Federal Register, Volume 74 Issue 118 (Monday, June 22, 2009)

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 118 (Monday, June 22, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29542-29587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14496]

[[Page 29541]]

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

Part II

Department of Transportation

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

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

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

49 CFR Part 575

Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer Information Program; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 29542]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 575

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0121]
RIN 2127-AK45

Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer Information Program

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes a broad new consumer information
program for replacement tires to inform consumers about the effect of
tires on fuel efficiency, safety, and durability. This consumer
information program would implement a national tire fuel efficiency
rating system for replacement tires, with the information provided to
consumers at the point of sale and online. Fuel efficiency ratings are
expected to inform consumers so that they will be better informed about
replacement tire performance. This consumer information program seeks
to enhance energy security and reduce costs by improving fuel economy.
Information would also be provided about safety and durability.

DATES: Comments to this proposal must be received on or before August
21, 2009. In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, NHTSA is also
seeking comment on a new information collection. See the Paperwork
Reduction Act section under Regulatory Notices and Analyses below.
Please submit all comments relating to new information collection
requirements on or before August 21, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the docket number in
the heading of this document, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on
the electronic docket site by clicking on ``Help'' or ``FAQ.''
Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Regardless of how you submit comments, you should mention the docket
number of this document.
You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202-366-9826.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For policy and technical issues: Ms. Julie Abraham or Ms. Mary
Versailles, Office of Rulemaking, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone: (202) 366-0846.
For legal issues: Mr. Stephen Wood or Ms. Sarah Alves, Office of
the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-
2992.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Overview
A. Summary
B. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
C. Proposal
1. Test Procedures
2. Proposed Rolling Resistance Rating Metric
3. Proposed Label
4. Proposed Information Dissemination and Reporting Requirements
for Tire Manufacturers and Tire Retailers
5. Consumer Education Program
D. Costs and Benefits
E. Lead Time
II. Background
A. Contribution of Tire Maintenance and Tire Fuel Efficiency to
Addressing Energy Independence and Security
1. Tire Fuel Efficiency and Rolling Resistance
2. Relationship Between Tire Maintenance and Tire Fuel
Efficiency and Vehicle Fuel Economy
3. 2006 National Academy of Sciences Report
4. California
5. European Union
6. Japan
B. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 Mandated
Consumer Tire Information Program
1. Tires Subject to the Consumer Information Program
2. Mandate To Create a National Tire Fuel Efficiency Rating
System
3. Communicating Information to Consumers
4. Specification of Test Methods
5. Creating a National Consumer Education Program on Tire
Maintenance
6. Consultation in Setting Standards
7. Application With State and Local Laws and Regulations
8. Compliance and Enforcement
9. Reporting to Congress
III. Which Tires Must Be Rated?
A. Passenger Car Tires
B. Replacement Tires
C. Tires within a Tire Model
D. Tires Excluded
IV. Rolling Resistance Test Procedure
A. Rolling Resistance
B. Possible Test Procedures Available to Measure Rolling
Resistance
C. NHTSA Research Results
D. Why Select a Single-Point Test Instead of Multi-Point?
E. Why Select ISO 28580 Instead of Other Tests?
V. Proposed Rolling Resistance Rating Metric
VI. Proposed Rating System
A. What Should We Convey to Consumers in a Rating System?
1. Fuel Efficiency
2. Safety
i. Potential Safety Consequences
ii. Test Procedure
3. Durability
4. Overall Rating
B. How Should We Convey the Information to Consumers in a Rating
System?
1. Proposed Rating Formulas
i. Fuel Efficiency
ii. Safety
iii. Durability
2. Proposed Label Style
VII. Proposed Information Dissemination and Reporting Requirements
for Tire Manufacturers and Tire Retailers
A. The Replacement Passenger Car Tire Market
B. Assumptions about the Average Tire Purchaser and the Average
Tire Purchasing Process
C. What Are We Proposing To Require of Tire Retailers?
D. What Are We Proposing To Require of Tire Manufacturers?
1. Data Reporting
2. Tire Labels
E. Requirements for Tire Retailers and Tire Manufacturers With
an Internet Presence
F. Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards
VIII. NHTSA's Consumer Education Program
A. Previous Tire Consumer Education Efforts

[[Page 29543]]

B. Potential Future Consumer Education Efforts
1. What Information Should NHTSA Convey?
2. Point of Sale
3. Interactive Mediums
4. Web Site Development
5. Paper Brochure Materials
6. Partnership Development
7. Exhibits and Conferencing
8. Local Education Programs
IX. Costs and Benefits
A. Costs
B. Benefits
X. Lead Time
XI. Compliance Tolerances
A. Fuel Efficiency
B. Safety
C. Durability
XII. Regulatory Alternatives
XIII. Public Participation
XIV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
B National Environmental Policy Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. Executive Order 13045
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 13211
K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
L. Plain Language
M. Privacy Act

I. Executive Overview

A. Summary

This document is being issued pursuant to the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (EISA),\1\ which was enacted in December 2007.
EISA included a requirement that NHTSA develop a national tire fuel
efficiency consumer information program to educate consumers about the
effect of tires on automobile fuel efficiency, safety, and durability.
Consumers currently have little, if any, convenient way of determining
how tire choices can affect vehicle fuel economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Public Law 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (Dec. 18, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The collective effects of the choices consumers make when they buy
tires are matters of public interest. The 240 million passenger cars
and light trucks in the United States consume about 135 billion gallons
of motor fuel annually.\2\ Finding ways to reduce this energy
consumption is a national goal for reasons ranging from ensuring
economic and national security to improving local air quality and
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Rolling resistance, or the force
required to make the tires roll, differs from tire to tire and is a
characteristic that indicates a tire's fuel efficiency. Consumers, if
sufficiently informed and interested, could bring about a reduction in
average rolling resistance of replacement tires by adjusting their tire
purchases, and as a consequence, significantly reduce the amount of
fuel consumed annually. While the handling, traction, and other
operating characteristics of tires are of particular interest to tire
buyers, they are also matters of even broader public interest in as
much as they may influence the safety performance of vehicles on the
nation's highways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 27, Tables 4-1 and
4-2, available at http://cta.ornl.gov/data/index.shtml (last
accessed Mar. 5, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congress required NHTSA to establish a tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program, including a replacement tire fuel
efficiency rating system. This requirement is evidently a response to a
market failure in the form of imperfectly informed decisions on the
part of consumers; the program attempts to respond to the market
failure. In the same vein, EISA requires that NHTSA develop
requirements for providing this information to consumers, and a
national tire maintenance consumer education program. All tires require
proper inflation and maintenance to achieve their intended levels of
efficiency, safety, wear, and operating performance. NHTSA has
previously addressed the importance of proper tire inflation to safety
and fuel efficiency in various public service campaigns. NHTSA has also
mandated that tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMSs) be installed on
new motor vehicles,\3\ but TPMS is not a substitute for proper tire
maintenance. Motorists must be alerted to the fact that even small
losses in inflation pressure can reduce tire treadwear life, fuel
efficiency, and operating performance.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ See 70 FR 18136 (April 8, 2005).
\4\ Transportation Research Board Special Report 286, Tires and
Passenger Vehicle Fuel Economy, National Research Council of the
National Academies, 5 (2006) (hereinafter ``2006 NAS Report'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This document proposes to require tire manufacturers to label their
replacement tires for fuel efficiency, safety, and durability based on
test procedures specified by the agency. These tests address three
aspects of tire performance: rolling resistance, traction and treadwear
life. As noted above and described in further detail below, rolling
resistance is a measurement of fuel efficiency. A measurement of
traction is intended to indicate a tire's ability to stop on wet
pavement. Thus, traction is one metric that corresponds to safety. A
treadwear rating measures a tire's wear rate compared with that of
control tires. Treadwear life, therefore, corresponds to a measure of
durability.
Comparing this new proposed label across potential replacement
tires would enable consumers to see how different replacement tires can
affect the fuel economy they are getting from their vehicle. The label
would also allow consumers to see the tradeoff they may be facing
between fuel efficiency, safety (i.e., traction), and durability (i.e.,
treadwear life), and how the balance of these factors may differ from
tire to tire. NHTSA's research has found that while tire construction
need not sacrifice traction or treadwear for improved fuel efficiency,
maintaining the same traction and treadwear while increasing the fuel
efficiency of a given tire often entails higher costs.\5\ Thus, if a
manufacturer seeks to improve the fuel efficiency of a given
replacement tire construction while keeping cost constant, there is a
substantial chance that the construction will sacrifice either traction
or treadwear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA
Tire Rolling Resistance Rating System Test Development Project:
Phase 2--Effects of Tire Rolling Resistance Levels on Traction,
Treadwear, and Vehicle Fuel Economy (February 2009). This Phase 2
research report will be placed in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The agency is proposing to require that tire retailers display a
tire fuel efficiency consumer information program poster that NHTSA
will print and provide to retailers. The poster would communicate the
importance of comparing replacement tire ratings as well as the
importance of proper tire maintenance. The agency is also proposing to
require tire retailers and tire manufacturers that maintain Web sites
to link to NHTSA's comprehensive tire Web site it will be developing as
part of a national tire maintenance consumer education program. The
agency seeks comments on any other information dissemination
requirements that would ensure that easy-to-understand information is
conveyed in a way that is most likely to impact consumers' decisions
and, thus, affect their behavior and save them and our nation fuel and
money.
In developing the proposal, the agency conducted tire testing
research to determine which test procedure would best standardize a
fuel efficiency rating and provide accurate discrimination among
replacement tires. The agency is proposing the specific test procedure
by which manufacturers are to measure rolling resistance for the rating
system. NHTSA also conducted consumer focus group research to improve
understanding of the typical tire purchaser and the tire purchasing

[[Page 29544]]

process for the average consumer. NHTSA's preliminary consumer research
explored the type of label (including forms of rating, scales, and
graphic) that best communicates the information to consumers. In this
notice, we are proposing a label based on the rating scale and
presentation that tested best with consumers and that promises to
improve the operation of the market in terms of three factors (fuel
economy, safety, and durability) that matter to consumers. We are aware
that by itself, the rating scale may not make the relevant information
fully meaningful to consumers; from the label alone, it is not entirely
clear what a high rating, rather than a low one, will mean in terms of
what matters to consumer choices. The agency is planning to do
additional consumer testing, including additional types of testing such
as quantitative and experimental techniques, to make the label as
meaningful as possible. At this point, the agency cannot project the
expected consumer reaction to this program, and it will engage in
continued testing to provide such projections. The agency requests
comment on the proposed rating systems, the proposed label, and
potential future consumer research.
NHTSA is also publishing a companion Preliminary Regulatory Impact
Analysis (PRIA) that provides an analysis on the potential economic
impacts of this consumer information program. The agency seeks comment
on this preliminary analysis.

B. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

The provision of EISA that mandates the consumer tire information
program built on a legislative proposal originally introduced in 2006
after a NAS report was issued suggesting that a tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program could increase vehicle fuel economy by an
average of 1 to 2 percent.\6\ Many factors affect a vehicle's fuel
economy, including the tire's rolling resistance, or force required to
make the tires roll. The 2006 NAS report estimated that 4 percent
(urban) to 7 percent (highway) of the energy available from the
vehicle's fuel usage is used to overcome the rolling resistance of the
tires. Therefore, reducing rolling resistance can reduce a vehicle's
fuel consumption. As one of many strategies to meet the Federal
corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for new passenger cars
and light trucks, automobile manufacturers often equip vehicles with
low rolling resistance tires. However, consumers often unknowingly
purchase higher rolling resistance tires when replacing their vehicle
tires, because information on the comparative rolling resistance of
tires and its impact on vehicle fuel economy is not readily available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ Previous attempts to establish a national tire fuel
efficiency program can be found in proposed amendments to various
energy bills in prior years. See e.g., S. Amdt. 3083, 108th Cong.,
150 Cong. Rec. S4710 (2004) (proposing to amend S. 150); S. Amdt.
1470, 108th Cong., 149 Cong. Rep. S10707 (2003) (proposing to amend
S. 14). These amendments proposed regulating the fuel efficiency of
tires in addition to a tire fuel efficiency grading system and
consumer information program, and were not adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the most significant of the EISA mandates is the setting of
separate maximum feasible standards for passenger cars and for light
trucks at levels sufficient to ensure that the average fuel economy of
the combined fleet of all passenger cars and light trucks sold by all
manufacturers in the U.S. in model year (MY) 2020 equals or exceeds 35
miles per gallon. In the near future, per the President's announcement,
NHTSA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intend to initiate
a joint rulemaking with NHTSA proposing CAFE standards under the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended by EISA, and EPA
proposing greenhouse gas emissions standards under the Clean Air
Act.\7\ It is intended that this joint rulemaking proposal will reflect
a carefully coordinated and harmonized approach to implementing these
two statutes.\8\ The new standards will propose a significant increase
in fuel economy by 2016.\9\ This consumer tire information program is
one of the actions that will contribute towards the larger goals of
energy independence and security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ Notice of Upcoming Joint Rulemaking To Establish Vehicle GHG
Emissions and CAFE Standards; Notice of Intent To Conduct a Joint
Rulemaking, 74 FR 24007 (May 22, 2009).
\8\ Id. at 24008.
\9\ Id. at 24009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 111 of EISA added section 32304A to Chapter 323 of title
49, United States Code. This chapter codifies consumer information
requirements initially established by the Motor Vehicle Information and
Cost Savings Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-513). The new section 32304A is
entitled ``Consumer tire information'' and specifies as follows:
Within 24 months of the enactment of EISA, NHTSA is to
promulgate rules establishing a national tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program for replacement tires to educate consumers about
the effect of tires on fuel efficiency, safety, and durability.
The program must include a national tire fuel efficiency
rating system for replacement tires to assist consumers in making more
educated tire purchasing decisions.
NHTSA must specify requirements for providing information
to consumers, including information at the point of sale and other
potential dissemination methods, including the Internet.
NHTSA must also specify the test methods that
manufacturers are to use in assessing and rating tires to avoid
variation among test equipment and manufacturers.
As a part of the consumer information program, NHTSA must
develop a national tire maintenance consumer education program, which
must include information on tire inflation pressure, alignment,
rotation, and treadwear to maximize fuel efficiency, safety and
durability of replacement tires.

C. Proposal

We solicit comment on all aspects of this proposal, including the
rolling resistance test procedure, the rating system and label graphic,
and the requirements for tire manufacturers and tire retailers for
reporting and disseminating information. Specific areas where we
request comments are identified elsewhere in this preamble and in the
PRIA. Based on public comments and other information, including new
data and analysis, the requirements and specifications in the final
rule could differ from the specific ones proposed in this document.
1. Test Procedures
This document proposes to require tire manufacturers to rate the
fuel efficiency of their tires using a test procedure currently under
development by the International Organization for Standardization
(ISO), ISO 28580: Tyre Rolling Resistance measurement method--Single
point test and measurement result correlation--Designed to facilitate
international cooperation and, possibly, regulation building. The ISO
standard is currently in Final Draft International Standard (FDIS)
stage, and is expected to be balloted and finalized by October 2009.
Based on this timeline, the agency expects this test procedure to be
finalized before publication of the final rule.\10\ NHTSA is proposing
to specify the use of the finalized ISO 28580 test procedure. The
agency is also seeking

