incorrectly thought they would need to
spend $11 million labeling their existing
inventory. The NPRM did not propose
a requirement to label existing
inventory.
Costs of improving tires: RMA’s
survey of members generally confirms
NHTSA’s estimates regarding the cost
per tire to improve rolling resistance
without sacrificing traction or
treadwear.319 NHTSA estimated the cost
to improve the rolling resistance of tires
to be between $2 and $4, depending
upon the tire size, averaging $3 per tire.
RMA estimated the cost to improve the
rolling resistance of tires to be between
$2 and $6, depending upon the size, and
averaging $3 per tire.
Agency response: NHTSA has
changed its range to between $2 and $6.
This is reasonable because the bigger the
tire, the more cost to add silica to get the
desired effect. There are larger tires in
the market than we considered with our
general cost range, and if you look at the
extreme, the cost per tire might be up to
$6. Regardless of the minimum and
maximum cost to improve the rolling
resistance of tires, everyone agrees that
the average price to upgrade the average
tire is $3 per tire.
318 RMA Comments Appendix 8, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0036.9 at 12–14.
319 RMA Comments Appendix 8, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0036.9 at 14–15.

PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Other costs: RMA commented that
NHTSA has not estimated the costs of
the decreased tire safety and durability
that may result from the rule.320 RMA
stated that NHTSA needs to do this, and
when it does, the benefits of the rule
will not justify the cost (even using
NHTSA’s values for the other cost
estimates). RMA commented that
improving rolling resistance will
decrease traction and treadwear. RMA
stated that NHTSA acknowledged in the
Phase II Research Report (p. 47) that
improving rolling resistance will worsen
wet traction performance. Further, RMA
pointed to NHTSA’s data (p. 43 of Phase
II Report) which shows that dry traction
is also likely to worsen. RMA stated that
NHTSA acknowledged that its labeling
program may effectively exacerbate the
traction problem by spurring consumers
to sacrifice traction to save money.
Regarding treadwear, RMA commented
that NHTSA’s PRIA stated that tread life
may be lessened and a CEC report says
tread life will lessen. Therefore, RMA
commented that NHTSA needs to
analyze the impact of the rule on
fatalities, injuries, property damage,
increased consumer spending on tires
due to decreased tread life, and societal
costs of producing additional tires.
RMA also commented that the PRIA
does not treat first-year costs
correctly.321 RMA stated that NHTSA
estimates first-year costs at $4 million,
but doesn’t include them in the net
benefits estimates. RMA suggested that
NHTSA should include them by
amortizing or annualizing the costs, or
by estimating the net present value of
the entire program. RMA makes specific
suggestions on how to do this.
Agency response: Regarding RMA’s
comment that NHTSA does not treat
first-year costs correctly, all first-year
costs are included in NHTSA’s $3 per
tire cost estimate.
Regarding RMA’s request that NHTSA
estimate the costs of the decreased tire
safety and durability that may result
from the rule, we do not have enough
information at the moment to estimate
these impacts. Michelin provided
data 322 that this tradeoff is not
necessary, but we do not know with
certainty. The NPRM and PRIA noted
that this scenario would be particularly
problematic if consumers are unwilling
to spend additional money and/or tire
manufacturers are unwilling to increase
the cost of the tire to maintain high
levels of wet traction and treadwear. We
320 RMA Comments Appendix 8, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0036.9 at 17–20.
321 RMA Comments Appendix 8, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0036.9 at 21.
322 Michelin Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–
2008–021–0048 at 8.

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

recognize there are opportunity costs to
reducing rolling resistance that impact
safety and durability, but we don’t have
enough data to estimate impacts. Thus,
we assume the cost of maintaining these
parameters is already included in the $3
of increased cost per tire. However,
more information in terms of consumer
reaction to the program will be
developed in the future and will be used
in the next analysis.
Overall, RMA commented that
because NHTSA effectively projects
possible negative net benefits, the rule
is not justified.323 RMA stated that
NHTSA needs to rework the rule to cut
costs or not propose the rule. RMA
suggested discarding the labeling idea in
favor of training programs, educational
materials provided to dealers, and better
Web tools for consumers.
Agency response: As noted above, this
final rule does not include labeling costs
because NHTSA is not requiring tire
manufacturers to label tires at this time.
However, NHTSA is likely to re-propose
the label requirement, and even
considering those additional annual
labeling costs, NHTSA believes that this
consumer information program is likely
to be cost effective, and provide an
overall benefit to society. NHTSA will,
however, consider these RMA
comments as it develops the next
regulatory impact analysis for the
supplementary NPRM on the consumer
information and consumer education
portions of the program.
X. Lead Time
Lead time will be determined based
on the timing of the final rules that will
specify the requirements and content of
the consumer information and the
specification of a reference laboratory or
laboratories. If the later of the final rules
is the one in which NHTSA announces
the selection of a reference laboratory or
laboratories with the capability to test
LATs, based on comments, and the time
NHTSA needs to select a reference
laboratory or laboratories with the
capability to test lab alignment tires
(LATs) for rolling resistance testing,
NHTSA will require tire manufacturers
to meet applicable requirements for
replacement tires they manufacture in
stages, by tire size. In that case, tire
manufacturers must meet applicable
requirements for 15 and 16-inch tires,
the most popular rim sizes,324 first; tire
323 RMA Comments Appendix 8, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0036.9 at 2–3, 16–17, 22–24.
324 The RMA Preliminary 2010 Factbook
estimated that 15- and 16-inch passenger
replacement tires constituted about 22% of the
replacement passenger tire sales in the U.S. in 2009.
See Rubber Manufacturers Association, Tire
Industry Factbook, available at http://www.rma.org/

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

manufacturers must meet applicable
requirements for other passenger car tire
sizes at a later date. This phase in would
be tied to the publication of a final rule
specifying the availability of certified
LATs from the reference laboratory or
laboratories. As noted above, in the near
future NHTSA will announce one or
more private laboratories to operate the
reference test machine(s). The agency is
working expeditiously to establish and
implement procedures for the selection
of a reference laboratory. Soon after,
NHTSA will publish a Federal Register
notice of the readiness of the reference
laboratory or laboratories to provide
LATs under ISO 28580.
If the final rule specifying the
requirements and content of the
consumer information portion of the
program occurs after the final rule
specifying the reference laboratory or
laboratories, NHTSA may establish a
lead time different from the phase in
described above since tire
manufacturers will have had since the
final rule specifying the reference
laboratory or laboratories to begin
testing to the test procedures specified
in this final rule. Recognizing the
uncertainty of the rulemaking timeline
for finalizing the requirements and
content of the consumer information
and consumer education portions of the
tire fuel efficiency program, NHTSA
will tie all compliance dates to the latter
of the consumer information and
education final rule, or the final rule
announcing the availability of the
reference laboratory or laboratories to
test LATs under ISO 28580.
The NPRM explained that 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.
Tire manufacturers: NHTSA proposed
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 the rule, NHTSA proposed to require
reporting of information at least 30 days
prior to introducing the tire for sale, as
is required for UTQGS information.
As explained in the NPRM, a
Smithers Scientific Services, Inc.
rma_resources/market_information/tire_industry/
(last accessed March 11, 2010).