[[Page 29545]]

comment on the use of other test procedures as described in section IV
of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ If the ISO 28580 test procedure is not a finalized by the
time of publication of this notice, interested parties may obtain a
copy of the draft by contacting Mr. Joe Pacuit, U.S. Technical
Advisory Group (TAG) Secretariat to Technical Committee (TC) 31,
Tyres, rims and valves. Mr. Pacuit can be reached by telephone at
(303) 666-8121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The choice of which test procedure to specify for measuring rolling
resistance is important because measuring rolling resistance requires
precise instrumentation, calibration, speed control and equipment
alignment for repeatable results. As explained in more detail in this
notice, agency research shows that all of the available test procedures
could meet these requirements. However, the ISO 28580 test method is
unique in that it specifies a procedure to correlate results between
laboratories and test equipment, which our research shows is a
significant source of variation. Because other established test methods
lack such a procedure, NHTSA would have to develop a new procedure to
address this variation before any of those test methods could be
considered. Further, the ISO 28580 test procedure is the specified test
method in the proposed European Union Directive, allowing manufacturers
to do one test to determine ratings for both proposed regulations.
As for the safety and durability ratings, due to the statutory
timeline within which this rulemaking must be completed, NHTSA is
proposing to use traction and treadwear test procedures that are
already specified under another tire rating system, the uniform tire
quality grading standards (UTQGS).\11\ The agency has been examining
other metrics for safety and durability, as well as possible
correlations between tire fuel efficiency and wet and dry traction,
indoor and outdoor treadwear, and vehicle fuel economy.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ See 49 CFR 575.104 (2008).
\12\ NHTSA's Phase 2 research tested 15 models of replacement
tires, as well as the original equipment tires on a fuel economy
test vehicle, to examine possible correlations between tire rolling
resistance levels and vehicle fuel economy as measured on a
dynometer, wet and dry traction, and indoor and outdoor treadwear.
See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA Tire
Rolling Resistance Rating System Test Development Project: Phase 2--
Effects of Tire Rolling Resistance Levels on Traction, Treadwear,
and Vehicle Fuel Economy (February 2009). This Phase 2 research
report will be placed in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Proposed Rolling Resistance Rating Metric
We are proposing to base a tire's fuel efficiency rating on rolling
resistance force (RRF) as measured by the ISO 28580 test procedure.
This is in contrast to basing a fuel efficiency rating on rolling
resistance coefficient (RRC), or RRF divided by load. The agency is
aware that the proposed European tire fuel efficiency rating system
specifies tire ratings based on RRC.
NHTSA is proposing to base the rolling resistance rating on the RRF
metric because such a rating would provide more discrimination among
different tires throughout the system, and thus more information to
consumers, than a rating based on RRC. RRF translates more directly to
the fuel required to move a tire, and based on the goals of EISA,
appears to be a more appropriate metric.
3. Proposed Label
To convey information to consumers, this document proposes a label,
which contains an individual tire's ratings for fuel efficiency (i.e.,
rolling resistance), safety (i.e., traction), and durability (i.e.,
treadwear), and which is similar to a ratings label that tested well in
consumer research conducted by NHTSA. NHTSA conducted focus group
studies in which it presented several labels using different graphics
and scales to relay the ratings. Figure 1 shows the ratings label that
NHTSA is proposing in today's notice. The graphic shows all the ratings
on a scale of 0 to 100, with 100 being the best rating. Consumers
expressed an understanding of this 0 to 100 scale, and reacted
positively to the red and green shading, with red indicating lower/
worse ratings and green indicating higher/better ratings.\13\ Other
graphics presented in NHTSA's consumer research are discussed in
section VI.B.3 of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ Today's proposed regulation specifies the colors on the far
ends of the ratings scales as ``primary red'' (for lowest/worst
rating box) and ``primary green'' (for the highest/best rating box).
An example of the proposed label in color can be found in the docket
for this rulemaking and on NHTSA's Web site, http://www.nhtsa.gov.
Click on the link to this notice, which will appear under ``What's
New, Latest Updates, and Features on Our Site'' (towards the bottom
of the main page).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA is seeking comment on an alternative graphic for the traction
rating scale because consumers expressed some confusion with the
graphic as presented. The cloud in the symbol for traction
(representing the source of the rain drops) was confusing for some
consumers who could not make out what it was or thought it was a cowboy
hat. NHTSA is aware that the consumers may not fully understand the
meaning of certain points on the ratings scale and is taking steps,
with this rule, to help to increase understanding. NHTSA is seeking
comment on how that task might best be accomplished, including with
changes to the label itself.
For the purposes of the final rule, the agency is also considering
the concept of a combined rating of some sort, which would convert all
three benefit metrics into one overall rating. The advantage of such a
system for tire performance ratings would be that it would simplify the
ratings, potentially relieving consumers of the task of weighing the
ratings for three different metrics for one tire against the three
ratings for another tire. At the same time, if the single combined
rating were presented to the exclusion of individual ratings for each
metric, it would obscure the relative performance of individual
components that might carry different priorities with different
consumers. As discussed in detail below in section VI.A.4, an example
of such a system might be expressed as average overall cost per mile.
As explained in greater detail later in this notice, the agency seeks
comments as to whether such a combined rating could be developed and,
if so, should be adopted in the final rule and implemented. The agency
seeks comments on the relative advantages and disadvantages of a single
combined rating, the three rating system in our proposal, and a third
approach combining the first two approaches.

[[Page 29546]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.000

4. Proposed Information Dissemination and Reporting Requirements for
Tire Manufacturers and Tire Retailers
For tire manufacturers, NHTSA is proposing that manufacturers be
required to report various data to the agency. This is necessary both
for enforcement of the rating system, and for development of NHTSA's
tire fuel efficiency Web site, which will contain a database of tire
information with a calculator tool that allows easy comparison of fuel
savings between various replacement tires.
Regarding labeling, we are proposing to require tire manufacturers
to print the tire fuel efficiency graphic (Figure 1) in color along
with any other information manufacturers include on an existing paper
label on the tire.\14\ At the manufacturer's option they could also
meet the labeling requirement by displaying the tire fuel efficiency
rating graphic as a separate label in full color.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ Manufacturers are required to print UTQGS information on a
paper label pursuant to 49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(B). Many manufacturers
include other information on this paper label as well. Note that
NHTSA uses the term ``paper label'' in the colloquial sense; many
labels on tires are actually made of plastic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for requirements for tire retailers, we are proposing a
requirement that the paper label containing the new rating information
must remain on the tire until the sale of the tire. The label refers
consumers to the agency's Web site for further information about the
ratings. We are further proposing a requirement that tire retailers
must display a poster that NHTSA would print and distribute to them
which would explain the rating system and encourage consumers to
compare ratings across tires.
In addition, for tire manufacturers and retailers that maintain a
Web site, the agency is proposing to require those Web sites to link to
NHTSA's comprehensive tire Web site we will be developing as part of
the national tire maintenance consumer education program. The agency
also seeks comments on any other information dissemination requirements
that would ensure that easy-to-understand information is conveyed in a
way that is most likely to impact consumers' decisions and, thus,
affect their behavior and save them and our nation fuel and money.
5. Consumer Education Program
This document identifies and seeks comment on various ways that
NHTSA plans to implement a consumer education program to inform
consumers about the effect of tire properties and tire maintenance on
vehicle fuel efficiency, safety, and durability. All tires require
proper inflation and maintenance to achieve their intended levels of
energy efficiency, safety, wear, and operating performance. NHTSA has
previously addressed the importance of proper tire inflation to fuel
efficiency, treadwear, and safety in various public service campaigns.
Although NHTSA has mandated tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMSs) be
installed on new motor vehicles,\15\ a TPMS is not a substitute for
proper tire maintenance. Motorists must be alerted to the fact that
even small losses in inflation pressure

[[Page 29547]]

can reduce tire treadwear life, fuel efficiency, and operating
performance.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ See 70 FR 18136 (April 5, 2005); Docket No. NHTSA-2005-
20586-1.
\16\ When a tire is under-inflated, the shape of its footprint
and the pressure it exerts on the road surface are both altered. One
consequence of this alteration can be a reduction in the tire's
ability to transmit (or generate) braking force to the road surface.
Thus, under-inflated tires may increase a vehicle's stopping
distance on wet surfaces. 66 FR 38982, 38986 (July 26, 2001). Under-
inflated tires also increase the rolling resistance of vehicles and,
correspondingly, decrease their fuel economy. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some of NHTSA's ideas for consumer education include informational
posters or brochures that NHTSA would distribute at trade shows and
other events, and which tire retailers could display at the point of
sale and a centralized, expansive government Web site on tires
containing a database of all tire rating information. NHTSA is also
planning to develop a comparative calculator that would show the amount
of money a consumer would save annually or over the estimated lifetime
of the tires of varying fuel efficiency ratings. Using the calculator,
a consumer could select tires to compare, enter the fuel economy of
their vehicle (miles per gallon or mpg) and the average number of miles
they drive each year and even the dollar amount they are paying for
fuel and get a calculation of differences in fuel usage and/or money
saved for the tires under comparison.
Finally, NHTSA plans to develop and form new partnerships to
distribute educational messages about tire fuel efficiency and tire
maintenance. NHTSA will seek to partner with any interested tire
retailers, State or local governments, as well as manufacturers who
share NHTSA's goal of promoting the importance of proper tire
maintenance. NHTSA will also seek to partner with universities and high
schools that may wish to educate students regarding tire fuel
efficiency or proper tire maintenance. These various innovative tools
and education measures will assist consumers in making better-informed
tire purchasing and maintenance decisions.

D. Costs and Benefits

The annual cost of NHTSA's proposal is estimated to be between
$18.9 and $52.8 million. This includes testing costs of $22,500,
reporting costs of around $113,000, labeling costs of around $9
million, costs to the Federal government of $1.28 million, and costs of
between $8.4 and $42 million to improve tires. In addition, NHTSA
anticipates one-time costs of around $4 million, including initial
testing costs of $3.7 million and reporting start-up costs of $280,000.
It is hoped that the proposed rule will have benefits in terms of
fuel economy, safety, and durability. At the very least, the proposed
rule should enable consumers to make more informed decisions about
these variables, thus increasing benefits along dimensions that most
matter to them. It is possible that the rule will help promote
innovation that will benefit consumers along all three dimensions.
Because the agency cannot foresee precisely how much today's proposed
consumer information program would affect consumer tire purchasing
behavior and cannot foresee the reduction in rolling resistance among
improved tires, the PRIA estimates benefits using a range of
hypothetical assumptions regarding the extent to which the tire fuel
efficiency consumer information program affects the replacement tire
market. Specifically, the PRIA develops estimates assuming that between
2% and 10% of targeted tires are improved and that the average
reduction in rolling resistance among improved tires is between 5% and
10%. Under these hypothetical assumptions, the proposal is estimated to
save 7.9-78 million gallons of fuel and prevent the emission of 76,000-
757,000 metric tons of CO2 annually. The values of the fuel
savings are between $22 and $220 million at a 3 percent discount rate
and between $20 and $203 million at a 7 percent discount rate.

E. Lead Time

Recognizing that the deadlines imposed by EISA indicate a desire to
have information available to consumers as quickly as possible, NHTSA
is proposing to require tire manufacturers to meet applicable
requirements for all existing replacement tires within 12 months of the
issuance of a final regulation. That is, within 12 months of the
issuance of a final regulation tire manufacturers must submit required
data to NHTSA on all existing replacement tires, and all replacement
tires sold by the manufacturer or transferred to tire retailers must be
labeled. For new tires introduced after the effective date of this
rule, NHTSA is proposing to require reporting of information at least
30 days prior to introducing the tire for sale, as is currently
required for UTQGS information.
Regarding the poster NHTSA is proposing to require in retailers
that have a display room, the agency is proposing to make this poster
available within 12 months of the issuance of a final regulation. At
that time NHTSA will publish a Federal Register notice announcing the
availability of the poster. The agency is proposing that a tire
retailer must have the poster on display within 60 days of the issuance
of the notice of availability in the Federal Register. We are proposing
that a tire retailer will be able to comply with the requirement of
displaying the poster either by downloading and printing it, in color
and with the specifications from NHTSA's Web site, or by contacting the
agency and requesting that we send the retailer a copy of the poster.
For tire retailers and tire manufacturers with an Internet
presence, NHTSA is proposing that those Web sites link to NHTSA's tire
Web site within 12 months of the issuance of a final regulation. NHTSA
will provide the direct link to the comprehensive tire Web site in that
final regulation.

II. Background

A. Contribution of Tire Maintenance and Tire Fuel Efficiency to
Addressing Energy Independence and Security

1. Tire Fuel Efficiency and Rolling Resistance
Without the continual addition of energy, a vehicle will slow down.
This effect is due to many forces, including aerodynamic drag,
driveline losses, brake drag, and tire rolling resistance. The first
three of these are vehicle properties; they will not be discussed
further. Rolling resistance is the effort required to keep a given tire
rolling. That is, rolling resistance is the energy loss during the
continuation of rotational movement of the tire. As such, it always
opposes the vehicle's longitudinal, or forward/backward, movement.
Since this rolling resistance force (RRF) opposes the direction of
travel of the rotating tire, it directly reduces the efficiency of a
vehicle in converting the chemical energy in the fuel to motion of the
vehicle. Therefore, tire rolling resistance is the most effective
metric for rating the ``fuel efficiency'' of a tire.
In general, vehicle efficiency affects the conversion of chemical
energy in motor fuel into mechanical energy and the transmission of
energy to the axles to drive the wheels. Figure 2 illustrates the
energy uses and losses for a midsize passenger car. Part of the energy
supplied to the wheels of the vehicle is lost due to energy converted
to heat within the structure of the tire as well as friction between
the tire and the road,

[[Page 29548]]

which creates resistance, decreasing fuel efficiency.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.001

A tire's rolling resistance is the energy consumed by a rolling
tire, or the mechanical energy converted into heat by a tire, moving a
unit distance on the roadway.\18\ The magnitude of rolling resistance
depends on the tire used, the nature of the surface on which it rolls,
and the operating conditions--inflation pressure, load, and speed.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ See http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml; 2006 NAS
Report, supra note 4, at 29.
\18\ Rolling resistance is, thus, defined as energy per unit
distance, which is the same units as force (Joules/meter = Newtons).
However, unlike force, rolling resistance is a scalar quantity with
no direction associated with it. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, The Pneumatic Tire, DOT HS 810 561, at 477 (February
2006).
\19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Relationship Between Tire Maintenance and Tire Fuel Efficiency and
Vehicle Fuel Economy
Tires with reduced inflation pressure exhibit more sidewall bending
and tread shearing. This increased deformation causes increased energy
loss by the flexing of the rubber. Further, tires with less than
optimal inflation pressure have a larger footprint of the tire on the
road, creating more contact between the tire and the road, thereby
increasing rolling resistance. Therefore, properly inflated tires
achieve less rolling resistance and higher fuel efficiency than under-
inflated tires. Moreover, all tires require proper inflation and proper
maintenance to achieve their intended levels of efficiency, safety,
wear, and operating performance. Thus, a strong message urging vigilant
maintenance of inflation must be a central part of communicating
information on the fuel efficiency performance of tires to
motorists.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 5, 97.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to proper tire inflation pressure, combinations of
differences in tire dimensions, design, materials, and construction
features will cause tires to differ in rolling resistance as well as in
many other attributes such as traction, handling, noise, wear
resistance, and appearance.\21\ Thus, when choosing among replacement
tires, consumers choose among tires varying in price, style, and many
aspects of performance, including rolling resistance, treadwear life,
and traction. Every year Americans spend approximately $20 billion
replacing about 200 million passenger car tires.\22\ Thus, the tires
consumers purchase will not only affect the handling, traction, ride
comfort, and appearance of their cars, but also the fuel economy.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ Id. at 1.
\22\ H.R. Rep. No. 109-537, at 3 (June 28, 2006); 2006 NAS
Report, supra note 4, at 1.
\23\ Most passenger tires are replaced every 3 to 5 years
because of wear. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fuel economy improvements are a large part of ensuring a secure
energy future.\24\ EISA will help reduce America's dependence on oil by
reducing U.S. demand for oil by setting a national fuel economy
standard of at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020--which will increase
fuel economy standards by 40 percent and save billions of gallons of
fuel. In the near future, per the President's announcement, NHTSA and
EPA intend to initiate a joint rulemaking, with NHTSA proposing CAFE
standards under EPCA, as amended by EISA, and EPA proposing greenhouse
gas emissions standards under the Clean Air Act.\25\ This notice
proposes a tire fuel efficiency rating system and consumer education
program that will contribute to increases in actual on-road fuel
economy achieved, even for vehicles currently in service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ See 73 FR 24352, 24360 (May 2, 2008).
\25\ Notice of Upcoming Joint Rulemaking To Establish Vehicle
GHG Emissions and CAFE Standards; Notice of Intent to Conduct a
Joint Rulemaking, 74 FR 24007 (May 22, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further, improving fuel economy reduces the amount of tailpipe
emissions of CO2. CO2 emissions are directly
linked to fuel consumption because CO2 is an ultimate end
product of burning gasoline. The more fuel a vehicle burns, the more
CO2 it emits. Since the CO2 emissions are
essentially constant per gallon of fuel combusted, the amount of fuel
consumption per mile is directly related to the amount of
CO2 emissions per mile. Thus, improvements in fuel economy
necessarily reduce tailpipe emissions of CO2.\26\ The need
to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, e.g., motor vehicle
tailpipe emissions of CO2, in order to forestall and even
mitigate climate change is well recognized.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ Id. at 24356.
\27\ IPCC (2007): Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate
Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.
Davidson, P. Bosch, R. Dave, and L. Meyer (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

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

[[Page 29549]]

3. 2006 National Academy of Sciences Report
In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004,\28\ Congress
provided funding through the USDOT/NHTSA to the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) to develop and perform a national tire fuel efficiency
study and literature review.\29\ The NAS was to assess the feasibility
of reducing rolling resistance in replacement tires and the effects of
doing so on vehicle fuel consumption, tire wear life and scrap tire
generation, and tire operating performance as it relates to motor
vehicle safety. Congress asked that the assessment include estimates of
the effects of reductions in rolling resistance on consumer spending on
fuel and tire replacement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ H.R. Rep. No. 108-401, at 971 (Nov. 25, 2003) (Conf. Rep.).
\29\ Ultimately the task was given to the Committee for the
National Tire Efficiency Study of the Transportation Research Board,
a division of the National Research Council that is jointly
administered by the National Academy of Sciences, the National
Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In April 2006, the Transportation Research Board and the Board on
Energy and Environmental Systems, part of the National Academies'
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, released Special Report
286, Tires and Passenger Vehicle Fuel Economy: Informing Consumers and
Improving Performance (2006 NAS Report).\30\ The 2006 NAS Report
concluded that reduction of average rolling resistance of replacement
tires by 10 percent was technically and economically feasible, and that
such a reduction would increase the fuel economy of passenger vehicles
by 1 to 2 percent, saving about 1 to 2 billion gallons of fuel per year
nationwide.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ Transportation Research Board Special Report 286, Tires and
Passenger Vehicle Fuel Economy, National Research Council of the
National Academies (2006). A copy of this report will be placed in
the docket.
\31\ Id. at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A reduction in the average rolling resistance of replacement tires
in the vehicle fleet can occur through various means. Consumers could
purchase more tires that are now available with lower rolling
resistance, tire designs could be modified, and new tire technologies
that offer reduced rolling resistance could be introduced. More
vigilant maintenance of tire inflation pressure may further this
outcome as well.\32\ The 2006 NAS Report concluded that consumers, if
sufficiently informed and interested, could bring about a reduction in
average rolling resistance by adjusting their tire purchases and by
taking proper care of their tires once in service, especially by
maintaining recommended inflation pressure.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ Id. at 3.
\33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 2006 NAS Report observed that consumers currently have little,
if any, practical way of assessing how tire choices can affect vehicle
fuel economy. Recognizing this market failure, the Report recommended
that Congress authorize and make sufficient resources available for
NHTSA to prompt and work with the tire industry in gathering and
reporting information on the influence of passenger tires on vehicle
fuel consumption.\34\ The 2006 NAS Report recognized the challenge of
changing consumer preference and behavior, but recommended
Congressional action nonetheless because of the potential societal
benefits associated with increasing effective on-road fuel economy by
even 1 to 2 percent.\35\ This ambitious undertaking must begin with
information concerning the tire's influence on fuel efficiency being
made widely and readily available to tire buyers and sellers. The
consumer tire information program mandated by EISA and proposed in
today's notice begins this undertaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ Id. at 2, 4.
\35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other countries have also begun working towards increasing on-road
fuel economy by reducing average rolling resistance. These countries
include those of the European Union and Japan. In addition, the State
of California has also initiated a program to increase vehicle fuel
economy using tire efficiency ratings.
4. California
In 2001, California Senate Bill 1170 authorized the California
Energy Commission (CEC) to conduct a study to investigate opportunities
for increasing usage of low rolling resistance tires in California.\36\
The study concluded that there was a potential for substantial vehicle
fuel savings from an increase in the use of properly inflated, low
rolling resistance tires. As a result of this study, in October 2003,
the California State legislature adopted Assembly Bill No. 844 (AB
844),\37\ which required the CEC to develop a comprehensive fuel
efficient tire program.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ See Cal. Pub. Res. Code Sec. Sec. 25000.5, 25722-25723
(2009); 2001 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 912 (S.B. 1170) (West).
\37\ See Cal. Pub Res. Code Sec. Sec. 25770-25773; 2003 Cal.
Legis. Serv. Ch. 645 (A.B. 844) (West).
\38\ Specifically, AB 844 required the State Energy Resources
Conservation Board ``to adopt, on or before July 1, 2007, and
implement, no later than July 1, 2008, a replacement tire fuel
efficiency program of statewide applicability for replacement tires
for passenger cars and light-duty trucks, that is designed to ensure
that replacement tires sold in the State are at least as energy
efficient, on average, as the tires sold in the State as original
equipment on those vehicles.'' Cal. Pub. Res. Code Sec. 25772.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The program would consist of three phases. In the first phase, the
CEC will develop a database with information on the fuel efficiency of
replacement tires sold in California, develop a rating system for the
energy efficiency of replacement tires, and develop a manufacturer
reporting requirement for the energy efficiency of replacement
tires.\39\ In the second phase, the CEC will consider whether to adopt
standards for replacement tires to ensure that replacement tires sold
in the State are at least as energy efficient, on average, as original
equipment tires.\40\ In deciding whether to adopt standards, the CEC
must ensure that a standard:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ See id. at Sec. 25771.
\40\ See id. at Sec. 25772. EISA does not provide NHTSA with
the authority to directly regulate the fuel efficiency of tires.
EISA's mandates to NHTSA regarding replacement tire fuel efficiency
relate only to developing ratings and disseminating information to
consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is technically feasible and cost effective;
Does not adversely affect tire safety;
Does not adversely affect the average life of replacement
tires; and
Does not adversely affect the State effort to manage scrap
tires.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ See id. at Sec. 25773.

If standards are adopted, the CEC will also develop consumer
information requirements for replacement tires for which standards
apply. In the third phase, the CEC must review and revise the program
at least every three years.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On June 10, 2009, the Transportation Policy Committee of the CEC
conducted a workshop regarding the Energy Commission Fuel Efficient
Tire Program. As part of that workshop, the CEC staff draft regulation
was made public.\43\ The draft regulation specifies testing and
reporting requirements for manufacturers, and describes the database
the CEC will maintain. The draft regulation defines a ``fuel efficient
tire'' as a tire with ``a declared fuel efficiency rating value no
higher than 1.15 times the lowest declared fuel efficiency rating value
for all tires in its

[[Page 29550]]

combined tire size designation and load index.'' \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ See http://www.energy.ca.gov/transportation/tire_efficiency/documents/index.html#061009 (last accessed June 15,
2009).
\44\ Publication CEC-600-2009-010-SD (posted May 29,
2009), available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-600-2009-010/CEC-600-2009-010-SD.PDF (last accessed June 15, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. European Union
Europe is approaching the issue of tire fuel efficiency from two
directions. On March 10, 2009, the European Parliament and the Council
of the European Union adopted the European Commission Proposal for a
regulation concerning new type-approval requirements for the general
safety of motor vehicles.\45\ One of the new requirements in this
regulation will gradually prohibit original equipment and replacement
tires with a rolling resistance coefficient (RRC) above certain levels
beginning November 1, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\45\ See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2009-0092+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN#top (last
accessed Mar. 11, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On April 22, 2009, the European Parliament adopted another
Commission proposal, ``Fuel Efficiency: Labeling of Tyres.'' The new
regulation will require original equipment and replacement tires to be
rated for rolling resistance, wet grip and noise.\46\ The rolling
resistance rating is determined using the same test procedure as in ISO
28580: Tyre Rolling Resistance measurement method--Single point test
and measurement result correlation--Designed to facilitate
international cooperation and, possibly, regulation building. The
ratings must be provided to consumers in a label on the tire, and also
in technical promotional literature, while the measured value for RRC
as determined for the type-approval regulation must be molded onto the
tire sidewall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindByProcnum.do?lang=2&procnum=COD/2008/0221 (last accessed Mar. 4,
2009). Mandatory requirements are also proposed to begin in October
2010 for wet grip and external rolling noise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The label design is the same A to G scale as that used to rate the
energy efficiency of household appliances in Europe.\47\ It will apply
to tires fitted to passenger cars as well as light and heavy duty
vehicles. Tire manufacturers are required to have a ``fuel savings
calculator'' on their Web sites, while the European Commission is
required to establish a ``EU tyre labeling Web site'' by September
2010. The new regulation will go into effect in 2012, but tire
manufacturers are encouraged to comply earlier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\47\ See Council Directive 1992/75/EEC, 1992 O.J. (L 297) 16-19
(on the indication by labeling and standard product information of
the consumption of energy and other resources by household
appliances).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Japan
In late 2008 the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) and
the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT)
announced a decision to establish a fuel efficient tire program.\48\
The stated objectives are to include standards for measuring rolling
resistance, providing information to consumers, and consideration of
ways to ensure proper tire pressure management (either through tire
pressure monitoring systems or consumer education). Japan has been
participating in the development of ISO 28580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\48\ See http://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/data/20081226_01.html (last accessed Mar. 10, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 Mandated Consumer Tire
Information Program

The legislation that eventually became section 111 of EISA
mandating the tire fuel efficiency consumer education program was
originally introduced by itself in the U.S. House of Representatives as
H.R. 5632 \49\ following the recommendations in the 2006 NAS
Report.\50\ The bill was introduced on June 16, 2006, and on June 28,
2006, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce reported on a slightly
amended version of the bill.\51\ It was never acted upon by the 109th
Congress, but it was inserted into a comprehensive energy bill as the
110th Congress began to develop it in May 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\49\ H.R. 5632, 109th Cong. (2d Sess. 2006).
\50\ Previous attempts to establish a national tire fuel
efficiency program can be found in proposed amendments to various
energy bills in prior years. See e.g., S. Amdt. 3083, 108th Cong.,
150 Cong. Rec. S4710 (2004) (proposing to amend S. 150); S. Amdt.
1470, 108th Cong., 149 Cong. Rep. S10707 (2003) (proposing to amend
S. 14). These amendments proposed regulating the fuel efficiency of
tires in addition to a tire fuel efficiency grading system and
consumer information program, and were not adopted.
\51\ See H.R. Rep. No. 109-537 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, which was
enacted in 1972, mandated a Federal program to provide consumers with
accurate information about the comparative safety and damageability of
passenger cars. These requirements were codified in Chapter 323 of
title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). EISA added section 32304A
to title 49 U.S.C., Chapter 323, which gives authority to the
Department of Transportation (DOT) to establish a new consumer tire
information program to educate consumers about the effect of tires on
automobile fuel efficiency, safety, and durability. The DOT has
delegated authority to NHTSA at 49 CFR 1.50.
We have summarized below the requirements of title 49 U.S.C.
32304A, the consumer tire information program provision enacted by
EISA. We request comment on how effectively our proposal is likely to
be in achieving the goals of EISA. For example, what methodologies and
assumptions should be used in establishing and implementing the new
rating system? What is the most effective way to engage and educate
consumers regarding the proposed rating system?
1. Tires Subject to the Consumer Information Program
The national tire fuel efficiency consumer information program
mandated by EISA and proposed in this notice is applicable ``only to
replacement tires covered under section 575.104(c) of title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations'' (CFR), as that regulation existed on the date of
EISA's enactment.\52\ Section 575.104 of title 49 CFR is the Federal
regulation that requires motor vehicle and tire manufacturers and tire
brand name owners to provide information indicating the relative
performance of passenger car tires in the areas of treadwear, traction,
and temperature resistance. This section of NHTSA's regulations
specifies the test procedures to determine uniform tire quality grading
standards (UTQGS), and mandates that these standards be molded onto
tire sidewalls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\52\ 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title 49 CFR, section 575.104 applies only to ``new pneumatic tires
for use on passenger cars * * * [but] * * * does not apply to deep
tread, winter-type snow tires, space-saver or temporary use spare
tires, tires with nominal rim diameters of 12 inches or less, or to
limited production tires as defined in [49 CFR 575.104(c)(2)].'' \53\
Accordingly, today's proposed tire fuel efficiency consumer information
program applies only to replacement passenger car tires with the same
exclusions as the UTQGS regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\53\ 49 CFR 575.104(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 29551]]

durability.'' \54\ EISA specifies that the regulations establishing the
program are to be promulgated not later than December 19, 2009.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\54\ 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(1).
\55\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 111 of EISA specifically mandates ``a national tire fuel
efficiency rating system for motor vehicle replacement tires to assist
consumers in making more educated tire purchasing decisions.'' \56\
However, NHTSA may ``not require permanent labeling of any kind on a
tire for the purpose of tire fuel efficiency information.'' \57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\56\ 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(2)(A).
\57\ Id. at Sec. 32304A(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only Committee Report commenting on the legislation that
eventually became section 111 of EISA explained that need for this
program was established by the 2006 NAS Report, which concluded that if
consumers were sufficiently informed and interested, they could bring
about a reduction in average rolling resistance (and thus an increase
in average on-road fuel economy) by adjusting their tire purchases and
by taking proper care of their tires once in service.\58\ Thus, NHTSA
reviewed conclusions and recommendations in the 2006 NAS Report
regarding how best to inform consumers using a tire fuel efficiency
rating system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\58\ H.R. Rep. No. 109-537, at 3 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Specifically, the 2006 NAS Report concluded that rolling resistance
measurement of new tires can be informative to consumers, especially if
they are accompanied by reliable information on other tire
characteristics such as treadwear rate and traction.\59\ The 2006 NAS
Report further stated that consumers benefit from the ready
availability of easy-to-understand information on all major attributes
of their purchases, and that tires are no exception. A tire's influence
on vehicle fuel is an attribute that is likely to be of interest to
many tire buyers.\60\ NHTSA has attempted to keep these key
observations in mind in the development of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\59\ 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 4. The 2006 NAS Report
specifically noted that ``[i]deally, consumers would have access to
information that reflects a tire's effect on fuel economy averaged
over its anticipated lifetime of use, as opposed to a measurement
taken during a single point in the tire's lifetime, usually when it
is new.'' Id. However, ``[n]o standard measure of lifetime tire
energy consumption is currently available, and the development of
one deserves consideration. Until such a practical measure is
developed, rolling resistance measurements of new tires can be
informative to consumers * * *'' Id.
\60\ 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Communicating Information to Consumers
EISA specifies that this rulemaking to establish a national tire
fuel efficiency consumer information program must include
``requirements for providing information to consumers, including
information at the point of sale and other potential information
dissemination methods, including the Internet.'' \61\ While there is
little to no legislative history of EISA itself, the legislation that
eventually became section 111 of EISA was originally introduced in June
2006 with this identical requirement.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\61\ 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(2)(B).
\62\ See H.R. 5632, 109th Cong. (2d Sess. 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On June 28, 2006, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported on a slightly amended version of the bill and noted that
``[t]he bill [ ] would require tire retailers to provide consumers with
information on the tire fuel efficiency rating of motor vehicle tires
at the point of sale.'' \63\ Thus, NHTSA believes that the suggestion
of point of sale requirements indicates that Congress intended NHTSA's
authority to establish information dissemination requirements to be
broad enough to include requirements for both tire manufacturers, which
by statute includes importers,\64\ and tire dealers/retailers and
distributors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\63\ See H.R. Rep. No. 109-537, at 5 (2006).
\64\ See 49 U.S.C. 32101(5) (defining manufacturer as ``a person
(A) manufacturing or assembling passenger motor vehicles or
passenger motor vehicle equipment; or (B) importing motor vehicles
or motor vehicle equipment for resale.''). For purposes of the
statute, the importer of any tire is a manufacturer. An importer is
responsible for every tire it imports and is subject to civil
penalties in the event of any violations. The U.S. Customs and
Border Protection may deny entry at the port to items that do not
conform to applicable requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Specification of Test Methods
Section 111 of EISA also mandates that this rulemaking to establish
a national tire fuel efficiency consumer information program include
``specifications for test methods for manufacturers to use in assessing
and rating tires to avoid variation among test equipment and
manufacturers.'' \65\ See section IV of this notice for a discussion of
NHTSA's research and rationale regarding today's proposal of ISO 28580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\65\ 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We note that the 2006 NAS Report, the recommendations from which
formed the basis for the legislation that became section 111 of EISA,
indicated that ``[a]dvice on specific procedures for measuring and
rating the influence of individual passenger tires on fuel economy and
methods of conveying this information to consumers [was] outside the
scope of this study.'' \66\ Accordingly, after publication of the 2006
NAS Report and in anticipation of Congressional legislation based off
its recommendations, NHTSA embarked on a large-scale research project
in July 2006 to evaluate existing tire rolling resistance test
methods.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\66\ 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 4.
\67\ See NHTSA Tire Rolling Resistance Rating System Test
Development Project: Phase 1--Evaluation of Laboratory Test
Protocols (October 2008). The research reports from this Phase 1
research will be placed in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Creating a National Consumer Education Program on Tire Maintenance
Section 111 of EISA further directs NHTSA to establish in this
rulemaking ``a national tire maintenance consumer education program
including, information on tire inflation pressure, alignment, rotation,
and treadwear to maximize fuel efficiency, safety, and durability.''
\68\ NHTSA already has some information regarding tire maintenance on
its http://safercar.gov Web site.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\68\ 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(2)(D).
\69\ See generally http://www.safercar.gov/portal/site/safercar/menuitem.13dd5c887c7e1358fefe0a2f35a67789/?vgnextoid=0e0aaa8c16e35110VgnVCM1000002fd17898RCRD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 2006 NAS Report, the recommendations from which formed the
basis for the legislation that became section 111 of EISA, noted that
consumers benefit from the ready availability of easy-to-understand
information on all major attributes of their purchases, and that
replacement tires' influence on vehicle fuel economy is an attribute
that is likely to be of interest to many tire buyers.\70\ NHTSA has
focused on these principles in developing today's proposal and seeks
comment on the best way to make the information in this program both of
interest to consumers and easy to understand. The 2006 NAS Report
further noted that ``industry cooperation is essential in gathering and
conveying tire performance information that consumers can use in making
tire purchases.'' \71\ NHTSA agrees that cooperation with the tire
manufacturer and tire retailer industries, as well as other interested
parties will be vital to the success of this program. The agency has
held initial consultations with various groups of industry and the
environmental community, as well at

[[Page 29552]]

other Government agencies, to seek their views.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\70\ 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 96.
\71\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Consultation in Setting Standards
Section 111 of EISA provides that NHTSA is to consult with the
Department of Energy (DOE) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
``on the means of conveying tire fuel efficiency consumer
information.'' \72\ One of the recommendations of the 2006 NAS Report,
which formed the basis for the legislation that became section 111 of
EISA, stated that NHTSA should consult with the EPA ``on means of
conveying the information and ensure that the information is made
widely available in a timely manner and is easily understood by both
buyers and sellers.'' \73\ NHTSA and EPA will fulfill the statutory
consultation requirement in a way that best serves the goals of EISA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\72\ 49 U.S.C. 32304A(b). In addition, Executive Order No. 13432
provides that a Federal agency undertaking a regulatory action that
can reasonably be expected to directly regulate emissions, or to
substantially and predictably affect emissions, of greenhouse gasses
from motor vehicles, shall act jointly and consistently with other
agencies to the extent possible and to consider the views of other
agencies regarding such action.
\73\ 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA consulted with representatives of DOE, EPA, and the Federal
Trade Commission \74\ who work in consumer information and rating
programs. These agencies provided feedback on NHTSA's draft proposal
which included valuable comments and insight based on their experiences
communicating information on the energy efficiency of consumer
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\74\ The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) developed the
EnergyGuide label to enable consumers to compare the energy use of
different models as consumers shop for an appliance. See http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/homes/rea14.shtm (last accessed
June 3, 2009). Section 321(b) of EISA directs the FTC to consider
the effectiveness of current lamp disclosures and to consider
whether alternative labeling disclosures would be more effective in
helping consumers make purchasing decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 or promulgated after January 1, 2006, if the
requirements of that law or regulation are identical to the
requirement promulgated under this section. Nothing in this section
shall be construed to preempt a State or political subdivision
thereof from regulating the fuel efficiency of tires (including
establishing testing methods for determining compliance with such
standards) not otherwise preempted under this chapter.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\75\ 49 U.S.C. 32304A(e).