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

15937

(Smithers) report presented at a
February 2009 CEC staff workshop on
CEC’s Fuel Efficient Tire Program
suggested that manufacturers need 0.2
to 2.4 years to test one replacement
passenger car tire of each different tire
SKU. However, NHTSA explained that
we believe this number may be an overestimate of the time needed to test and
rate all tires affected by the proposed
program. Based on our research, NHTSA
estimated it is possible that less than 25
percent of the affected tires will need to
be tested in accordance with the ISO
28580 procedures in order to rate them
for this program. The NPRM explained
that 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, NHTSA explained that
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. The NPRM explained that
even if these data were gathered using
other test methods, NHTSA’s research
shows that equations can translate the
data to results that would be obtained
from the ISO 28580 test procedure.
In comments to the NPRM, the
European Commission requested more
lead time without providing a rationale
or a suggestion for an effective date.325
JATMA requested 2 years of lead
time.326 JATMA commented that
manufacturers will wait to test until the
final rule is issued and that JATMA
manufacturers will not want to contract
out rolling resistance testing.
Michelin requested that if the new
rating is implemented the requirements
for UTQGS be modified and that
adequate implementation times or some
other considerations must be allowed to
prevent large costs for mold
replacement.327
RMA requested lead time of 24
months after the specification of a
reference laboratory and availability of
certified LATs to correlate rolling
resistance testing.328 RMA commented
325 European Commission Comments, Docket No.
NHTSA–2008–0121–0028.1 at 3.
326 JATMA Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0031.1 at 2.
327 Michelin Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–
2008–0121–0048.1 at 9.
328 RMA Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0036.1 at 9, 13–14.

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

15938

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

that logistical considerations regarding
LATs and the reference laboratory
indicate that it would be difficult if not
impossible to meet the compliance date
set forth in the proposal. Further, RMA
stated that restrictive application of ISO
28580 would require significant capital
investment to acquire sufficient test
capacity to test applicable tires to the
two specified measurement methods
using an 80-grit surface. RMA
additionally commented that basing the
wet traction rating on peak coefficient of
friction, rather than the current slide
coefficient of friction-based wet traction
rating under UTQGS will require
additional testing of existing tires, since
tire manufacturers do not have peak
data available on sufficient existing tires
to interpolate wet traction rating. RMA
estimated that a minimum of 24 months
is required to obtain reference tires,
correlate to a reference laboratory,
conduct sufficient testing, rate existing
tires, and report ratings to NHTSA.
RMA requested that the compliance
date for the rule be tied to the
availability of LATs.
RMA also asked for 6 months after the
introduction of a new tire to report
ratings to NHTSA and retailers
‘‘consistent with current UTQGS
regulations.’’
Agency response: Regarding the
requests for additional lead time,
NHTSA agrees with RMA that the lead
time should be after the specification of
a reference laboratory. As discussed
above in section IV.B, the ISO 28580 test
method specifies lab alignment
procedures to account for lab-to-lab
variability between different rolling
resistance test machines. ISO 28580
specifies that the test method requires
the specification of a reference
laboratory (‘‘Alignment Lab’’), which
will test LATs against which all other
laboratories can align their
measurements. NHTSA will select one
or more private laboratories to be the
Alignment Lab, but section IV.B
explains that the agency will need some
time to develop and implement the
procedures for the selection of the
Alignment Lab(s). For this reason, tire
manufacturers cannot begin rating their
tires for fuel efficiency until the
reference lab is able to test and certify
LATs. NHTSA will publish a Federal
Register notice of the reference lab or
labs’ readiness to test LATs under ISO
28580 soon after the agency selects an
Alignment Lab or Labs.
Recognizing the uncertainty of the
rulemaking timeline for finalizing the
requirements and content of the
consumer information and consumer
education portions of the tire fuel
efficiency program, NHTSA will tie all

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

compliance dates to the latter of the
consumer information and education
final rule, or the final rule announcing
the availability of the reference
laboratory or laboratories to test LATs
under ISO 28580. NHTSA intends to
also announce in the latter of the two
final rules noted above the first date by
which tire manufacturers must submit
required data to NHTSA on replacement
tires, and replacement tires sold by the
manufacturer or transferred to tire
retailers must be labeled or include yetto-be-determined consumer information
material. If the later of the final rules is
the one in which NHTSA announces the
selection of a reference laboratory or
laboratories with the capability to test
LATs, for tires with 15 and 16-inch rim
sizes, the compliance date would be
approximately 12 months after the
notice, and would correspond to the
closest Early Warning Reporting (EWR)
data submission requirement date,329 as
manufacturers will be able to include
the required data for this regulation
with the EWR reports.330 For all other
passenger car tire rim sizes, this date
would be approximately 24 months after
the notice, and would correspond to the
closest EWR data submission
requirement date.
If the final rule specifying the
requirements and content of the
consumer information portion of the
program occurs after the final rule
specifying the reference laboratory or
laboratories, NHTSA may establish a
lead time different from the phase in
described above since tire
manufacturers will have had since the
final rule specifying the reference
laboratory or laboratories to begin
testing to the test procedures specified
in this final rule.
NHTSA has determined that upon the
availability of LATs, manufacturers will
be able to accurately rate all tires within
24 months. However, recognizing that
the deadlines imposed by EISA indicate
a desire to have information available to
consumers as quickly as possible,
NHTSA would phase in the availability
329 Responding to the Transportation Recall
Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation
(TREAD) Act requirements in 2002, NHTSA issued
rules requiring that motor vehicle and equipment
manufacturers provide communications regarding
defective equipment, information on foreign safety
recalls and certain early warning data. 49 CFR Part
579; see Final Rule, Reporting of Information and
Documents About Potential Defects Retention of
Records That Could Indicate Defects, 67 FR 45822
(July 10, 2002); Final Rule, Reporting of Information
About Foreign Safety Recalls and Campaigns
Related to Potential Defects, 67 FR 63295 (Oct. 11,
2002).
330 NHTSA will expand the production reporting
template to include the information required for
this regulation. Those reports are due within 30
days of the end of each calendar quarter.