NHTSA seeks public comment on the scope of Section 111 generally,
and in particular on whether, and to what extent, Section 111 would or
would not preempt tire fuel consumer information regulations that the
administrative agencies of the State of California may promulgate in
the future pursuant to California's Assembly Bill 844.
8. Compliance and Enforcement
Section 111 of EISA added a new sub-provision to 49 U.S.C. 32308
(General prohibitions, civil penalty, and enforcement) which reads as
follows:

Any person who fails to comply with the national tire fuel
efficiency information program under section 32304A is liable to the
United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than
$50,000 for each violation.
9. Reporting to Congress
EISA also requires that NHTSA conduct periodic assessments of the
rules promulgated under this program ``to determine the utility of such
rules to consumers, the level of cooperation by industry, and the
contribution to national goals pertaining to energy consumption.'' \76\
NHTSA must ``transmit periodic reports detailing the findings of such
assessments to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and
Commerce.'' \77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\76\ 49 U.S.C. 32304A(c).
\77\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Which Tires Must Be Rated?

A. Passenger Car Tires

As explained above in section II.B.1 of this notice, EISA specifies
that the tire fuel efficiency requirements are to ``apply only to
replacement tires covered under [NHTSA's UTQGS regulation].'' \78\
Title 49 CFR, section 575.104 applies only to ``new pneumatic tires
\79\ for use on passenger cars'' with some exclusions of particular
types of tires.\80\ All terms in 49 CFR part 575 are as defined by
statute or in 49 CFR part 571, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSS).\81\ Section 571.139 of title 49 CFR (or FMVSS No. 139, New
Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles) defines ``passenger car
tire'' as ``a tire intended for use on passenger cars, multipurpose
passenger vehicles, and trucks, that have a gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\78\ 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(3).
\79\ The 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 non-pneumatic tire
is a ``mechanical device which transmits * * * the vertical load and
tractive forces from the roadway to the vehicle, generates the
tractive forces that provide the directional control of the vehicle
and does not rely on the containment of any gas or fluid for
providing those functions.'' 49 CFR 571.129, New Non-pneumatic Tires
for Passenger Cars.
\80\ 49 CFR 575.104(c)(1).
\81\ 49 CFR 575.2, Definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accordingly, today's proposed tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program applies only to replacement passenger car tires, or
tires intended for use on passenger cars, multipurpose passenger
vehicles, and trucks, that have a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. These
tires often have a tire size designation beginning with a ``P,''
indicating that they are for use on passenger cars. However, they may
be designated without the P, sometimes referred to as ``hard metric''
sizes. Note that even though they are classified as light trucks by
NHTSA, many smaller sport utility vehicles (SUVs), pickups, and vans
are equipped with passenger car tires.\82\ The kinds of light- and
medium-duty trucks used in commercial service, including full-size
pickups and vans, have a GVWR of more than 6,000 pounds. These vehicles
are usually equipped with tires having the letters ``LT'' molded into
the sidewall.\83\ EISA excludes replacement LT tires from the tire fuel
efficiency consumer information program.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\82\ 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 14.
\83\ Id.
\84\ 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA's research included testing of LT tires even though we are
not authorized to regulate them through this tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program because NHTSA's Phase 1 research was
initiated in July 2006, subsequent to the release of the 2006 NAS
Report.\85\ LT tires represented approximately 16.7 percent of the U.S.

[[Page 29553]]

replacement tire market in 2007,\86\ and the LT tires studied had
nearly twice the rolling resistance as the group of passenger car tires
studied.\87\ NHTSA notes that it expects test data to be available for
many LT tires, as these tires are covered by the Europe and California
programs. Nothing in this regulation would prohibit manufacturers from
voluntarily rating or reporting data for LT or other excluded tires, as
required for covered tires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\85\ Specifically, of the 25 different models of tires tested in
NHTSA's Phase 1 research, 16 tire models were passenger, 9 were
light truck tire models; one of the passenger car tires was the ASTM
F2493-06 P225/60R16 97S Standard Reference Test Tire (SRTT).
\86\ Rubber Manufacturers Association, Preliminary 2008
Factbook, see https://www.rma.org/publications/market_information/index.cfm?CFID=23483353&CFTOKEN=70640000.
\87\ See NHTSA Rolling Resistance Rating System Test Development
Project: Phase 1--Evaluation of Laboratory Test Protocols (October
2008). A copy of this report and other research reports relied on in
this proposal will be placed in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Replacement Tires

Another issue is how to define ``replacement tire'' for purposes of
this program. While most UTQGS requirements apply to all passenger car
tires, whether sold as original equipment with a new automobile (OE
tires) or as a replacement tire, some apply only to replacement tires.
For example, the requirement for a paper label on the tire tread
excludes tires ``sold as original equipment on a new vehicle.'' \88\
NHTSA is proposing a definition of replacement tires for the purposes
of the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program using this
language. The agency believes the definition needs to be in terms of
the actual sale of the tire, not the intention when manufactured. NHTSA
understands that some tires that are manufactured for the OE tire
market could be sold as replacement tires, either because the vehicle
manufacturer does not purchase all that are manufactured for that
purpose, or because the vehicle manufacturer sells excess stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\88\ 49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Tires Within a Tire Model

Tire manufacturers may have different brands, and within each brand
different tire models (or tire lines),\89\ and tire models are often
available in different sizes. For example, Michelin is the manufacturer
for the Michelin, BFGoodrich and Uniroyal brands. A popular Michelin
brand model is the Pilot, but other models include the Energy or the
HydroEdge. And each of these brands is available in different tire
sizes, for example a 185/65R14 or a 215/70R15. See Figure 3. The model
of tire (Pilot) then may be available in several performance levels. In
the case in Figure 3 there are 3 different speed ratings for the Pilot
model. Performance ratings may also include All-Season, Competition,
Touring, Grand Touring, etc. Each of these tires may also have
different treadwear, traction, temperature and warranty ratings. These
models are then available in different tire sizes, for example an
Exalto A/S is available in 185/60R14 to 235/40R17. Whereas a Pilot
Sport A/S Plus is available in sizes 205/55R16 to 245/45R20, and the
Pilot Sport PS2 is available in sizes 225/55R16 to 295/25R22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\89\ For purposes of the tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program, the phrase ``tire line'' and ``tire model'' can
be used interchangeably. The agency will generally use the word
``model'' to refer to a particular line of tires.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.002

In passenger car tire sizes (e.g., 185/65R14), the first three
numbers indicate the nominal width of the tire, i.e., width in
millimeters from sidewall edge to sidewall edge (185). In general, the
larger the nominal width, the wider the tire. The second two numbers in
the size designation indicate the ratio of tire height to tire width,
or the aspect ratio (65). For aspect ratio, numbers of 70 or lower
indicate a short sidewall for improved steering response and better
overall handling on dry pavement. The ``R'' indicates that this
particular tire is a radial tire, as opposed to bias ply construction,
which is indicated by a ``D'' in the size specification. Radial ply
construction of tires has been the

[[Page 29554]]

industry standard for the past 20 years. The last two numbers in the
size designation indicate the rim diameter code (14), or the wheel or
rim diameter in inches. A change in any of these three numbers
indicates a different size specification for a replacement tire.
Research done for the California Energy Commission (CEC) to
evaluate test facility capacity to conduct rolling resistance testing
indicated that there are well over 20,000 different brand/model/size
combinations (or SKUs) \90\ of replacement passenger car tires sold in
the United States.\91\ The CEC research also indicated that it could
take up to 2.7 years to test one tire of each SKU once.\92\
Additionally, a tire manufacturer has the ability to estimate with
relative accuracy the rolling resistance test value of a tire with a
given size specification if it knows the rolling resistance test value
of a tire in the same model line (i.e., the ability to extrapolate test
values for certain SKUs from knowing the actual test values of other
SKUs). Tire manufacturers have this same ability to extrapolate for
UTQGS traction test values and UTQGS treadwear test values by having
actually traction and treadwear test values of other, similar tires of
different SKUs. For these reasons, NHTSA tentatively concludes that it
is not reasonable or necessary to require a physically-tested value of
rolling resistance, traction, or treadwear test value for every
combination of tire model, construction, and size (SKU).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\90\ An SKU, or stock keeping unit, is a specific market brand
and tire design and size combination. A different SKU can also be
indicated by a different specified load rating or speed rating for a
particular tire. Specifically, NHTSA is proposing to define stock
keeping unit as ``the alpha-numeric designation assigned by a
manufacturer to uniquely identify a tire product. This term is
sometimes referred to as a product code, a product ID, or a part
number.'' See section XIII (Regulatory Text) of this notice.
\91\ The CEC research estimated 20,708 different replacement
passenger car tire SKUs and 3,296 replacement LT tire SKUs. This
research was done by Smithers Scientific Services, Inc. (Smithers)
and was presented at a CEC staff workshop on February 5, 2009. This
presentation is available through the CEC's Web site and also will
be available in this docket. See http://www.energy.ca.gov/transportation/tire_efficiency/documents/index.html (last accessed
Feb. 11, 2009).
\92\ The Smithers' research conducted for CEC was estimating
various scenarios for testing three of each different replacement
passenger and LT tire SKU (because California's tire fuel efficiency
program covers passenger car and LT replacement tires). The eight
different scenarios varied workdays per year, percent capacity
available, and hours per day of test operation. Based on estimates
of test capacities, the CEC research estimated average test years
required to test three tires of each SKU to be between 0.7 and 8.2
years. Thus, for the purposes of testing one of each different
replacement passenger car tire SKU, we estimate this would take a
maximum of 8.2/3 years, or 2.7 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, consumers researching tires should be able to compare tire
models and sizes with some reliability. In NHTSA's testing, tires of a
size 225/60R16, but manufactured by different companies, and having
various performance ratings (e.g., speed rating, all-season
specification) had rolling resistance values ranging from 9.8 to 15.2
pounds.\93\ Rolling resistance can also vary widely across different
sized tires in a brand. In data reported by the CEC, passenger car
tires of the same brand and model with different sizes ranged in
rolling resistance from 7.5 to 22.8 pounds.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\93\ See NHTSA Rolling Resistance Rating System Test Development
Project: Phase 1--Evaluation of Laboratory Test Protocols (October
2008). A copy of this report and other research reports relied on in
this proposal will be placed in the docket.
\94\ To examine California's rolling resistance test data,
please contact Ray Tuvell of the California Energy Commission. See
http://www.energy.ca.gov/transportation/tire_efficiency/index.html
(last accessed Feb. 13, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For these reasons, NHTSA is proposing to require each SKU, or each
size within each model of each brand, to be rated separately for fuel
efficiency (using a rolling resistance test value), safety (using a
UTQGS traction test value), and durability (using a UTQGS treadwear
test value). Tire manufacturers may use their judgment to determine how
many and which tires they must test to be able to accurately report
rolling resistance ratings. A tire manufacturer will be responsible for
the accuracy of the ratings they place upon the tire label and
otherwise communicate to consumers. That is, for compliance purposes,
NHTSA will test any rated tire according to the test procedures
specified in the regulation (regardless of whether or not the tire
manufacturer has tested this tire), and if the rolling resistance,
traction, or treadwear test value falls outside of NHTSA's specified
tolerance range, the agency will consider that rating a noncompliance.
See discussion of tolerances in section XI of this notice.
For data reporting purposes, a manufacturer must calculate a test
procedure value for rolling resistance, traction, and treadwear,
although it is not required to conduct the specific test in the
regulation. The proposed specified test procedures merely indicate the
procedures NHTSA will use to test and rate a replacement tire for
compliance purposes. A tire manufacturer is free to reasonably estimate
the test values it reports. NHTSA requests comment on the
appropriateness of using interpolated values (for instance a rating for
a P215/60R16 value calculated from tested values for a P205/60R16 and a
225/60R16) and extrapolated values (for instance the effect of changes
in tread pattern for a specific tire construction of known rating) to
provide tire ratings.

D. Tires Excluded

NHTSA's UTQGS regulation excludes ``deep tread, winter-type snow
tires, space-saver or temporary use spare tires, tires with a nominal
rim diameter of 12 inches or less, [and] limited production tires.''
\95\ 49 CFR 575.104(c)(1). Since EISA specifies that the tire fuel
efficiency requirements are to ``apply only to replacement tires
covered under [NHTSA's UTQGS regulation],'' these exclusions are
included in today's proposed regulation.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\95\ For UTQGS, a limited production tire is defined as ``a tire
meeting all of the following criteria, as applicable:
(i) The annual domestic production or importation into the
United States by the tire's manufacturer of tires of the same design
and size as the tire does not exceed 15,000 tires;
(ii) In the case of a tire marketed under a brand name, the
annual domestic purchase or importation into the United States by a
brand name owner of tires of the same design and size as the tire
does not exceed 15,000 tires;
(iii) The tire's size was not listed as a vehicle manufacturer's
recommended tire size designation for a new motor vehicle produced
in or imported into the United States in quantities greater than
10,000 during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's
manufacture; and
(iv) The total annual domestic production or importation into
the United States by the tire's manufacturer, and in the case of a
tire marketed under a brand name, the total annual domestic purchase
or purchase for importation into the United States by the tire's
brand name owner, of tires meeting the criteria of paragraphs
(c)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this section, does not exceed 35,000
tires.'' 49 CFR Sec. 575.104(c)(2).
\96\ 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA's research included testing of two different snow tire
models.\97\ The two snow tire models tested were within the range of
rolling resistance force values of all-season and summer-only passenger
tires of the same size. Therefore the specific exclusion of winter-type
tires, which represented 4.5 percent of the U.S. replacement tire
market in 2007 \98\ should not impede the effectiveness of the rating
system in reducing U.S. passenger vehicle fuel consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\97\ See NHTSA Rolling Resistance Rating System Test Development
Project: Phase 1--Evaluation of Laboratory Test Protocols (October
2008). A copy of this report and other research reports relied on in
this proposal will be placed in the docket.
\98\ Rubber Manufacturers Association, Preliminary 2008
Factbook, see https://www.rma.org/publications/market_information/index.cfm?CFID=23483353&CFTOKEN=70640000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA requests comments on whether it should include in the
manufacturer reporting requirement (see

[[Page 29555]]

section VII.D.1) a requirement that each manufacturer include with its
reports a list of all tire models and sizes that it is claiming are
excluded from today's proposed requirements (49 CFR 575.106). In
particular, the limited production exclusion is not obvious just by
examining the tire, and this would allow NHTSA to quickly verify
whether or not the lack of a label was an enforcement concern. The
agency may include such a reporting requirement in the final
regulation.

IV. Rolling Resistance Test Procedure

A. Rolling Resistance

As explained above, rolling resistance is simply the manifestation
of all of the energy losses associated with the rolling of a tire under
load.\99\ Accordingly, in a laboratory, rolling resistance is measured
by running a tire under load on a test wheel (referred to as
``roadwheel''). The energy consumed in driving the tire is measured and
the energy recovered from the tire is measured by the test equipment.
The difference is the heat energy lost which is the measure of rolling
resistance. The smaller the difference, the more fuel efficient the
tire. NHTSA is only interested in the force required to maintain a
steady state of movement, i.e., speed. Therefore the steady state, or
constant, speed test methods are the only ones considered by NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\99\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, The
Pneumatic Tire, DOT HS 810 561, at 483 (February 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Possible Test Procedures Available To Measure Rolling Resistance

As mentioned previously, subsequent to the recommendations for
Congressional action issued in the 2006 NAS Report, NHTSA began a
research program to evaluate five existing or proposed test methods to
measure the rolling resistance of light vehicle tires, and to examine
correlations between tire rolling resistance levels and tire safety
performance (Phase 1 Research).\100\ The five test methods examined in
NHTSA's Phase 1 Research included four established and one draft tire
rolling resistance test procedure. The five test methods were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\100\ See NHTSA Rolling Resistance Rating System Test
Development Project: Phase 1--Evaluation of Laboratory Test
Protocols (October 2008). A copy of this report and other research
reports relied on in this proposal will be placed in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J1269--Sep 2006-09;
Rolling Resistance Measurement Procedure for Passenger Car, Light Truck
and Highway Truck and Bus Tires (Multi Point).
SAE J1269--Sep 2006-09; Rolling Resistance Measurement
Procedure for Passenger Car, Light Truck and Highway Truck and Bus
Tires (Single Point).
SAE J2452--Jun 1999; Stepwise Coastdown Methodology for
Measuring Tire Rolling Resistance (Multi Point).
ISO 18164:2005(E); Passenger car, truck, bus and
motorcycle tyres--Methods of measuring rolling resistance (Multi
Point).
ISO 28580; Tyre Rolling Resistance measurement method--
Single point test and measurement result correlation--Designed to
facilitate international cooperation and, possibly, regulation building
(Single Point).
The SAE is an international standards organization providing
voluntary industry standards.\101\ The ISO is a worldwide federation of
national standards bodies that prepares standards through technical
committees comprised of international organizations, governmental and
non-governmental, in liaison with ISO.\102\ The standards and test
methods published by these bodies are proprietary and protected under
U.S. copyright law. Parties who need to or wish to conduct the actual
tests themselves may obtain a copy of the standards by contacting
either SAE or ISO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\101\ SAE International, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA
15096-0001, Tel (877) 606-7323, http://www.sae.org.
\102\ ISO Central Secretariat, 1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, Case
postale 56, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland, Telephone +41 22 749 01
11, Fax +41 22 733 34 30, http://www.iso.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA's Phase 1 Research used 600 tires of 25 different model/size
combinations to evaluate the five rolling resistance test methods at
two different laboratories.\103\ Tires of each model were purchased
with identical or similar build dates and were tested multiple times in
each test method, and multiple times at each laboratory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\103\ This study looked at both Passenger car (P) tires and
Light Truck (LT) tires. However, EISA limits the applicability of
this rulemaking to P tires only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 4 shows a typical laboratory test machine (used for all five
test methods evaluated) for measuring rolling resistance. In this test
a tire and rim are mounted on the machine. The tire is held against the
roadwheel by an actuating cylinder aligned with the center of the
roadwheel. A drive motor coupled to the roadwheel rotates the
roadwheel. Consequently, the roadwheel drives the tire through friction
at the contact patch. The tire's rolling resistance retards the
roadwheel's rotation speed. This effect is then measured using any
combination of the forces, torques, speeds, or acceleration of the
roadwheel. Then the rolling resistance is calculated from the measured
quantities.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\104\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, The
Pneumatic Tire, DOT HS 810 561, at 514-515 (February 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A tire's rolling resistance is the energy consumed by a rolling
tire, or the mechanical energy converted into heat by a tire, moving a
unit distance on the roadway.\105\ The magnitude of rolling resistance
depends on the tire used, the nature of the surface on which it rolls,
and the operating conditions--inflation pressure, load, and speed.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\105\ Rolling resistance is, thus, defined as energy per unit
distance, which is the same units as force (Joules/meter = Newtons).
However, unlike force, rolling resistance is a scalar quantity with
no direction associated with it. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, The Pneumatic Tire, DOT HS 810 561, at 477 (February
2006).
\106\ Id.

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

[[Page 29556]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.003

Four measurement methods of energy loss are in common use and
prescribed in test procedures, although not all of the methods are
included in every standard.\107\ The methods described in the test
standards include the following: measurement of the resistive force at
the tire spindle while rolling at constant speed (force method),
measurement of the resistive torque on the roadwheel hub at constant
speed (torque method), measurement of the electrical power used by the
motor to keep the roadwheel rotating at a constant speed (power
method), and measurement of deceleration when the driving force at the
roadwheel is discontinued (deceleration method).\108\ The two methods
evaluated in NHTSA research were the force and torque methods.
Therefore deceleration and power methods are not discussed further in
this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\107\ The proposed test procedure, ISO 28580, has provisions to
use all four methods to measure the energy loss.
\108\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, The
Pneumatic Tire, DOT HS 810 561, at 515 (February 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Force Method
The force method measures the force at the tire spindle. See Figure
5. The roadwheel is brought up to the specified test speed and the tire
is warmed up (warm-up) to an equilibrium temperature. The tire is then
lightly loaded \109\ to measure the losses caused by the spindle
holding the tire and aerodynamic losses from the tire spinning. This
force measurement is referred to as the skim load value. The tire is
then loaded to the test load and successive readings of the resistive
force at the tire spindle while rolling at constant speed are taken
until consistent force values are obtained.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\109\ Lightly loaded is not a specific number of pounds, but
just enough load to keep the tire in contact with the roadwheel, so
that the speed of the tire is equal to the speed of the roadwheel
surface so there is no slippage.
\110\ As the machinery ramps up the tire speed to the specified
test speed, the force values measured bounce around at first. An
accurate measurement can only be taken when the tire is moving at a
constant speed and is a constant temperature. Thus, there is a
slight delay from ramping up to the specified test speed, and the
measurement of an accurate and steady force reading.

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

[[Page 29557]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.004

The reported force value is equal to the measured force at the
spindle minus the skim load value, thereby determining the actual
Rolling Resistance Force (RRF) value of the tire. This force is trying
to slow down the rotation or travel of the roadwheel due to the energy
loss.
Torque Method
The torque method measures the energy, or torque, required to
maintain the rotation of the roadwheel. The roadwheel is connected to
the motor through a ``torque cell.'' See Figure 6.\111\ The roadwheel
is brought up to speed and the tire is warmed up (warm-up) to an
equilibrium temperature. The tire is then lightly loaded to measure the
losses caused by the spindle holding the tire and aerodynamic losses
from the tire spinning (skim load value). The tire is then loaded to
the test load and successive readings of the resistive torque on the
roadwheel hub at constant speed are taken until consistent force values
are obtained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\111\ A color version of Figure 6 will be placed in the docket.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.005

The values measured for skim and loaded torque must be processed to
determine the force (RRF). The skim must be subtracted from the loaded
torque value divided by the radius of the roadwheel to determine the
tire's contribution to the total loss. The result is Rolling Resistance
Force (RRF).

C. NHTSA Research Results

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 also
sought to examine possible tradeoffs between improved rolling
resistance and tire safety. The purposes of the NHTSA Phase 1 Research
was to:

[[Page 29558]]

Benchmark the current rolling resistance levels in modern
passenger vehicle tires in terms of actual rolling force, rolling
resistance coefficient, as well as indexed against the ASTM F1493-06
Standard Reference Test Tire (SRTT).
Analyze the effect of the input variables on the testing
conditions for non-linear response.
Select a test procedure that would be best for a
regulation.
Examine the variability of the rolling resistance results
from lab to lab, machine to machine.
Evaluate the effects of first test on a tire versus second
test on the same tire.
As discussed above, there can be up to four methods specified for
measurement of tire rolling resistance: force method, torque method,
power method, and deceleration method. Of these, the force and torque
methods are the most commonly used. One test laboratory used in NHTSA's
Phase 1 Research evaluated all five rolling resistance procedures on
one ``force measurement method'' test machine. The second test
laboratory evaluated SAE J2452 on one ``torque measurement method''
test machine and the other four methods on a second ``force measurement
method'' test machine. In NHTSA's Phase 1 Research, all work was done
using machines with 1.707 meter (67.23 inch) roadwheels with grit
surface, which is typical for the United States.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\112\ Internationally some laboratories use a 2 meter (78.34
inch) roadwheel, often with a bare steel surface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) \113\ was carried out on the data
using the General Linear Models procedure of SAS software to evaluate
the effects on measured rolling resistance of tire type, lab-to-lab
variability, inflation maintenance, and repeat testing on the same
tire. For all of the variables analyzed, individual tire type had the
most significant effect on the statistical model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\113\ The term analysis of variance refers to the method of
determining if an independent variable, such as tire type, has a
significant effect on the dependent variable (rolling resistance) by
comparing the magnitude of the variation between the means for
different groups of independent variables to the variation estimated
for random error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA's evaluation indicated that all five of the rolling
resistance test methods had very low variability and could be cross-
correlated to provide the same information about individual tire
types.\114\ The rank ordering of tire types was essentially the same
for each of the test methods evaluated. There was a significant and
consistent difference in the data generated by the two laboratories/
machines used in this study. Therefore, development of a method to
account for lab-to-lab variability is required, either by (1) the use
of lab-to-lab correlation equation, based on a reference laboratory, or
(2) the use of a Standard Reference Test Tire (SRTT), to normalize data
across labs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\114\ For this program, each manufacturer will ``self-certify''
the ratings for its tires. The test procedure specified in this
proposal is what NHTSA will use for compliance testing, using the
proposed tolerance bands as discussed later in this notice (section
XI). Even if rolling resistance test data were gathered using other
test methods, NHTSA's research shows that equations can translate
the data to the test procedure specified in this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA also examined differences resulting from the method of
inflation maintenance, specifically whether inflation pressure was
capped \115\ or regulated.\116\ The pressure rise in the tire during
testing using a capped inflation procedure reduced the rolling
resistance compared to maintaining the pressure at a constant pressure
during the test. Therefore, the choice of a test that uses capped
inflation pressure for some or all of the test points should provide a
more accurate representation of in-service behavior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\115\ Capped inflation is achieved by inflating the tire to the
required pressure prior to testing, while the tire is at ambient
temperature of the test area, and then sealing the air in the tire
during testing with a valve, cap or some other seal.
\116\ Regulated inflation pressure is achieved by inflating the
tire to the required pressure independent of its temperature, and
maintaining this inflation pressure during testing. This is usually
performed by using a regulated air (gas) supply external to the
spindle, or axle, and connected with a low friction rotary union.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, NHTSA analyzed the effect of repeating tests on the same
tire and found that this had little to no effect on test results.
Therefore, repeat testing of the same SRTT for lab-to-lab data
alignment appears to be viable.
To minimize variability when evaluating the five test methods,
tires of each model were purchased with identical or similar build
dates. Therefore, the variability of an individual tire model's rolling
resistance over a long duration of build dates, or for a single model
built at different plants, has not been evaluated by NHTSA.

D. Why Select a Single-Point Test Instead of Multi-Point?

The term ``multi-point'' refers to a method that uses more than one
set of conditions to test a tire, usually varying speed, pressure, and/
or load. Passenger car and light truck tires generally have different
test conditions and can have 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. These conditions are designed to
be near the average conditions that a tire would see in its intended
service.
NHTSA's evaluation showed that all of the rolling resistance test
methods have very low variability and all methods can be cross-
correlated to provide the same information about individual tire types.
The rank ordering of tire types was essentially the same for each of
the rolling resistance test methods evaluated. Equations were derived
to accurately convert data from any one test to the expected data from
any other test. NHTSA's research has shown that both types of tests
essentially produce the same rating if results are normalized as a
percentage of RRF measured at each lab for the 16-inch SRTT.\117\
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
tentatively concludes that a single-point, rather than a multi-point,
test will better serve the purposes of this program. The agency seeks
comments, however on the benefits or drawbacks of using single-point
versus multi-point test methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\117\ See NHTSA Rolling Resistance Rating System Test
Development Project: Phase 1--Evaluation of Laboratory Test
Protocols (October 2008). A copy of this report and other research
reports relied on in this proposal will be placed in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Why Select ISO 28580 Instead of Other Tests?

Between the two single-point tests, NHTSA is proposing to specify
the ISO 28580 test procedure. The ISO 28580 is a draft test method that
is now at the final draft international standard (FDIS) stage, and is
expected to be balloted and finalized by late April or early May 2009.
Since the ISO test is currently being balloted for a final standard, we
anticipate only editorial changes at this stage. The differences
between the single-point ISO 28580 draft test procedure and the SAE
1269 single-point test procedure are detailed in documents available in
the docket.\118\ If

[[Page 29559]]

the ISO 28580 test procedure is not a finalized ISO standard by the
time of publication of this notice, interested parties may obtain a
copy of the draft by contacting Mr. Joe Pacuit, U.S. TAG Secretariat to
TC 31, Tyres, rims and valves. Mr. Pacuit can be reached by telephone
at (303) 666-8121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\118\ See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Tire
Rolling Resistance for Light Vehicles, I: Selection of Tires and
Tests for Rating System Development, presented to California Energy
Commission (Feb. 5, 2009) (also available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/transportation/tire_efficiency/documents/2009-02-05_workshop/presentations/index.php).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One significant difference between the ISO and SAE single-point
tests is that ISO 28580 includes a procedure which uses two reference
tires to correlate any laboratory/machine to a master laboratory.
NHTSA's research showed significant difference between the two
laboratories used, and therefore addressing this variation is a
significant advantage for the draft ISO standard. Use of the SAE J1269
single-point test would require NHTSA to develop its own procedure to
address lab-to-lab variation, and there is insufficient time to
complete that work before December 2009, the Congressionally-mandated
deadline for this program.
While there are larger numbers of tires tested using the SAE J1269
procedure in the databases NHTSA had access to, NHTSA does not see this
as an impediment to adopting the ISO test. NHTSA's research shows that
the results from either method can be cross-correlated to provide the
same information. Specification of the ISO 28580 single-point test may
also allow manufacturers to do one test to comply with both European
and U.S. regulations.
Additionally, the ISO 28580 single-point test uses capped inflation
pressure, which NHTSA believes will provide a more accurate
representation of in-service behavior. NHTSA seeks comment on the
specification of the ISO 28580 single-point test, as opposed to the SAE
single-point test and all other rolling resistance test methods.
Two optional parameters must be specified for the ISO 28580 single-
point test: the method(s) of measurement, and the type of surface on
the roadwheel (i.e., textured or bare steel). NHTSA is proposing to
allow only the force or torque method during the test procedure, as
they are the only two types of machines available to NHTSA in the U.S.
The agency is proposing to specify the use of an 80-grit surface on
the roadwheel, instead of a bare steel roadwheel, to avoid potential
problems with slippage. The grit surface is the most common surface
used in the laboratories available to NHTSA. NHTSA in its research
found that the use of the 80-grit surface produced a slightly higher
test measurement than using the bare steel surface. The lab correlation
(alignment) procedure may account for this difference and correlate
results from the two different test conditions. However, there was some
evidence of potential problems for smooth steel-surfaced roadwheels in
NHTSA Phase 1 testing.\119\ In that testing, the rolling resistance of
deep-lug tires exhibited a relatively linear behavior on grit surfaces
over a range of test loads but dropped off consistently at high loads
on smooth steel roadwheels. This was attributed to slippage of the deep
lug tires on the smooth surface. Since the discrepancy in results
between a smooth and steel roadwheel could lead to rating compliance
disputes, we are proposing the grit surface since it is more
repeatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\119\ We note that these wheels did not have the micro-texture
required by ISO 28580 for steel-surfaced roadwheels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA seeks comment as to whether the lab correlation (alignment)
procedure will, in fact, account for differences between measurements
made using an 80-grit surface on the roadwheel and a properly micro-
textured steel-surfaced roadwheel.

V. Proposed Rolling Resistance Rating Metric

The output of the rolling resistance test machines is used to
calculate the rolling resistance force (RRF) in pounds of force (lbf)
or Newtons (N) at the interface of the tire and drum, or the force at
the axle in the direction of travel required to make a loaded tire
roll. Rolling resistance is often expressed and reported in terms of
Rolling Resistance Coefficient (RRC) (N/kN, kg/tonne, lbf/kip), which
is the rolling resistance force divided by the test load on the
tire.\120\ Since rolling resistance changes with the load on the tire,
this makes direct comparisons between the tires tested at different
loads difficult. The pending European rating system uses RRC as the
metric for a rolling resistance rating/score. However, NHTSA is
proposing to base the U.S. tire fuel efficiency rating on the RRF
metric. NHTSA has tentatively concluded that a rating based on RRF is
more descriptive and would provide more information to consumers, than
a rating based on RRC. We request comment on the differences between
basing a rolling resistance rating system on RRF versus on RRC, and
which is more appropriate for the purposes of our statutory mandate
under EISA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\120\ Most test procedures specify test load as a percentage of
the maximum load rating of the tire being tested. For example, the
ISO 28580 test procedure specifies a load of 80% of the maximum
sidewall load.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One application of rolling resistance information is a vehicle
manufacturer selecting which tires to use for original equipment (OE)
fitment. This has been the primary application to date, in large part
because information on rolling resistance has been less available to
consumers. RRC is appropriate to this application, as a specific
vehicle model will be operated with a nominal vertical load on a tire,
but a range of tire sizes with varying load capacities are available
for OE fitment. Another application, and the one under consideration in
this proposed rule, is a consumer looking to replace the tires on their
vehicle.\121\ NHTSA is concerned about the use of RRC for consumers who
are looking to replace tires on their vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\121\ What we will be talking about is the majority of
purchases, which are for the same size tire that is currently on the
vehicle. This discussion does not address the situation where a
consumer has decided to change the size of their tires and/or change
from P metric tires to LT tires for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A rating system based on either RRC or RRF would allow a consumer
to rank order tires for their vehicles based on their fuel efficiency,
and the relative ranking stays the same under either RRF or RRC. Since
RRF is a measure of the energy consumed by the tire near the normal
operating conditions of the tire in its intended use, numerical
differences in RRF correlate well to amount of fuel used. By contrast,
because conversion to RRC compresses the range of data, numerical
differences in RRC do not correlate as well to the amount of fuel used.
Since reducing fuel use is the purpose of this program, we are
proposing to use the metric that best correlates to fuel use.
Specifically, when NHTSA compared some possible tire choices for
three different vehicles (a Chevrolet Impala, a Chevrolet Silverado,
and a Toyota Corolla), we found that a 10 point improvement in a 0 to
100 rating system based on RRF corresponds to a similar amount of fuel
saved, no matter what tire size is being selected. By contrast, a 10
point improvement in a 0 to 100 rating system based on RRC results in a
small amount of fuel savings for a small car and a larger amount of
fuel savings for a large car. Thus, a consumer would not be able to
place the same value on a specific level of improvement when purchasing
tires for different vehicles in a rating system based on RRC. The
details of the agency's examination of low, high, and midrange rolling
resistance tires for these three vehicles

[[Page 29560]]

is provided in Appendix A of this notice.
The goals of the tire fuel efficiency rating system may fail to be
met if the overall system is not intuitive to consumers. Consumers
would presumably use the system to purchase tires for their current and
subsequent vehicles, and consumers may have multiple vehicles in their
family for which they purchase tires. Consumers may be confused by a
tire fuel efficiency rating system where differences between ratings
for different tire sizes represent different quantities of fuel saved,
as they would in a rating system based on RRC. NHTSA is concerned that,
under a rating system based on RRC, a consumer who purchases tires for
different vehicles would notice these differences in fuel savings for
the same difference in ratings, and as a result, question the validity
of the ratings.
In contrast a rating system based on RRF preserves the concept that
differences in ratings correspond to the same amount of fuel savings
across tire sizes. Thus, consumers would find a rating system based on
RRF more intuitive since a given change in rating will consistently
relate more closely to an amount of fuel saved. For a rating system
based on RRF, the agency would be able to state a general rule of thumb
that, e.g., for every 10,000 miles you drive a difference of 20 on the
rating scale equates to X gallons of fuel saved, which could easily be
converted into dollars saved by a better rated tire. NHTSA believes
that such direct expressions of money saved are likely to be more
effective in informing consumer purchasing decisions. A rating system
based on RRC would not be able to have such an understandable and
useful rule of thumb because it would differ depending on the test load
of the tire. For the foregoing reasons, the agency is proposing that
the tire fuel efficiency rating be based on RRF.