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

of this consumer information. Because
tires with 15 and 16 inch rim sizes make
up more than 22 percent of sales in the
replacement passenger car tire market,
NHTSA believes there will be a
significant benefit for requiring these
most popular tire sizes to be rated as
soon as possible.331 In 2008, tires with
15 and 16 inch rim sizes represented
approximately 33 percent of the tire
sizes available in the market.332
Therefore, NHTSA believes that tire
manufacturers will be able to rate those
tires within 12 months after the
availability of LAT testing at the
Alignment Lab or Labs.
To accurately rate all replacement
passenger car tires, tire manufacturers
need more than the 12 months proposed
in the NPRM for two reasons. First,
NHTSA acknowledges that the
correlations between other rolling
resistance tests and ISO 28580 have
only been validated for the Smithers
Scientific Services, Inc. (Smithers) and
Standards Testing Laboratories (STL)
labs, therefore, more time may be
needed for correlating between other
labs and the ISO test. While some
manufacturers may have already begun
testing using ISO 28580, given how
recent the final ISO procedure was
adopted, many probably have not.333 To
have confidence that any prediction of
an ISO 28580 test score using the other
rolling resistance test procedures would
be within some reasonably specified
compliance tolerance band,
manufacturers will likely need time to
validate correlation equations if they are
using other machines/labs. The
equations NHSTA provided in the Phase
2 research report to correlate the other
SAE and ISO rolling resistance test
methods have only been validated on
the machines at Smithers and STL.
Second, NHTSA also agrees that
manufacturers may need to correlate
peak traction coefficients on the test
surfaces at the NHTSA San Angelo Test
Facility (SATF). Whenever tire
manufacturers have provided the agency
with tire traction data, these data have
included peak and slide coefficients of
friction. However, tire manufacturers or
the laboratories that they hire often do
not run test procedures at the same
speed, water level, surface texture, etc.
331 Nine out of the ten most popular tire size
designations (by sales volume) are tires with 15
inch or 16 inch rim sizes. These nine tire size
designations represent 23.2% of replacement
passenger car tire sales. See RMA 2009 Tire
Industry Factbook, available at https://
www.rma.org/publications/market_information/
index.cfm?PublicationID=11500 (last accessed Nov.
18, 2009).
332 Id.
333 The ISO 28580 final test procedure was
published on July 31, 2009.

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
as NHTSA uses at the SATF. As with
correlating different rolling resistance
test data to another test, manufacturers
are likely familiar enough with this
testing to know they can replicate or
predict the wet slide numbers from the
SATF, even if their test procedure is
different. However, tire manufacturers
likely currently have little or no
correlation to peak friction coefficient
values at the SATF, since that
information would not previously have
been used for tire ratings. Therefore, it
likely will take tire manufacturers more
than a year to test enough tires to
establish a correlation to include
estimated values in the reporting
formula.
As for the reporting of ratings for a
new tire SKU that is introduced after the
effective date of this regulation, RMA
points to section 104(d)(A) of Part 575
of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) to support its contention that
current UTQGS requirements allow a
tire manufacturer 6 months to report tire
ratings to NHTSA and tire retailers. We
assume RMA is referring to section
104(d)(1)(i)(A), which states that
‘‘[e]xcept for a tire of a new tire line,
manufactured within the first six
months of production of the tire line,
each tire shall be graded with the words,
letters, symbols, and figures specified in
[the UTQGS regulation], permanently
molded into or onto the tire sidewall
* * *.’’ Thus, this requirement gives tire
manufacturers six (6) months from the
introduction of a new tire in a tire line
to mold the ratings onto the sidewall of
the tire. However, 49 CFR 575.6(d)(2)(i)
specifies that ‘‘[i]n the case of § 575.104,
each brand name owner of tires, and
each manufacturer of tires for which
there is no brand name owner shall
submit to the Administrator 2 copies of
the information specified in [the
UTQGS regulations] that is applicable to
the tires offered for sale, at least 30 days
before it is first provided for
examination by prospective purchasers
pursuant to paragraph (c) of this
section.’’ In turn, section 575.6(c) states
that ‘‘each brand name owner of tires
* * * shall provide for examination by
prospective purchasers, at each location
where its * * * tires are offered for sale
by a person with whom the * * * brand
name owner has a contractual,
proprietary, or other legal relationship,
or by a person who has such
relationship with a distributor of the
* * * brand name owner concerning
the * * * tire in question, the
information specified in [the UTQGS
regulation] that is applicable to each of
the * * * tires offered for sale at that
location.’’ This is the language that the

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

proposed regulatory text was based on
and NHTSA continues to believe that
the 30 days prior to sale requirement is
appropriate for new tires.
Tire retailers: NHTSA intends to
announce in the final rule specifying the
requirements and content of the
consumer information and consumer
education portion of the program the
compliance dates for any tire retailer
requirements established in that
rulemaking.
Because NHTSA intends to conduct
further testing and consultation before
making decisions regarding consumer
information materials, we cannot
definitively announce at this point
when any consumer information
materials will be available.
XI. Enforcement
The NPRM explained that the
proposed test procedures are the ones
NHTSA would use for compliance
testing. The NPRM also explained that
while NHTSA was proposing to only
consider finding a rating noncompliance
if agency testing provided data that
would give the tire in question a rating
that was lower than that printed on the
tire label (minimum requirement or
‘‘one-way zero tolerance’’), the NPRM
also discussed two-way tolerances for
RRF, traction, and treadwear. Such a
system would find a rating
noncompliance if agency test results
were outside of a specified tolerance
band on either side of the rating.334 The
two-way tolerances discussed in the
NPRM were developed after the agency
had considered the repeatability of a tire
tested as well as the variability of
machine-to-machine tests, lab-to-lab
tests, rounding errors, and the potential
for different results due to different
manufacturing dates.
The NPRM explained that 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 at a
performance level that is near the border
of two grades, 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. However,
because the regulation does not limit
manufacturers to ‘‘underrating’’ by only
334 Tire Fuel Efficiency NPRM, supra note 9, at
29580.

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

15939

a single grade, UTQGS is often criticized
for not providing consumers with
‘‘accurate’’ information.335
Despite such criticisms, NHTSA
proposed to require the ratings assigned
by a manufacturer under the proposed
rule to be less than or equal to the rating
determined by the agency using the
specified procedures. In part this
decision was based on concerns that the
program would not result in a situation
where NHTSA would be taking
enforcement action against a
manufacturer for the safety and
durability ratings under the new rating
program, when enforcement action
would not be warranted for UTQGS
ratings based on the same test
procedures. NHTSA will discuss
comments received on the NPRM
enforcement approach in the
supplemental NPRM re-proposing the
consumer information and consumer
education components of the program,
which will include new proposed
ratings formulas.
In addition to requiring rulemaking
establishing a national tire fuel
efficiency rating system and related
requirements (49 U.S.C. 32304A),
Section 111 of EISA amends 49 U.S.C.
32308 (General prohibitions, civil
penalty, and enforcement) to provide
that a person who fails to comply with
the national tire fuel efficiency
information program under section
32304A is liable to the Government for
a civil penalty of not more than $50,000
for each violation.336 RMA
recommended that NHTSA define ‘‘each
violation’’ to mean when a tire rating is
improperly reported to NHTSA for a tire
SKU. RMA asked NHTSA to clarify its
intent and provide opportunity to
comment. NHTSA declines RMA’s
335 For example, in the September 1996 final rule
that amended the UTQGS by revising the treadwear
testing procedures to eliminate treadwear grade
inflation and other related issues, some commenters
believed that the treadwear grade should be
removed from the UTQGS because manufacturers
treadwear warranties continued to improve and the
treadwear label under the UTQGS become less
significant for tire consumers. 61 FR 47437 (Sept.
9, 1996). However, NHTSA disagreed with the
commenter because as one manufacturer
acknowledged that the manufacturers warranties
are not always based on test results and not all tires
carry manufacturers’ warranties. See also Tire Rack,
Tire Tech Information/General Tire Information
(2009), available at http://www.tirerack.com/tires/
tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=48 (last accessed Nov.
4, 2009) (‘‘The problem with UTQG Treadwear
Grades is that they are open to some interpretation
on the part of the tire manufacturer because they
are assigned after the tire has only experienced a
little treadwear as it runs the 7,200 miles. This
means that the tire manufacturers need to
extrapolate their raw wear data when they are
assigning Treadwear Grades, and that their grades
can to some extent reflect how conservative or
optimistic their marketing department is.’’)
336 49 U.S.C. 32308(c).

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

15940

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

invitation. To begin, rulemaking on the
meaning and scope of the EISA penalty
provision is not within the directive of
EISA’s provision on what the
rulemaking shall include.337 Second,
the NPRM did not propose rulemaking
on the meaning and scope of the penalty
provision. In the absence of notice in
the NPRM, it would be inappropriate to
adopt a final rule on the meaning and
scope of the penalty provision. RMA
implicitly recognizes this, as it
recommends that NHTSA provide an
opportunity for comment. But, in
general, the proper vehicle for such a
request is a petition for rulemaking, not
a comment on a NPRM. In the context
of enforcement, we believe that it is
appropriate to address the meaning of
the EISA penalty provisions in the
concrete context of a civil action under
49 U.S.C. 32308 before a U.S. District
Court. Courts have long determined the
meaning and application of the terms of
civil penalty statutes in the course of
adjudicating civil penalty cases.338 In
any event, NHTSA takes the position
that the Government may seek a penalty
of not more than $50,000 for any
violation of the rule that under the law
a Court may find to be a separate
violation.
XII. Regulatory Alternatives
Throughout this final rule, in 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. Conforming Amendments to
Part 575
Because this final rule adds a new
section to 49 CFR Part 575, the agency
must modify the table of contents of Part
575. Additionally, we have modified the
scope and definitions sections at the
beginning of Part 575, 49 CFR 575.1,
575.2, to be sufficiently broad to apply
to all regulations contained in Part 575.
Since the NPRM, the agency realized
that the scope and definitions sections
appeared to have not been modified
since Part 575 was first promulgated in
the 1970s. Since then NHTSA has added
additional consumer information
regulations to Part 575, including the
337 See

49 U.S.C. 32304A(a).
States v. ITT Continental Baking Co.,
420 U.S. 223 (1975); Borden Ranch Partnership v.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 261 F.3d 810, 819
(9th Cir. 2001); Public Interest Research Gp. v.
Powell Duffryn Terminals, Inc., 913 F.2d 64, 77–80
(3d Cir. 1990); Atlantic States Legal Foundation,
Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 897 F.2d 1128, 1137 et
seq. (11th Cir. 1990); United States v. General
Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 754, 761–62 (DC Cir.1977);
United States v. Phelps Dodge Indus., Inc., 589
F.Supp. 1340, 1362 (S.D. N.Y. 1984).

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

338 United

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

agency’s new car assessment program
(NCAP) regulations, 49 CFR 575.301.
Thus, the agency believes that the
generalized scope and definitions
sections that apply to all of Part 575
should be expanded and modified as
detailed in the regulatory text below.
These changes do not substantively
affect the regulations in Part 575, but
merely clarify that Subpart A sections
apply to all of Part 575, and that
definitions in the NCAP regulations
should refer to statutory definitions
from NCAP’s authorizing statute, the
Automobile Information Disclosure Act,
15 U.S.C. Chapter 28, as opposed to the
Safety Act.
Further, under 1 CFR part 51,
Incorporation by Reference, the agency
must declare that the Director of the
Federal Register has approved
incorporation by reference of a
publication into a regulation. In this
rule, the agency is amending the
incorporation by reference provision at
§ 575.3, Matter incorporated by
reference, to include a centralized index
of all of the publications incorporated
into Part 575. This is not intended to
alter the substance any references, but
merely to centralize all of the
incorporation by references contained in
Part 575. Also in this final rule we are
updating the existing information in
§ 575.3 to include updated language in
regard to incorporation of materials by
reference, including new procedures for
retrieving materials from the National
Archives and Records Administration
and a new format indicating the sections
where incorporated materials are
referenced.
Finally, this final rule also makes a
number of changes to the regulatory text
throughout the various sections of Parts
575. This is being done to standardize
the reference to industry consensus
standards incorporated by reference
throughout Part 575, and to provide
internal cross references back to the
centralized incorporation by reference
section, 49 CFR 575.3, so that readers
understand where they can find all
materials incorporated by reference in
Part 575.
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