VI. Proposed Rating System

A. What Should We Convey to Consumers in a Rating System?

1. Fuel Efficiency
As explained above in section II.A.1, NHTSA is proposing to
communicate tire fuel efficiency information in the form of a rolling
resistance rating, because rolling resistance corresponds to the amount
of fuel used in the form of mechanical energy dissipated to move the
tire. Tire rolling resistance is the most effective metric for rating
the ``fuel efficiency'' of a tire because rolling resistance force
(RRF) measures the energy loss that opposes the direction of travel of
the rotating tire and, thus, it directly reduces the efficiency of a
vehicle in converting the chemical energy in the fuel to motion of the
vehicle.
Based on the rolling resistance force test value measured using the
ISO 28580 test procedure, the fuel efficiency rating of a given
replacement passenger car tire is calculated using the formula
specified by NHTSA, which is discussed in section VI.B.1 below.
2. Safety
i. Potential Safety Consequences
There is a growing appreciation but still a limited understanding
of how tire traction, wear resistance, and rolling resistance relate to
the practical outcomes of vehicle fuel consumption, crash incidence,
and tire service life. One of the past concerns about rolling
resistance is that traction and/or treadwear are negatively impacted by
changes made to improve rolling resistance.
As part of the research in support of this rulemaking, NHTSA
performed and analyzed additional testing with the tires that were used
to evaluate the rolling resistance test methods. This testing included
UTQGS traction and treadwear testing, additional wet and dry traction
testing on an outdoor track, indoor dry traction and treadwear testing,
and EPA dynamometer fuel economy testing.\122\ This research, with one
exception discussed below, did not show that this tradeoff is a given
and must occur. However, it may cost more to maintain traction or
treadwear with an improvement in rolling resistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\122\ See NHTSA Tire Rolling Resistance Rating System Test
Development Project: Phase 2--Effects of Tire Rolling Resistance
Levels on Traction, Treadwear, and Vehicle Fuel Economy (February
2009). The research reports from this Phase 2 research will be
placed in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

By putting information on all three parameters on a label, a
consumer would factor any possible tradeoffs between rolling
resistance, traction, and treadwear, and/or cost differences between
tires. That is, with all three ratings on one label, a consumer could
see whether they were opting for a decrease in traction and treadwear
to gain improved rolling resistance.
Technical literature extensively indicates that the tradeoff
between fuel economy and safety performance can be significantly
reduced or eliminated with advanced compounding technologies, which are
usually more expensive and proprietary. However, many aspects of the
tire's construction and manufacture affect how much tradeoff remains,
and the results of implementing silica tread technology will vary
between manufacturers (which ranges from manufacturers who have decades
of experience with the technology to manufacturers who have none). It
is hoped that increased consumer awareness may help to spur
technological innovation to promote simultaneous improvements along
several dimensions. At least for the near future, however, the agency
cannot guarantee that there will not be a tradeoff between fuel
efficiency and safety.
Therefore, NHTSA is concerned about the potential negative safety
consequences that may occur if consumers, motivated by potential fuel
savings, begin to purchase tires with better rolling resistance ratings
but are unwilling to spend additional money to also maintain wet
traction levels. Despite having the wet traction rating on the same
sticker, some manufacturers may defer the use of the more expensive
silica tread technologies and instead optimize tires to lower rolling
resistance and treadwear (another important purchase motivator) at the
expense of wet traction in order to gain a price advantage. This may be
especially prevalent in the lower-cost segments of the market.
A survey of the current marketplace was undertaken to estimate what
information consumers currently have for choices in wet traction,
price, and, where available, rolling resistance performance of tires.
From the NHTSA ratings in http://safercar.gov and tires available at
TireRack.com, approximately 20 percent of tires currently have traction
ratings of AA, 70 percent have ratings of A, and 10 percent have
ratings of B. There were no C-rated tires for on-road passenger vehicle
use. From the NHTSA data and the data from the California Energy
Commission and Consumer Reports magazine, it appears that tire makers
design most tires with AA wet traction rating for flag-brand and high-
performance tires with correspondingly high average selling prices.
Data for rolling resistance, wet traction, and list price performance
indicate that tires with both A-traction rating and low rolling
resistance performance are available at all list price levels.
ii. Test Procedure
Whereas rolling resistance is a standard measurement for
characterizing and comparing tire energy performance, less
comprehensive data exist in the public domain for accurate
characterizations of tire traction. There are different methods of
evaluating traction. For example, the UTQGS rating and the European wet

[[Page 29561]]

grip rating use different test procedures which do not evaluate the
same elements.
The test procedure specified in the UTQGS rating systems for
traction is the only metric for which consistent data are widely
available for a range of tires. Accordingly, NHTSA is currently
proposing to use the traction test procedure specified in the agency's
UTQGS regulation to rate tires for safety on the same scale and label
as fuel efficiency via rolling resistance rating. See 49 CFR
575.104(f). The UTQGS traction test procedure measures a tire's
coefficient of friction when it is tested on wet asphalt and concrete
surfaces. The subject tire is placed on an instrumented axle of a skid
trailer, which is pulled behind a truck at 40 miles per hour (mph) on
wet asphalt and concrete surfaces. The trailer's brakes are momentarily
locked, and sensors on the axle measure the longitudinal braking forces
as it slides in a straight line. The coefficient of friction is then
determined as the ratio of this sliding force to the tire load.
The UTQGS traction rating procedure specifies that the traction
coefficients for asphalt and for concrete are to be calculated using
the locked-wheel traction coefficient on the tire, or sliding
coefficient of friction. Because it uses the sliding coefficient of
friction, this test procedure indicates the traction or wet pavement
behavior for a vehicle that is not equipped with anti-lock brakes (ABS)
or electronic stability control (ESC). A vehicle equipped with ABS or
ESC reacts to braking and sliding in a more sophisticated way. ABS
prevents wheel lock-up by pumping the vehicle's brakes repeatedly
during braking events. ESC may automatically perform activation of the
brakes on individual wheels in an attempt to slow down a vehicle and
point it in a different direction if the system senses a directional
loss of control. NHTSA's tire testing research showed that for a tire
with a given rolling resistance, vehicles equipped with ABS or ESC will
exhibit safer behavior on wet pavement (i.e., better traction) than the
sliding coefficient of friction traction measurement would indicate in
the UTQGS traction test procedure.
The peak coefficient of friction is a metric that would better
indicate traction performance for vehicles equipped with these advanced
braking and handling systems. This is because as soon as ABS causes the
vehicle to reapply the brakes (and also during ESC system activation),
the tires are constantly operating at or near peak coefficient of
friction. Thus, since most new cars offer ABS as either standard or
optional equipment, and ESC is being mandated on new light vehicles via
a phase-in, NHTSA is proposing to base the traction rating for purposes
of the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program on the peak
coefficients of friction as measured on the asphalt and concrete
surfaces specified in the UTQGS traction test procedure.\123\ The
machinery that conducts this test already measures peak coefficient of
friction, so there is no new measurement that needs to be taken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\123\ The phase-in electronic stability control (ESC) requires
100 percent of the fleet to be equipped with ESC by model year 2011,
i.e., by September 2010. 72 FR 17236, 17291. Since an anti-lock
braking system (ABS) provides many of the components necessary for
ESC, NHTSA believes that most manufacturers will likely equip
vehicles with ABS as they equip them with ESC. See id. at 17256, n.
49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, recognizing that the median age for the U.S. passenger car
fleet is 9.4 years,\124\ NHTSA requests comments on whether it is
premature to suggest moving to an ABS-ESC focused rating based on new
vehicles. Within the agency's Phase 2 data, tires of the same size had
as much as 30 percent difference in wet slide numbers over the range of
rolling resistance values. From the 40 mph wet slide friction numbers,
a 30 percent difference in wet slide number translates into an increase
of 27 feet (13 percent) in calculated wet stopping distance for a non-
ABS equipped vehicle. Therefore, it may be necessary to address both
peak and slide friction numbers, at least for the near term. The agency
has considered a safety rating taken from the average of the four
friction numbers (peak & slide on asphalt & concrete), all of which can
be collected during the same test. The agency requests comments on
whether it should instead consider a composite test, and if the four
friction numbers should be weighted equally or differently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\124\ See http://usa.polk.com/News/LatestNews/News_20080215_scrappage.htm (last accessed Mar. 10, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The tire label mandated by Europe in ECE Regulation 117 includes
the wet grip test. However, NHTSA would need to do its own evaluation
of that test before specifying it in our regulation. NHTSA seeks
comments on other ways to rate replacement tires for safety.
3. Durability
The rolling resistance, traction, and wear characteristics of tires
are not independent of one another. The tread has a major influence on
rolling resistance because it contains much of the rubber in the tire
that causes energy loss. The same tread deformation contributes to the
tire's traction capabilities. A loss in traction capability because of
treadwear is the main reason for tire replacement.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\125\ 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA tentatively concludes that the durability of a tire refers to
how long a tire is going to last, that is, how long it is going to
maintain sufficient tread depth for the safe operation and maintain the
strength the tire had when it was initially purchased. A treadwear
rating measures a tire's wear rate compared with that of control tires.
Treadwear life, therefore, corresponds to treadwear durability of a
tire. NHTSA seeks comments, however, on other potential ways to
communicate durability.
The UTQGS rating systems for treadwear is the only metric for which
consistent data are widely available for a range of passenger car
tires. Accordingly, NHTSA is proposing to specify the UTQGS treadwear
procedure to rate tires for durability on the same scale and label as
fuel efficiency via rolling resistance rating. See 49 CFR 575.104(e).
Based on the UTQGS rating for treadwear as calculated under 49 CFR
575.104(d)(2)(i), the durability rating of a given replacement
passenger car tire on a scale of 0 to 100 is calculated by dividing the
UTQGS treadwear rating by ten, as explained in further detail below.
NHTSA acknowledges the limits of the existing UTQGS system.\126\
Very few participants in the focus groups were aware of these ratings.
In a roundtable discussion sponsored by the California Energy
Commission dealers uniformly dismissed the system as not providing
valuable or reliable information. In fact, those dealers expressed
skepticism about tire fuel efficiency ratings if they were ``just
another UTQGS rating.'' However, given the statutory deadline for NHTSA
to establish this program, NHTSA believes that modified UTQGS ratings
for traction and treadwear are the only viable options at this time to
fulfill the statutory requirement that this consumer information
program educate consumers about tires' relationships to fuel
efficiency, safety, and durability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\126\ The UTQGS is discussed in more detail later in this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA seeks comment, however, on other test methods that could be
easily used to establish metrics for safety or durability ratings. As
noted above, as part of the research in support of this rulemaking,
NHTSA performed and analyzed additional testing with the tires that
were used to evaluate the rolling resistance test methods. NHTSA

[[Page 29562]]

did some indoor treadwear testing in our research program, but merely
to provide some comparative information, not to substitute a different
test protocol. NHTSA will, however, consider future revisions if
information suggests those revisions would enhance the program.
4. Overall Rating
For the purposes of the final rule, the agency is also considering
the concept of a combined rating of some sort, which would convert all
three benefit metrics into one overall rating. NHTSA notes that in
considering how to revise and improve its New Car Assessment Program
(NCAP), it sought public comment on the roughly parallel notion of
simplifying inter-vehicle comparisons and purchase decision making by
consumers by combining the individual safety ratings for different
crash modes into a single overall rating. Ultimately, the agency
adopted plans to develop and implement such a summary rating.
The advantage of such a system for tire performance ratings would
be that it would simplify the ratings, potentially relieving consumers
of the task of weighing the ratings for three different metrics for one
tire against the three ratings for another tire. At the same time, if
the single combined rating were presented to the exclusion of
individual ratings for each metric, it would obscure the relative
performance of individual components that might carry different
priorities with different consumers.
Ideally, the goal would be to express the combined rating in terms
that are readily understandable and of practical value to the average
consumer. The following example attempts to do this by combining the
three ratings into a single absolute (as opposed to relative) cost per
mile figure reflecting the full cost of buying and using a tire. The
in-use costs of a tire would be based on each of the ratings and the
useful life of the tire, reflecting the real-world significance of each
of the ratings.
The in-use cost of the fuel efficiency rating would
reflect money spent on fuel consumed.
The in-use cost of the durability rating would reflect
money spent on purchasing replacement tires more or less frequently.
The in-use cost of the safety rating would reflect money
spent on traction-related crashes.
Implementing such a combined rating would face several hurdles,
especially regarding the safety rating. For example, how would the
safety of any particular tire be measured and what baseline would it be
measured against? Further, in order to attempt to convert the safety
(traction) rating into stopping distance, potentially costly and time
consuming testing for the wide variety of tires would be necessary. An
example of such a combined rating for tires might be one expressed in
terms of average overall cost/mile.
The agency seeks comments as to whether such a combined rating
could be developed and, if so, should be adopted in the final rule and
implemented. The agency seeks comments on the relative advantages and
disadvantages of a single combined rating, the three rating system in
our proposal, and a third approach combining the first two approaches.

B. How Should We Convey Ratings Information to Consumers?

In support of this rulemaking, NHTSA contracted with a strategic
communications firm to conduct consumer focus groups to review possible
labels and other informational materials. Two focus groups were
conducted in three locations, with a total of 54 participants. During
the focus groups the participants discussed vehicle safety and fuel
economy in general, their tire purchase process, their interest in
information about tire fuel efficiency and how they might use it in the
tire purchase decision process, and their reaction to five possible
label designs.\127\ NHTSA anticipates conducting additional consumer
testing. The agency seeks comment on our focus group consumer testing
and the scope, content, and methodology of future consumer testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\127\ See NHTSA Rolling Resistance Focus Group Report (January
2008). A copy of this report and other research reports relied on in
this proposal will be placed in the docket. In reviewing these
findings, it is important to remember that qualitative research, by
design, is not meant to be projectable within accurate statistical
ranges. Focus groups allow for the understanding and investigation
of group consensus, not individual reactions. Qualitative research
offers insight into the thematic and directional information of the
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The tested label designs consisted of different combinations of
elements of existing vehicle and/or energy rating schemes. Specifically
the designs were developed as different combinations of a red-to-green
shaded color scheme as in the European energy labels, stars, numbers,
and/or letter grades. One design had a vertical orientation of the
rating scale similar to the European label. One design used a 3-axis
radar chart. Based on the feedback in the focus groups, NHTSA is
proposing to express ratings for tire fuel efficiency (i.e., rolling
resistance), safety (i.e., traction), and durability (i.e., treadwear)
on a scale of 0 to 100, with 100 being the best rating, and zero being
the worst rating.
NHTSA's proposal differs from the European tire fuel efficiency
rating system. The European tire label divides the fuel efficiency
rating into seven bins, or seven ranges of rolling resistance scores,
each range (or bin) represented by a letter, A through G. This is the
same letter rating the system used in Europe for rating the energy
efficiency of household appliances,\128\ and is already well known by
consumers in Europe. In contrast, U.S. consumers do not have a
preexisting association between letter grades and energy efficiency
ratings. Thus, NHTSA is proposing the ratings scales that tested best
in the agency's consumer research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\128\ See Council Directive 1992/75/EC, 1992 O.J. (L 297).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA's proposal also differs from manufacturer suggestions that
NHTSA develop a rating based on five bins, similar to NHTSA's New Car
Assessment Program (NCAP).\129\ In the focus groups, most of the label
designs showed ratings based in bins. The reason for NHTSA's proposal
is that participants overwhelmingly preferred the design that showed a
numerical rating on a scale of 0 to 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\129\ See http://www.safercar.gov/; 73 FR 40016 (July 11, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last, NHTSA's proposal differs from the EPA's Energy Star program.
In large part this is because of participants' preference for greater
discrimination in the rating. In addition, NHTSA's proposal to require
manufacturers to report actual test data will allow for the use of such
test data to provide additional useful comparative information as
discussed later in this notice when NHTSA discusses its planned
consumer education program. See section VIII.
In consumer testing, NHTSA used both stars (as in the NCAP program)
and letter grades (as in the European proposal) representing fuel
efficiency grades given based on which range of rolling resistance
values, or bin, the tire fell within. While both of these were
understood by the participants, the numerical scale giving an
individual score for a tire in each category of rating was preferred.
Most consumers indicated that they preferred the greater precision of
the 0 to 100 rating scale than a 5-point grading scale.\130\ A specific
score gives consumers a greater ability to discriminate between tires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\130\ NHTSA Rolling Resistance Focus Group Report, at 7-8
(January 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In NHTSA's research, consumer focus groups also expressed a clear
preference to have fuel efficiency, traction, and