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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,
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 Final Regulatory Impact
Analysis (FRIA) and placed it in the
docket and on the agency’s Web site. If
1 percent of the targeted tire population
(1.4 million) are improved at an average
cost of $3 per tire, the annual cost of
NHTSA’s final rule is estimated to be
$9.3 million. This includes annual
testing costs of $3.7 million, annual
reporting costs of around $113,000,
annual costs to the Federal government
of $1.3 million, and annual costs of $4.2
million to improve tires. In the first
year, NHTSA anticipates one-time costs
of $34.8 million, including the same
costs noted above except changes in
initial testing costs of $33.1 million, no
one-time costs to improve tires (NHTSA
only assumes this as a subsequent
annual cost, not an initial cost), and
reporting start-up costs of almost
$400,000. For a further explanation of
the estimated costs, see the FRIA
provided in the docket for this proposal.
B. National Environmental Policy Act
We have reviewed this rule for the
purposes of the National Environmental
Policy Act and determined that it would

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
not have a significant impact on the
quality of the human environment.

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

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
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 final rule on small
entities. The head of the agency has
certified that this final 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.
Since this final rule does not finalize
any requirements pertaining to tire
retailers, this final rule would not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined today’s final
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.
As noted in section II.C.7 above,
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

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

promulgated under this section is in effect,
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.339

In the NPRM, NHTSA sought 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 (AB 844).340 Given the
ambiguity of the statutory language
regarding preemption, the agency sent a
copy of the 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. Of
these organizations, only the California
Energy Commission submitted
comments on the NPRM. A summary of
all comments the agency received on
this issue is presented here.
Tire Rack commented that it believes
NHTSA’s proposed tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program and the
California’s AB 844 are complementary
regulations as currently proposed and
can coexist.341 Tire Rack stated that the
NHTSA regulations will provide
consumers with the ability to compare
and contrast a tire’s influence on vehicle
fuel consumption in great detail (as well
as information on safety and durability),
where the State of California bill
identifies tires that offer the lowest
rolling resistance in their size, as well
as assures meaningful data will be
available to tire dealers and consumers.
Tire Rack also pointed out that both
proposed regulations specify ratings
based on the same tire characteristic
(RRF) and test procedure (ISO 28580).
Additionally, Tire Rack noted that
California’s AB 844 includes LT-sized
tires fitted to many Jeeps, pickup trucks
339 49

U.S.C. 32304A(e).
Pub. Res. Code §§ 25770–25773; 2003 Cal.
Legis. Serv. Ch. 645 (A.B. 844) (West). This
California legislation mandated that the California
Energy Commission (CEC) develop and implement
both a tire efficiency program and a corresponding
consumer information program, and was passed on
October 1, 2003.
341 Tire Rack Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–
2008–0121–0026.1 at 2.
340 Cal.

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

15941

and sport utility vehicles used for
personal transportation in the State of
California.
The California Energy Commission
(CEC) commented that a review of
general preemption principles and the
legislative history of the preemption
provision in EISA section 111 provide
ample evidence that California is not
preempted from implementing a tire
fuel efficiency consumer information
program.342 CEC commented that
California did have a law on tire fuel
efficiency consumer information in
effect on January 1, 2006. That law
directs the Commission to develop a
replacement tire efficiency program.
Thus, CEC commented that the plain
meaning of the express preemption
clause is that California may develop
and implement such a program without
running afoul of Federal law. Further,
CEC commented that California is the
only State that had adopted a tire
efficiency consumer information law by
January 1, 2006. Thus, CEC stated that
in order to give any practical effect to
the savings clause, Congress must have
intended California’s program to be
exempt from the preemption that was
imposed on the other States.
Additionally, CEC pointed to a House
Committee on Energy and Commerce
Report on the language which stated
that ‘‘[t]his language would exempt from
preemption the 2003 California law that
requires the California Energy
Commission to develop a
comprehensive tire energy efficiency
program.’’343 CEC recognized that this
House Report was prepared in response
to language that was not enacted,344 but
commented that because the language
the non-enacted bill contained is
identical to that which was ultimately
adopted in EISA one year later, the
House Report is compelling evidence
that Congress intended the savings
clause to apply to California. Thus, CEC
requested that NHTSA conclude that the
savings clause in 49 U.S.C., § 32304A
allows California to implement its
statutory mandate to develop a
replacement tire efficiency program.
In contrast, RMA commented that
EISA, in combination with other Federal
law, preempts California from
promulgating tire fuel efficiency
information regulations under AB
844.345 RMA commented that CEC’s
Staff Draft Proposal, which made public
CEC’s proposed regulations under AB
342 CEC Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0033 at 2–4.
343 H.R. Rep. No. 109–537, 2d Sess., p. 6 (2006).
344 See H.R. 5632, 109th Cong., 2d Sess. (2006).
345 RMA Comments, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0121–0036.1 at 15; RMA Comments Appendix 3,
Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0121–0036.4 at 19–40.

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

15942

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

844, conflicts with NHTSA’s NPRM,
and would undermine the Federal
program and lead to fewer
environmental benefits derived from
either program. RMA commented that
California’s AB 844 and NHTSA have
the same goals relating to environmental
policy and consumer education with
regard to fuel economy, but use different
means. RMA stated that compliance
with both NHTSA’s and California’s
proposed regulations is impractical, if
not impossible and that NHTSA’s
regulations should, therefore, preempt
California’s regulations. RMA stated that
because NHTSA proposed a graded
rating system while California is
proposing a binary ratings system,346
NHTSA’s and California’s differing
proposals would create two rating
systems on tires sold in California with
separate labels displaying ratings on
different scales. RMA commented that
two dissimilar ratings will only serve to
confuse rather than educate consumers.
Further, RMA commented that the
California rule must be preempted
because it would interfere with
NHTSA’s sole authority to regulate tire
safety. Finally, RMA commented that by
attempting to regulate fuel efficiency
through tire labels, California’s
standards practically impose a fuel
efficiency standard and impermissibly
intrude in a field already occupied by
the Federal government. For these and
other reasons detailed in RMA’s
comments, RMA urged NHTSA to
determine that the proposed rules
preempt California State regulation
under AB 844, other than regulations
that are identical to the Federal
regulations.
Given that California has not
promulgated final regulations yet,
NHTSA believes that it is premature to
consider the applicability of the EISA
section 111 preemption provision.
Moreover, NHTSA notes that it is
ultimately a court, not NHTSA, which
would determine whether or not future
regulations established by the State of
California are preempted under Federal
law.

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
Pursuant to Executive Order 12988,
‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ 347 NHTSA has
considered whether this rulemaking
would have any retroactive effect. This
346 California is proposing to designate all tires
with rolling resistance values within 15 percent of
tires with the lowest rolling resistance as fuel
efficient. RMA noted that this, in effect, creates a
two rating system—fuel efficient tires and all other
tires.
347 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996).

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

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 2008 results in $133 million
(108.483/81.536 = 1.33).
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 final rule will not result in the
expenditure by State, local, or Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, of more
than $133 million annually, and will
not result in the expenditure of that
magnitude by tire manufacturers and/or
tire retailers.
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 final rule establishes a new
consumer information program at 49
CFR Part 575.106, Tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program. Tire
manufacturers would provide data to
NHTSA under a reporting requirement.
For this new regulation, NHTSA is
submitting to OMB a request for
approval of the following collection of
information.
In compliance with the PRA, this
notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted
below has been forwarded to OMB for
review and comment. The ICR describes
the nature of the information collections
and their expected burden. This is a

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

request for an amendment of an existing
collection.
Agency: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Title: 49 CFR Part 575.106, Tire fuel
efficiency consumer information
program.
Type of Request: New collection.
OMB Clearance Number: Not
assigned.
Form Number: The collection of this
information will not use any standard
forms.
Requested Expiration Date of
Approval: Three years from the date of
approval.
Summary of the Collection of
Information
NHTSA is adding 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
ratings. 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
tradeoffs between fuel efficiency (i.e.,
rolling resistance), safety (i.e., wet
traction), and durability (i.e., treadwear)
in making their purchase decisions.
Description of the Need for the
Information and Use of the Information
NHTSA needs the information to
provide consumers information to allow
them to compare tire fuel efficiency
across different tires and examine any
tradeoffs between fuel efficiency (i.e.,
rolling resistance), safety (i.e., wet
traction), and durability (i.e., treadwear)
in making their purchase decisions.
Description of the Likely Respondents
(Including Estimated Number, and
Proposed Frequency of Response to the
Collection of Information)
There are approximately 28
manufacturers of replacement tires sold
in the United States who would be
required to report annually.
Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting
and Recordkeeping Burden Resulting
From the Collection of Information
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

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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,348 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. As
detailed in of the FRIA, our revised perSKU costs to test for rolling resistance,
traction, and treadwear amount to
$1,180 (i.e., $180 + $500 + $500). This
would result in testing costs of
$22,420,000 in the first year (19,000
SKUs) and $3,801,960 in subsequent
years (3,222 new SKUs annually).
The estimated annual cost to the
Federal government is $1.28 million.
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.
Comments are invited on:
• Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
Department, including whether the
information will have practical utility.
• Whether the Department’s estimate
for the burden of the information
collection is accurate.
• 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.
A comment to OMB is most effective
if OMB receives it within 30 days of
publication. Send comments to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503, Attn: NHTSA
Desk Officer. PRA comments are due
within 30 days following publication of
this document in the Federal Register.
The agency recognizes that the
amendment to the existing collection of
information contained in today’s final
348 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).

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

rule may be subject to revision in
response to public comments and the
OMB review.
H. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 349 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 rule does not pose such a risk for
children. The primary effects of this rule
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.,
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 rule establishes test procedures
for a national tire fuel efficiency rating
system for replacement passenger car
tires to assist consumers in making more
349 62

PO 00000

FR 19885 (Apr. 23, 1997).

Frm 00051

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

15943

educated tire purchasing decisions. For
purposes of the fuel efficiency rating
determination, NHTSA will base the
rating determination on a rolling
resistance test method ISO
28580:2009(E), 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 non-governmental, in
liaison with ISO.350 Standards
developed by ISO are voluntary
consensus standards.
J. Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211351 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,
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 rule establishes test procedures
for 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 final rule will not have any adverse
energy effects. Accordingly, this
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.
350 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, http://www.iso.org.
351 66 FR 28355 (May 18, 2001).

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

15944

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

L. Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 requires each
agency to write all rules in plain
language. Comments from RMA
indicated that it was confused about
what was being proposed in certain
respects due to preamble typos and
alleged inconsistencies between the
preamble and the proposed regulatory
text. NHTSA has clarified the proposals
in this preamble and has eliminated any
inconsistencies between the preamble
and the final regulatory text. NHTSA
has attempted to use plain language in
promulgating this final rule.
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
statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you
may visit http://www.dot.gov/
privacy.html.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 575
Consumer protection, Incorporation
by reference, Motor vehicle safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Tires.
■ In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA is amending 49 CFR Part 575 as
follows:
PART 575—CONSUMER
INFORMATION
1. Revise the authority citation of 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. Revise § 575.1 to read as follows:

Subpart A—General
§ 575.1

Scope.

This part contains National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration
regulations relating to consumer
information.
3. Revise § 575.2 (a) and (c) to read as
follows:

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

■

§ 575.2

Definitions.

(a) Statutory definitions.—(1) All
terms used in this part, subject to
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, that are
defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102, are used as
defined therein.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

(2) All terms used in Subpart D of this
part that are defined in 15 U.S.C. 1231,
are used as defined therein.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Definitions used in this part.
Owners manual means the document
which contains the manufacturers
comprehensive vehicle operating and
maintenance instructions, and which is
intended to remain with the vehicle for
the life of the vehicle.
Skid number means the frictional
resistance measured in accordance with
ASTM E 274 (incorporated by reference,
see § 575.3) at 40 miles per hour,
omitting water delivery as specified in
paragraph 7.1 of ASTM E 274
(incorporated by reference, see § 575.3).
■

4. Revise § 575.3 to read as follows:

§ 575.3

Matter incorporated by reference.