[[Page 29563]]

treadwear ratings appear on identical scales, i.e., they expressed
distaste for the sample ratings graphic that displayed fuel efficiency
on a 0 to 100 scale, traction using letter grades, and treadwear on a
different scale. It is true that consumer preferences are not
necessarily conclusive on appropriate design. What matters is what
design is most helpful in facilitating choice, and judgments in focus
groups may not be conclusive on that question. But with reference to
the goal of ensuring both simplicity and transparency, NHTSA is
proposing to require all three ratings be expressed on a scale of 0 to
100. As noted, NHTSA invites comments on how to ensure that these
ratings are as meaningful as possible to consumers.
One of the labels tested included an overall rating, which was
generally well-received. Some participants raised their concern that
the overall rating was an average of the three factors (fuel
efficiency, traction and tread wear), treating them as if they were
equally important when in fact few consumers consider them equally
important in their own purchase decision. In the end, most felt the
overall rating was still useful, as long as each dimension on the label
had a rating, as then consumers could separately weigh the factors that
were important to them, if necessary.
As noted above, NHTSA is not proposing any regulatory text for an
overall rating in today's notice; however we are considering how we
might do this for the final rule. NHTSA shares the focus group
participants' concern that an overall rating not just be an average,
but instead somehow reflect the relative value on some common scale of
the three ratings. As discussed above in section VI.A.4, an example of
such a system might be expressed as average overall cost per mile. The
advantage of such a system would be that it would simplify the ratings.
However, at the same time, it would obscure the relative performance of
individual components which might carry different priorities with
different consumers.
In addition, the agency is uncertain as to whether such a combined
rating would be practicable. Developing a cost-per-mile estimate would
require addressing the myriad of complications expressed in the Fuel
Economy, Safety, and Durability sections above. For example, how would
the safety of any particular tire be measured and against which
baseline would it be measured? The agency cannot identify poor tire
traction as the cause of a crash, but may be able to estimate potential
benefits or disbenefits from modified stopping distances that result
with different traction ratings. How would potential safety impacts be
valued? Should values include estimates of the value of life and
degradation in quality of life, or just the economic impacts that
result from death and injury and property damage? Since these estimates
would represent average impacts spread across society, would they be
meaningful to individual tire purchasers?
As noted above, the agency requests comments as to whether such a
combined rating could be developed and, if so, should be adopted in the
final rule and implemented. The agency seeks comments on the relative
advantages and disadvantages of a single combined rating, the three
rating system in our proposal, and a third approach combining the first
two approaches. NHTSA requests comments on the concept of an overall
rating, including the more detailed discussion of how to value these
ratings later in this notice or other ideas of how to combine ratings
for an overall rating.
1. Proposed Rating Formulas
i. Fuel Efficiency
As explained above, based on the feedback in the focus groups,
NHTSA is proposing to express a tire fuel efficiency rating on a scale
of 0 to 100, with 100 being the lowest rolling resistance or best
rating, and zero being the highest rolling resistance or worst rating.
This integer fuel efficiency rating from 0 to 100 (RFE) can
be calculated from an ISO 28580 test value of rolling resistance force
(RRF) as follows:

RFE = (RRFmax - RRF) * 100/(RRFmax -
RRFmin)

where RRFmax is the highest rolling resistance the agency
believes should be represented on the fuel efficiency rating scale and
where RRFmin is the lowest rolling resistance the agency
believes should be represented on the fuel efficiency rating scale.
Regarding these minimum and maximum RRF values that define the
bounds of the fuel efficiency scale, NHTSA's testing research combined
with a RRF dataset that California shared with the agency showed RRF
test values of replacement passenger car tires ranging from 7.5 to 22.8
pounds-force (lbf). We are, therefore, proposing a rolling resistance
force scale ranging from 5 lbf to 25 lbf, where 25 is the highest
rolling resistance and thus, the replacement tire with the worst fuel
efficiency,\131\ representing a zero on the fuel efficiency rating
scale. The agency is proposing this range because the high end of the
rolling resistance scale range should be set at close to the level of
the current worst performing tires, since we should not expect tires
developed subsequent to this program to get worse fuel efficiency.
Allowing for the existence of some tires with higher rolling resistance
test values than the selection of replacement tires tested by NHTSA and
California, we moved up the estimate of highest rolling resistance
force to 25 (from 22.8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\131\ Note that higher rolling resistance force measurements
indicate a greater amount of energy lost through the tires and
converted to heat. This indicates a lower fuel efficiency of a tire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the low rolling resistance end of the rating scale, even
though the combined dataset had tires with an RRF as low as 7.5 lbf,
NHTSA is proposing to set this 100 end of the scale based on an RRF of
5.0 lbf, because we believe it is possible to construct tires with
improved rolling resistance and the rolling resistance scale should
allow sufficient room to express that improvement. NHTSA's research has
found that while tire construction need not sacrifice traction or
treadwear for improved rolling resistance, maintaining the same
traction and treadwear while increasing the fuel efficiency of a given
tire typically entails higher costs. See safety discussion above in
section VI.A.2 of this notice. The agency wants to allow for such
future technological innovation in the fuel efficiency rating
scale.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\132\ If future technology made improvements possible that would
allow tires to exceed the range of this or the other two scales,
NHTSA would consider future rulemaking to adjust the scales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on NHTSA's proposed rolling resistance force scale of all
replacement passenger car tires, a tire fuel efficiency rating would be
calculated by the following formula:

RFE = (25 - RRF) * 100/(25 - 5) = (25 - RRF) * 5

Using this fuel efficiency rating formula, the tires tested by NHTSA
and California would fall between 11 and 88 on the 0 to 100 fuel
efficiency rating scale. NHTSA seeks comments on this and other
possible constructions of the fuel efficiency rating.
As mentioned above, one of the reasons the agency is basing the
fuel efficiency rating on RRF rather than RRC is because it allows the
program to readily provide consumers with a statement such as ``a
difference of X on the fuel efficiency rating scale equates to Y
gallons of fuel saved.'' We have calculated that for the proposed fuel
efficiency rating scale, a general rule of thumb is that for every
10,000 miles you drive, a difference of five on the scale equates to
three gallons of fuel saved when you purchase four tires and a
difference of ten on the scale equates to six gallons of fuel saved.

[[Page 29564]]

ii. Safety
As explained above, NHTSA is proposing to specify that the safety
(i.e., traction) rating, for purposes of the tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program, be calculated using the peak coefficients
of friction, which are friction coefficient numbers that are also
recorded by the test equipment used in UTQGS traction rating procedure.
The agency is proposing to specify the measurement of the peak
coefficients of friction on both asphalt and on concrete, as opposed to
the sliding coefficients of friction, as specified in the UTQGS
traction test procedure. These measurements of peak coefficient of
friction on asphalt and peak coefficient of friction on concrete must
be ``adjusted,'' or correlated to a standard reference test tire,
because asphalt and concrete surfaces can vary from day to day. Thus,
there must be some standardized tire to which the test can calibrate.
This is true for the sliding coefficients of friction measured as well.
For the safety (i.e., traction) rating, the agency is proposing to
require tire manufacturers to report the Adjusted Peak Coefficient of
Friction for Asphalt ([mu]APA) and the Adjusted Peak
Coefficient of Friction for Concrete ([mu]APC) by testing in
accordance with 49 CFR 575.104(f) and recording the average peak
coefficients of friction and then adjusting the measured average peak
coefficients of friction for asphalt and concrete, respectively, using
the following formulae:

[mu]APA = (Measured Candidate Tire Average Peak Coefficient
of Friction for Asphalt + 0.75) - (Measured Standard Tire Average Peak
Coefficient of Friction for Asphalt)

[mu]APC = (Measured Candidate Tire Average Peak Coefficient
of Friction for Concrete + 0.60) - (Measured Standard Tire Average Peak
Coefficient of Friction for Concrete)

The two constants, 0.75 and 0.60, are based on agency test data for the
adjustment of the average peak coefficients of friction for asphalt and
concrete pavements, respectively. The agency might change these two
numbers if the repaving of the skid pad surfaces at the agency's San
Angelo Test Facility results in a shift of these numbers on each
surface. NHTSA is seeking comments and proposals on this approach,
including the use or change of these constants.
In addition to the adjusted peak coefficients of friction, the
agency is also proposing to require tire manufacturers to report the
traction rating using the following formula:

RTC = Adjusted Peak Traction Rating = {([mu]APA +
[mu]APC) {1 - [([mu]APA - [mu]APC)/
([mu]APA + [mu]APC)]\2\{time} - 0.6{time} *
(100/2.0)

The agency proposes this formula as a convenient way to obtain a single
rating for both asphalt and concrete, and normalizing the expected
range to a scale of 0 to 100.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\133\ This formula is an adaptation of the Fahrenheit to
Centigrade (also a 0 to 100 scale) conversion formula.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ``([mu]APA + [mu]APC) {1-
[([mu]APA - [mu]APC)/([mu]APA +
[mu]APC)]\2\{time} '' portion of the RTC formula
has been developed with the intention of encouraging tire manufacturers
to design tires with little disparity between [mu]APA and
[mu]APC. That is, if [mu]APA= [mu]APC,
``([mu]APA + [mu]APC) {1 - [([mu]APA -
[mu]APC)/([mu]APA +
[mu]APC)]\2\{time} '' would be equal to ([mu]APA
+ [mu]APC) and thus the highest rating possible is achieved
for a given set of coefficients of friction since no deduction to the
rating is assessed due to the disparity of the coefficients of friction
between asphalt and concrete. This approach is consistent with the
current traction rating philosophy of UTQGS which penalizes a tire's
rating if either the asphalt or concrete coefficients are in a lower
relative category than the other adjusted coefficient.
Based on data available to date at the agency's San Angelo Test
Facility, NHTSA estimates the minimum Adjusted Peak Coefficient of
Friction for Asphalt is 0.4, the maximum Adjusted Peak Coefficient of
Friction for Asphalt is 1.2, the minimum Adjusted Peak Coefficient of
Friction for Concrete is 0.3, and the maximum Adjusted Peak Coefficient
of Friction for Concrete is 1.1, for an additive range spanning from
0.7 (i.e., 0.4 + 0.3) to 2.3 (i.e., 1.2 + 1.1). For the purpose of
allowing future tire traction improvement, the agency is proposing to
expand the estimated Adjusted Peak Coefficient of Friction range of 0.7
to 2.3 to a range of 0.6 to 2.6, where 0.6 would represent a zero on
the traction rating scale and 2.6 would represent a 100 on the traction
rating scale. The agency proposes this range because we believe it is
technically possible to construct tires with improved traction and the
traction rating scale should allow sufficient room to express that
improvement.
The agency then shifts and normalizes ``([mu]APA +
[mu]APC) {1-[([mu]APA-[mu]APC)/
([mu]APA + [mu]APC)]\2\{time} '' from the range
of 0.6 to 2.6 to a 0 to 100 rating scale and arrives at the
aforementioned RTC formula.\134\ Using the RTC
traction rating formula, NHTSA's estimated range of additive Adjusted
Peak Coefficient from 0.7 to 2.3 would fall between 5 and 85 on the 0
to 100 safety (wet traction) rating scale. NHTSA is seeking comments
and proposals on this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\134\ The agency notes that the formula for RTC
reduces to a simpler form than that which is specified above. For
the NPRM we have not reduced the formula so that the public can see
where maximum and minimum peak coefficients are used in the equation
and to make it clear that it includes a ``rating penalty'' for tires
with different coefficients for asphalt and concrete. We believe
this is important since these values may change based on additional
data and on retesting after our test track has been repaved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As mentioned above, our safety (traction) rating formula and
supporting equations were developed based on limited test data and in
advance of traction test resurfacing at our San Angelo Test Facility.
Consequently, it is difficult to precisely predict the probable range
of adjusted peak coefficients across all replacement tires and,
therefore, to calculate the resultant expected safety (wet traction)
rating range for existing tires. We plan to update the formula and
supporting equations in the final rule with additional data and with
test data gathered after the track is resurfaced in order to bring the
rating scale to a range that can be expected for state of the art
tires. We also request comments on how much to amend the rating formula
for the final rule to expand the rating scale at the minimum and/or
maximum ends of the scale to allow for future potential wet traction
improvements.
In terms of what this scale would mean to consumers, a traction
rating is difficult to quantify. That is, it is not as straight forward
as it is for a fuel efficiency rating to develop a rule of thumb for
the safety rating scale such as ``each difference of X on the safety
rating scale equates to Y percent fewer crashes and Z dollars less in
resultant economic damages.'' NHTSA would have to try and correlate a
rating with a set stopping distance, and then that distance with
crashes. These calculations are complicated by the fact that they
depend on other factors (in addition to the traction rating of the
tires) such as the handling characteristics of the vehicle on which
they are mounted, the force with which the brakes are applied, and the
loading of the vehicle. To put a tire's safety rating information on an
economic scale, all of these characteristics would have to be assumed
for all tires. But in reality, there is not a single vehicle that all
replacement tires can be mounted on. Therefore, we are concerned that
the difference between two such tire safety ratings would not reflect
the same economic difference in terms of safety, where the tires were
mounted on two different types of vehicles. What we can communicate
with the proposed rating

[[Page 29565]]

is that tires with better traction ratings stop in less distance than
tires with worse ratings.
iii. Durability
Existing treadwear grades in UTQGS range up to 800. Therefore,
NHTSA is requiring that the UTQGS treadwear grade be divided by 10 and
that number placed on the 1 to 100 scale. This treadwear rating scale
will allow for the possible technological development of replacement
tires with higher treadwear ratings in the future. Accordingly, if
TWUTQGS is the UTQGS rating for treadwear as calculated
under 49 CFR 575.104(d)(2)(i), then NHTSA is proposing the treadwear
rating for purposes of the tire fuel efficiency rating program
(RTW) be calculated according to the following formula:

RTW = TWUTQGS/10

In terms of what this scale would mean to consumers, the treadwear
conversion is straightforward, as the treadwear rating is a relative
rating compared to a control tire, which would be rated 10 on our
scale. A tire rated 20 should last twice as long as a tire rated a 10.
Similarly, a tire rated a 75 on the proposed traction scale would last
three times longer than a tire rated 25 on the proposed traction rating
scale.
2. Proposed Label Style
NHTSA is proposing to require tire manufacturers to affix a paper
label with the fuel efficiency, safety, and durability ratings in the
form illustrated in Figure 7.\135\ This label is based upon the ratings
presentation that tested best with consumers in focus groups conducted
by the agency. In NHTSA's consumer focus group research the agency
considered and presented consumers with five different ratings graphics
containing ratings for fuel efficiency, traction, and treadwear. The
ratings graphics were presented in various colors, with various picture
icons, and experimented with horizontal rating scales as well as
vertical rating scales. See Figure 8 through Figure 12.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\135\ Manufacturers are required to print UTQGS information on a
paper label pursuant to 49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(B). Many manufacturers
include other information on this paper label as well. Note that
NHTSA uses the term ``paper label'' in the colloquial sense; many
labels on tires are actually made of plastic.
\136\ Color versions of Figures 8-12 will be placed in the
docket and on NHTSA's Web site, http://www.nhtsa.gov.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.006

[[Page 29566]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.007

[[Page 29567]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.008

[[Page 29568]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.009

[[Page 29569]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.010

[[Page 29570]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.011

NHTSA is proposing that the rating scales be oriented horizontally,
that the scales be shaded red (0) to green (100), and that each scale
be marked by an icon in addition to the title, similar to Label B shown
to the focus groups (Figure 9). This label design was the clearly
preferred concept. Participants intuitively understood that red was
poor and green was good and liked this color scheme. The vertically-
oriented label (Label C, illustrated in Figure 10) was difficult to
understand for many participants in the focus groups.
NHTSA is proposing to modify the Label B as shown to consumers
(Figure 9) as described here. See Figure 7. First, NHTSA is proposing
to add a heading that reads, ``Government Tire Ratings,'' similar to
the heading on the vehicle label that shows the new car assessment
program (NCAP) ratings. The focus group participants indicated that
they would prefer to know that it was a government program.
We are also proposing to have the fuel efficiency rating appear
topmost on the label, followed by safety and durability. The ratings
appeared in different order in the designs shown and participants did
not express a preference. NHTSA has chosen to place fuel efficiency on
top as that is the emphasis of EISA, however we request comment on the
order of ratings. Participants did indicate that safety would be a more
important consideration in their purchase decision, so the agency seeks
comment on this rating appearing at the top.
Further, we are proposing to change the labels on the rating scales
to read as follows: ``Fuel Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Rating,''
``Safety (Wet Traction),'' and ``Durability (Treadwear).'' This
language more closely mirrors the language in EISA. The agency is
proposing that ``Greenhouse Gas Rating'' appear on the fuel efficiency
rating scale because section 105 of EISA mandates a consumer
information program that will establish a rating system reflecting the
fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions over the life of
automobiles.\137\ For consistency across fuel economy-related consumer
information programs, we are proposing that the fuel efficiency rating
in the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program indicate that
fuel efficiency ratings also signify relative performance in terms of
greenhouse gas emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\137\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the safety and durability rating scale labels, NHTSA is
aware that safety and durability can refer to more characteristics than
those rated in the program we are proposing today, and therefore has
included ``wet traction'' and ``treadwear'' to clarify what is being
rated on the safety and durability scales.
The agency is also proposing to change the language at the bottom
of the label by replacing the word ``highest'' with the word ``best.''
This is to because the data behind the rating is not uniformly
``higher'' when the rating improves. While this would not be apparent
to all consumers, some may wish to research the data behind the rating
and this language would more accurately reflect the data.
NHTSA is proposing to include an additional sentence at the bottom
of the label indicating where consumers should go to learn more about
the information: ``For more information visit http://www.nhtsa.gov.''
This sentence appears more prominent than the other reference sentences
at the bottom of the label because the agency seeks to encourage
consumers to learn about the ratings, which they can do most completely
on NHTSA's Web site. The Web address could be replaced if the new tire
information Web site NHTSA intends to develop has a simple domain name.
NHTSA is proposing to place the rating on each scale in a white
box, as opposed to within one of the colored shaded boxes comprising
the scale. This allows the rating score to be printed in slightly
larger text than if it were limited to inside each box. Placing each
rating in a white box also allows the rating to appear in a more
accurate location on the scale, as opposed to being limited to
appearing within a shaded box. NHTSA is further proposing to move the
arrows pointing to the score to the bottom of each rating scale, as
opposed to the top. This is to avoid potentially obscuring the rating
scale titles with the arrow on