(a) Certain material is incorporated by
reference into this part with the
approval of the Director of the Federal
Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. To enforce any edition
other than that specified in this section,
the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) must publish
notice of change in the Federal Register
and the material must be available to the
public. All approved material is
available for inspection at the NHTSA
Technical Information Services Reading
Room (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/
problems/trd/), 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590
(888–327–4236), and at the National
Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA,
call 202–741–6030, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/
ibr-locations.html. All approved
material is also available from the
sources listed below. If you experience
difficulty obtaining the standards
referenced below, contact NHTSA’s
Office of Rulemaking, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
phone number: (202) 366–0846.
(b) International Organization for
Standardization (ISO), 1, ch. de la VoieCreuse, CP 56, CH–1211 Geneva 20,
Switzerland, +41 22 749 01 11, http://
www.iso.org/iso/home.htm. All ISO
materials are also available from the
U.S. ISO member, American National
Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 West
43rd Street, Fourth Floor, New York, NY
10036–7417, 212–642–4900, http://
www.ansi.org/.
(1) International Organization for
Standardization (ISO), ISO
28580:2009(E) (‘‘ISO 28580’’), ‘‘Passenger
car, truck and bus tyres—Methods of
measuring rolling resistance—Single
point test and correlation of

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

measurement results,’’ First edition (July
1, 2009), IBR approved for § 575.106.
(2) [Reserved]
(c) American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor
Drive, PO Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959, 610–
832–9500, http://www.astm.org/.
(1) ASTM E 1136–93 (Reapproved
2003) (‘‘ASTM E 1136’’), ‘‘Standard
Specification for a Radial Standard
Reference Test Tire’’ (July 1993), IBR
approved for § 575.104.
(2) ASTM E 1337–90 (Reapproved
2002) (‘‘ASTM E 1337’’), ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Determining Longitudinal
Peak Braking Coefficient of Paved
Surfaces Using a Standard Reference
Test Tire’’ (April 1990), IBR approved
for § 575.106.
(d) The following standards are not
available from the original publisher or
a standards reseller. As indicated in
paragraph (a) of this section, the
standards are available for inspection at
the NHTSA Technical Information
Services Reading Room (http://
www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/trd/),
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590 (888–327–4236),
and at NARA. For information on the
availability of this material at NARA,
call 202–741–6030, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/
ibr-locations.html. If you experience
difficulty obtaining the standards
referenced below, contact NHTSA’s
Office of Rulemaking, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
phone number (202) 366–0846.
(1) ASTM E 274–79 (‘‘ASTM E 274’’),
‘‘Standard Test Method for Skid
Resistance of Paved Surfaces Using a
Full-Scale Tire’’ (February 1980), IBR
approved for § 575.104.
(2) ASTM F 377–74 (‘‘ASTM F 377’’),
‘‘Standard Method for Calibration of
Braking Force for Testing of Pneumatic
Tires’’ (March 1974), IBR approved for
§ 575.104.
5. Amend § 575.104 by revising
paragraphs (e)(2)(ix)(C), (f)(1)(ii),
(f)(1)(iii), (f)(1)(iv), (f)(1)(v), and
(f)(1)(vii), to read as follows:

■

§ 575.104 Uniform tire quality grading
standards.

*

*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(ix) * * *
(C) Determine the course severity
adjustment factor by dividing the base
course wear rate for the course
monitoring tires (see Note to this
paragraph) by the average wear rate for
the four course monitoring tires.
Note to paragraph (e)(2)(ix)(C): The
base wear rate for the course monitoring

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
tires will be obtained by the government
by running the tire specified in ASTM
E 1136 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 575.3) course monitoring tires for
6,400 miles over the San Angelo, Texas,
UTQGS test route 4 times per year, then
using the average wear rate from the last
4 quarterly CMT tests for the base
course wear rate calculation. Each new
base course wear rate will be published
in the Federal Register. The course
monitoring tires used in a test convoy
must be no more than one year old at
the commencement of the test and must
be used within two months after
removal from storage.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The standard tire is the tire
specified in ASTM E 501 (incorporated
by reference, see § 575.3).
(iii) The pavement surface is wetted
in accordance with paragraph 4.7,
‘‘Pavement Wetting System,’’ of ASTM E
274 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 575.3).
(iv) The test apparatus is a test trailer
built in conformity with the
specifications in paragraph 4,
‘‘Apparatus,’’ of ASTM E 274
(incorporated by reference, see § 575.3).
The test apparatus is instrumented in
accordance with paragraph 4.5 of that
method, except that the ‘‘wheel load’’ in
paragraph 4.3 and tire and rim
specifications in paragraph 4.4 of that
method are as specified in the
procedures in paragraph (f)(2) of this
section for standard and candidate tires.
(v) The test apparatus is calibrated in
accordance with ASTM F 377
(incorporated by reference, see § 575.3),
with the trailer’s tires inflated to 24 psi
and loaded to 1,085 pounds.
*
*
*
*
*
(vii) A standard tire is discarded in
accordance with ASTM E 501
(incorporated by reference, see § 575.3).
*

*
*
*
*
6. Add § 575.106 to subpart B to read
as follows:

■

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

§ 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.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

However, this section does not apply to
light truck tires, 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). Tire manufacturers may
comply with the requirements in this
§ 575.106 as an alternative to complying
with the requirements in
§ 575.104(d)(1)(i)(A) and (B).
(d) Definitions.—(1) All terms used in
this section that are defined in Section
32101 of Title 49, United States Code,
are used as defined therein.
(2) As used in this section:
Brand name owner means a person,
other than a tire manufacturer, who
owns or has the right to control the
brand name of a tire or a person who
licenses another to purchase tires from
a tire manufacturer bearing the
licensor’s brand name.
CT means a pneumatic tire with an
inverted flange tire and rim system in
which the rim is designed with rim
flanges pointed radially inward and the
tire is designed to fit on the underside
of the rim in a manner that encloses the
rim flanges inside the air cavity of the
tire.
Dealer means a person selling and
distributing new motor vehicles or
motor vehicle equipment primarily to
purchasers that in good faith purchase
the vehicle or equipment other than for
resale.
Distributor means a person primarily
selling and distributing motor vehicles
or motor vehicle equipment for resale.
Lab alignment tires or LATs means
the reference tires which the reference
lab will test to be used to align other
rolling resistance machines with the
reference lab in accordance with the
machine alignment procedure in ISO
28580 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 575.3), section 10.
Light truck (LT) tire means a tire
designated by its manufacturer as
primarily intended for use on
lightweight trucks or multipurpose
passenger vehicles.
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.
Reference lab means the laboratory or
laboratories that the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration designates
and which maintains and operates a
rolling resistance test machine to test
LATs for rolling resistance so that other
testing laboratories may correlate the
results from its rolling resistance test
machine in accordance with the
machine alignment procedure in ISO

PO 00000

Frm 00053

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

15945

28580 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 575.3), section 10.
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
manufacturer that identifies a tire’s size.
This can include identifications of tire
class, nominal width, aspect ratio, tire
construction, and wheel diameter.
Stock keeping unit or SKU means 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
identifier, or a part number.
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 dealer or
distributor of new replacement
passenger car tires sold for use on
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger
vehicles, and trucks, that have a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000
pounds or less.
(e) Requirements.—(1) Information. (i)
Requirements for tire manufacturers.
Subject to paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this
section, 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 (C) 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 SKU is to be rated separately.
Each tire shall be able to achieve the
level of performance represented by
each rating.
(A) Ratings. Each tire shall be rated
with the words, letters, symbols, and
figures specified in paragraph (e)(2) of
this section.
(B) Tire label. [Reserved.]
(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 are awaiting an
assigned OMB Control Number.
(1) Subject to paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of
this section, 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

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

15946

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

each rated replacement passenger car
tire:
(i) Rolling resistance rating, as
determined in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this
section.
(ii) Wet traction rating, as determined
in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section.
(iii) Treadwear rating, as determined
in paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of this section.
(2) Format of data submitted. The
information required under paragraph
(e)(1)(i)(C)(1) of this section shall be
submitted to NHTSA as extra columns
in the electronic data submission
required under section 26 of Part 579.
(3) Exempted tires. 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 all tire lines,
size designations, and stock keeping
units it manufactures which are
exempted from this section (§ 575.106)
as determined under paragraph (c) of
this section. Where a manufacturer is
required to report ratings under this
section, the information required in this
paragraph may be submitted with the
ratings information reported in
accordance with paragraph (e)(1)(i)(C)(1)
of this section. Where a manufacturer of
tires, or in the case of tires marketed
under a brand name, brand name
owners of tires only manufactures tires
that are exempt from this section under
paragraph (c) of this section, that
manufacturer shall submit a one-time
statement listing the tire lines, size
designations, and stock keeping units it
manufactures, and certifying that none
of the tires it manufactures are required
to be rated under this section.
(4) New ratings information.
Whenever the tire manufacturer, or in
the case of tires marketed under a brand
name, the brand name owner receives
information that would determine 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 or brand
name owner of the new information,
whichever comes first.
(5) Voluntary submission of data.
Manufacturers of tires or, in the case of
tires marketed under a brand name,
brand name owners of tires not subject
to this section may submit to NHTSA
data meeting the requirements of
paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section
for any tire they wish to have included
in the database of information available
to consumers on NHTSA’s Web site.
(ii) Requirements for tire retailers.
Subject to paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this
section, each tire retailer shall provide

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

rating information for each passenger
car tire offered for sale in the manner set
forth in this section.
(iii) Date for compliance. The
requirements of paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and
(e)(1)(ii) of this section will be
implemented as indicated in a
forthcoming final rule. These dates will
be announced in the Federal Register.
(2) Performance.—(i) Fuel efficiency.
[Reserved.]
(ii) Traction. [Reserved.]
(iii) Treadwear. [Reserved.]
(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.
(iii) The machine alignment
procedure specified in section 10 of the
test procedure specified in paragraph
(f)(2) of this section shall be conducted
using pairs of the LATs specified in
paragraph (f)(1)(iv) of this section, and
tested by the reference lab.
(iv) Lab alignment tires. The LATs to
be used in the machine alignment
procedure in section 10 of the test
procedure specified in paragraph (f)(2)
of this section will be specified in this
section in a forthcoming final rule.
(v) Break-in procedure for bias ply
tires. Before starting the rolling
resistance testing under the test
procedure specified in paragraph (f)(2)
of this section on a bias ply replacement
passenger car tire, the tire shall be
broken in by running it for one (1) hour
with the speed, loading, and inflation
pressure as specified in paragraphs
(f)(1)(v)(A), (f)(1)(v)(B), and (f)(1)(v)(C)
of this section. After the one hour breakin, allow the tire to cool for two (2)
hours and re-adjust to the required ISO
28580 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 575.3) test inflation pressure, and
verify 10 minutes after the adjustment is
made. After break-in, the bias ply tire
should follow the 30 minute warm-up
procedure of ISO 28580 (incorporated
by reference, see § 575.3).
(A) Speed. The speed shall be 80
kilometer per hour (kph).
(B) Loading. The tire loading shall be
80 percent of the maximum tire load
capacity.
(C) Inflation pressure. The inflation
pressure shall be 210 kilopascals (kPa)
for standard load tires, or 250 kPA for
reinforced or extra load tires.
(2) Procedure. The test procedure
shall be as specified in ISO 28580
(incorporated by reference, see § 575.3),

PO 00000

Frm 00054

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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), subject to the changes in
paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(iii) of
this section to additionally measure the
peak coefficient of friction.
(i) The sampling rate of the data
acquisition is to be no less than 100
Hertz in accordance with Section 6.6.1.8
of ASTM E 1337 (incorporated by
reference, see § 575.3).
(ii) The rate of brake application shall
be sufficient to control the time interval
between initial brake application and
peak longitudinal force to be between
0.3 and 0.5 seconds, and shall be
determined in accordance with Section
6.3.2 of ASTM E 1337 (incorporated by
reference, see § 575.3).
(iii) The peak coefficient of friction (or
peak braking coefficient) shall be
determined in accordance with Section
12 of ASTM E 1337 (incorporated by
reference, see § 575.3) for each dataset.
(iv) The slide coefficient of friction
will be determined in accordance with
§ 575.104(f)(2)(iii).
(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 slide and peak
coefficient of friction on the tire
associated with that wheel.
(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
coefficients of friction for more than one
candidate tire.
(viii) Average the 20 measurements
taken on the asphalt surface to find the

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3

standard tire average slide coefficient of
friction for the asphalt surface. Average
the 20 measurements taken on the
concrete surface to find the standard tire
average slide coefficient of friction for
the concrete surface. The standard tire
average slide coefficient of friction so
determined may be used in the
computation of adjusted slide
coefficients of friction for more than one
candidate tire.
(ix) Prepare two candidate tires of the
same SKU 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
percent of the test load specified in
§ 575.104(h). For CT tires, the test

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:48 Mar 29, 2010

Jkt 220001

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 and adjusted
slide coefficient of friction within a
single three-hour period. Average the 10
measurements taken on the asphalt
surface to find the candidate tire average
peak coefficient and average slide
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.
Average the 10 measurements taken on

PO 00000

Frm 00055

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 9990

15947

the concrete surface to find the
candidate tire average slide coefficient
of friction for the concrete surface.
(x) Repeat the procedures specified in
paragraph (g)(2)(viii) of this section,
using the second candidate tire as the
tire being tested.
(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).
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010–6907 Filed 3–25–10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE P

E:\FR\FM\30MRR3.SGM

30MRR3