[[Page 29571]]

the top of the scale pointing to a lower rated tire.
NHTSA is also proposing a minimum font size of 14 point for the
heading on the label, and 12 point for the labels on each of the rating
scales. NHTSA is also proposing to require the label to be at least 4.5
inches high by 5.5 inches wide. The agency tentatively concludes that
this is approximately the smallest size the label could be and still be
legible. This is slightly larger than the Stars on Cars label required
on vehicles. NHTSA requests comments on these size requirements for the
label.
Finally, NHTSA is proposing to delete the indication of ``average
rating.'' Without having a complete database of all tires, NHTSA is not
sure where the ``average rating'' would be located on each scale. In
addition, it is likely that these would not be in the same location on
each of the three scales, and focus group participants expressed some
confusion with designs like this.
Participants in the focus groups generally liked the icons used on
the sample labels, however the icon used for the traction rating was
found confusing by many. The cloud in the symbol for traction
(representing the source of the rain drops) was confusing for some
consumers who could not make out what it was or thought it was a cowboy
hat. NHTSA considered other ideas, such as those shown in Figure 13.
NHTSA is not currently proposing a different icon than that which was
tested. However, NHTSA plans to conduct further consumer testing prior
to the final rule and is seeking comment on these and any other ideas
regarding possible changes to the traction icon, which indicates
``wet'' traction.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.012

NHTSA is further seeking comment on using some icon or mark on the
labels to help consumers at a glance identify the most fuel efficient
tire. NHTSA has designed the scales so that the highest rating for
tires in the databases we have examined for each category would be in
the 80s. A mark indicating, for example, the top 25% of ratings could
let consumers know that they are already looking at a best-rated tire.
The mark could be associated with just the fuel efficiency rating or
the tire might only receive the mark if it also has a minimum certain
safety and durability rating. This is similar to the idea behind the
Energy Star program. The Energy Star program is a voluntary joint EPA
and DOE program to rate the energy-efficiency of household
products.\138\ For each product included in the program, there are
performance standards to determine whether or not the product qualifies
for an Energy Star designation. As an initial matter, NHTSA is
concerned that such a mark might be inaccurately perceived by the
consumer as indicating an overall tire rating, which might indicate
government approval of the safety of that replacement tire. We request
comment on this idea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\138\ See http://www.energystar.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA is also requesting comment on whether or not the ratings
label should include a caution that the ratings apply only to properly
inflated and/or new tires. Both of these messages would be part of the
consumer education program to promote this program.
Last, NHTSA is requesting comment on including a statement like
``made in week xx of year yy,'' where the ``xx'' and ``yy'' would be
the numerals from the tire identification number (TIN). NHTSA receives
a lot of complaints about the TIN and consumer difficulty in
understanding how to read it. Focus group participants also indicated
that date of manufacture was additional information they would like to
have. NHTSA requests comments on the effect of requiring this
information on the paper label.

VII. Proposed Information Dissemination and Reporting Requirements for
Tire Manufacturers and Tire Retailers

A. The Replacement Passenger Car Tire Market

Most replacement tires are designed to perform on the wide range of
vehicles in the fleet, including vehicle models dating back many years.
Thus, suppliers competing in the replacement market must offer a wide
variety of tire types and sizes.\139\ In addition, the spectrum of
replacement tire sizes and types is continually expanding. At any one
time, replacement tires from hundreds of brands and lines are for sale
in the marketplace, which consists of tens of thousands of individual
products, or stock-keeping units (SKUs), when size variability is taken
into account. Consumers may choose among a handful to several dozen
tire lines for their replacement needs.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\139\ 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 21.
\140\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consumers may choose from national Internet and mail order
companies to tire dealers, manufacturer outlets, and retail department
stores. Typically, the tires bought in the replacement market are
balanced and mounted by the tire dealer or retailer.\141\ NHTSA is
proposing a definition of ``tire retailer'' to be ``a person or
business with whom a replacement passenger car tire manufacturer or
brand name owner has a contractual, proprietary, or other legal
relationship, or a person or business who has such a relationship with
a distributor of the replacement passenger car tire manufacturer or
brand name owner concerning the tire in question.'' See section XIII
(Regulatory Text) of this notice. NHTSA seeks comment on the
appropriateness and inclusiveness of this definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\141\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Assumptions About the Average Tire Purchaser and the Average Tire
Purchasing Process

NHTSA's consumer research focus groups revealed some common themes
in consumers' tire purchasing processes, which are discussed in detail
below. Additionally, on November 17, 2008 NHTSA participated in a
roundtable discussion convened by the Energy Efficiency Center at the
University of California, Davis (``UC Davis

[[Page 29572]]

workshop'') \142\ to discuss the tire purchase process. Participants
included State and Federal government agencies, tire manufacturers,
tire retailers and universities. Both these sources of information have
enabled the agency to make some assumptions regarding the average tire
purchaser and the average tire purchasing process. These assumptions
have led the agency to draw tentative conclusions regarding the most
effective ways to ensure consumers have access to easy-to-understand
information. These assumptions form the basis of our proposals
regarding requirements for information dissemination and reporting
requirements for tire manufacturers and for tire retailers. NHTSA
requests comment on how to best communicate information to consumers
before or during the tire purchasing process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\142\ The agenda and presentations from the roundtable can be
seen at http://eec1.ucdavis.edu/programs/transportation/tire-roundtable-nov-2008/tiresroundtable (last accessed Mar. 6, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA's consumer research and the discussions at the UC Davis
workshop revealed that many consumers make their choice of tire at the
location of purchase with guidance from a sales associate. NHTSA's
consumer research indicated, however, that many tire consumers do
conduct research to determine specifications for their vehicle, and
then visit a store or go online to compare tires of different
specifications. Participants in the UC Davis workshop noted that many
tire purchases are unplanned, where consumers needed to take immediate
action to restore their vehicle. Consumers in NHTSA's focus group
research made a distinction between buying replacement tires and buying
tires because of an urgent need, e.g., a flat tire. These consumers
agreed that in the latter scenario, many steps that they may have
undertaken before a planned purchase, e.g., doing comprehensive
research, were bypassed with the goal of getting a new tire in their
price range immediately. UC Davis workshop participants, among them
many tire retailers and tire manufacturers, further agreed that while
some consumers do ``defensive'' research prior to scheduled or planned
tire purchases in an attempt to avoid getting taken advantage of by
sales associates, very few do ``offensive'' research such that they
know precisely what tires they want.
NHTSA's consumer research found that the connection between fuel
efficiency and tire selection was not brought up unaided. Even when
prompted, many participants in the research did not feel there was a
strong connection between the two. A few participants understood that
inflated tires are safe, making the causal relationship between tire
inflation and vehicle safety, which is understood by most. But after
discussion and probing, more participants began to understand the
connection and agreed tires impact fuel efficiency. While NHTSA's
consumer research indicated that consumers are interested in the
prospect of a rating system that would enable them to compare fuel
efficiency of different tires, participants in the UC Davis workshop,
which included tire retailers, tire manufacturers, and government
organizations, generally agreed that price is the largest factor in
most consumers' final tire purchasing decision.

C. What Are We Proposing To Require of Tire Retailers?

Based on NHTSA's understanding of the average tire purchaser and on
the tire purchasing process generally, we believe that the most
successful method of encouraging consumers to consider the new ratings
at the point of sale is to have a poster in each tire retailer/dealer
location that would be visible to consumers, to make consumers aware
that there are comparative government tire ratings available for the
passenger car tires they are considering. The poster would communicate
the importance of comparing replacement tire ratings as well as the
importance of proper tire maintenance.
Therefore, in today's notice we are proposing to require that tire
retailers who have a display room, i.e., those that present sample
tires offered for sale to consumers, display a tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program poster that NHTSA will print and provide
to retailers. Some of the principles NHTSA is proposing be conveyed by
the poster are:
Your choice of tires you buy to put on your vehicle
affects:
[cir] The gas mileage your vehicle will get,
[cir] The traction and other safety characteristics your vehicle
can achieve, and
[cir] How long you can reasonably expect it will be before you'll
have to buy another new set of tires.
There is a new government program that requires new tires
for cars, vans, and SUVs to have a paper label on the tire tread to
show you the tire's rating for fuel efficiency, safety, and durability.
Ask your dealer for the ratings for the tires you are
considering for your vehicle.
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 best fuel efficiency, safety, and tire life that
the tire can deliver.
NHTSA seeks comment on these messages and solicits suggestions for
poster design and the best means to convey information about the rating
system and elicit interest in the ratings, keeping in mind the ultimate
goal of assisting consumers in making more educated tire purchasing
decisions.
The agency is proposing to make this poster available within 12
months of the issuance of a final regulation. At that time NHTSA will
publish a Federal Register notice announcing the availability of the
poster. We are proposing that a tire retailer will be able to comply
with the requirement of displaying the poster either by downloading and
printing it, in color and with the specifications from NHTSA's Web
site, or by contacting the agency and requesting that we send the
retailer a copy of the poster.
We are also proposing to require that tire retailers leave the
paper label which displays the tire fuel efficiency rating graphic on
the tire until the tire is sold.\143\ This requirement would maximize
the chance that consumers would see the label for the tire they are
purchasing. NHTSA recognizes that at many tire retailers, the tires are
mounted by the retailer itself and the consumer may never actually see
the tires they purchase before they are on their vehicle. We are not
proposing to require that tire retailers must show consumers the label
for the tire they are going to purchase, but merely that the label is
kept on the tire until sale. The agency would not hold a tire retailer
responsible for accidental damage or delamination of a label, or for a
manufacturer's failure to provide a label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\143\ Note that NHTSA uses the term ``paper label'' in the
colloquial sense; many labels on tires are actually made of plastic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA is aware of the small business nature of many tire retailers
and is sensitive to any burdens being placed upon tire retailers and
dealers. The agency considered requirements that tire retailers show
consumers the ratings for each tire that is available and being
compared for potential purchase. However, the agency has tentatively
concluded that the burdens associated with such requirements are not
needed to implement an effective program. The agency seeks comments on
any other

[[Page 29573]]

information dissemination requirements that would ensure that easy-to-
understand information is conveyed in a way that is most likely to
impact consumers' decisions and, thus, affect their behavior and save
them and our nation fuel and money.

D. What Are We Proposing To Require of Tire Manufacturers?

1. Data Reporting
We are proposing to require manufacturers to report to NHTSA for
each tire that is individually rated under this tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program 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).\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\144\ While pounds-force (lbf) have been used throughout this
NPRM since they are more familiar to the average U.S. consumer, the
SI units of Newtons will be the official reporting unit. All
proposed limits and values will be converted accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (0-100), based on the formula in
section VI.B.1 above.
Traction 0-100 rating, based on the formula in section
VI.B.1 above.
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
([mu]APA), based on the formula in section VI.B.1 above.
Adjusted peak coefficient of friction for concrete
([mu]APC), based on the formula in section VI.B.1 above.
Treadwear 0-100 rating, based on the formula in section
VI.B.1 above.
Wear rate of tested tire, as measured during the UTQGS
treadwear procedure (49 CFR 575.104(e)).
There are several reasons NHTSA is proposing that the tire
manufacturer submit these various measurements to the agency. First,
this makes it straightforward for the agency to ensure compliance with
the rating systems developed in this tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program. These reporting requirements also permit the
agency to assess the adequacy and appropriateness of the tolerance
bands, as described in section XI of this notice. Additionally, NHTSA
can use the force measurements to develop an accurate rolling
resistance database that can be used for development of a calculator
that consumers can use to estimate dollars of fuel saved either
annually or over the average life of the tire, as explained in section
VIII of this notice. Finally, the test load can be used to calculate
rolling resistance coefficient if necessary or desirable.
We are proposing to require manufacturers to report to NHTSA the
treadwear rating and the traction rating for each tire, on a 0 to 100
scale as discussed above in sections VI.A.2 and VI.A.3 because these
ratings represent durability and safety for purposes of the national
tire fuel efficiency consumer information program required by EISA. The
agency is proposing that these ratings be based on the UTQGS test
procedures for traction and treadwear. However, the agency remains open
to considering other tests that may better represent and communicate
information about safety and durability. As mentioned above, NHTSA
requests comments on other test methods and metrics on which to base
ratings of safety and durability.
We request comment on what format to require tire manufacturers to
submit data. NHTSA intends to require submission of data in a uniform
format to ensure that all information is provided, and for ease of
database entry. NHTSA is proposing 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. However, the
agency is 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, including tire
fuel economy data submissions. The agency seeks comment on the
feasibility of using both a spreadsheet template and an online data
reporting system for having tire manufactures submit data for the fuel
efficiency consumer information program ratings.
2. Tire Labels
We are also proposing two alternatives for tire manufacturers to
present the required rating information on a paper label affixed to
each subject replacement tire. First, a tire manufacturer may place the
required rating graphic somewhere on the paper labels already required
to be affixed to each individual tire by UTQGS requirements.\145\
Second, a tire manufacturer could fulfill the tire fuel efficiency
labeling requirements by affixing a separate paper label with just the
tire fuel efficiency label graphic on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\145\ See 49 CFR 575.104(d)(i)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regardless of which alternative is chosen by the tire manufacturer,
we are proposing to specify a minimum size for the tire fuel efficiency
rating system graphic (4.5 inches high and 5.5 inches wide) and that
the graphic must be in color on the label.
The minimum size specification is proposed to ensure that the
rating graphic will be legible on the label. The reason that we are
proposing the graphic appear in color is because consumers reacted
positively to the red shading on the lower/left side of the scale to
indicate lower ratings, and to the green shading on the higher/right
side of the scale to indicate higher ratings.
NHTSA requests comments on whether the label requirement should be
more specific regarding precisely when tire manufacturers must affix
the label.

E. Requirements for Tire Retailers and Tire Manufacturers With an
Internet Presence

There are tire retailers with virtual storefronts, as well as
retailers and manufacturers that maintain Web sites that consumers can
use to research tires. Because NHTSA believes that many consumers use
the Internet to do at least a minimal amount of research in some
situations before they need to purchase tires, we are proposing to
require that tire retailers and tire manufacturers that maintain Web
sites must include a link to the comprehensive tire Web site that NHTSA
plans to develop (see section VIII.B.4 below).
NHTSA requests comments on what additional requirements, if any,
should apply to such Web sites. For example, should NHTSA require the
Web site to include an electronic version of the poster NHTSA is
proposing to require retailers with a display room to display? The
poster would be provided in an electronic format by NHTSA when printed
copies are provided as discussed above.

F. Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards

As mentioned above, NHTSA has a tire rating system that has been in
place since 1975, the uniform tire quality grading standards
(UTQGS).\146\ NHTSA established the UTQGS to fulfill a statutory
requirement established by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle

[[Page 29574]]

Safety Act of 1966.\147\ This statutory requirement has been codified
and amended to read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\146\ See 49 CFR 575.104 (2008).
\147\ See National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966,
Public Law 89-563, Sec. 203, 80 Stat. 718 (1966) (codified as
amended at 49 U.S.C. 30123(b)).

The Secretary shall prescribe through standards a uniform
quality grading system for motor vehicle tires to help consumers
make an informed choice when purchasing tires. The Secretary also
shall cooperate with industry and the Federal Trade Commission to
the greatest extent practicable to eliminate deceptive and confusing
tire nomenclature and marketing practices. A tire standard or
regulation prescribed under this chapter supersedes an order or
administrative interpretation of the Commission.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\148\ 49 U.S.C. 30123(b).

The UTQGS, applicable to passenger car tires, require motor vehicle
and tire manufacturers to provide consumers with information about
their tires' relative performance regarding treadwear, traction, and
temperature resistance. Manufacturers are required to rate their tires
based on performance in specified test procedures, to report those
ratings to NHTSA, to permanently mold those ratings onto sidewalls, to
attach a label containing those ratings on replacement tires, and to
provide information about the UTQGS with tires and new motor vehicles.
The treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance characteristics
were chosen by NHTSA for rating under the UTQGS because the agency
believed they provided the best balance of tire properties for
meaningful evaluation by consumers. As previously discussed for the
characteristics affected by today's proposals, those characteristics
interact with each other such that improvement of one of them could
reduce performance of one of the others.
As NHTSA is proposing to base today's proposed safety and
durability ratings on them, traction and treadwear were discussed
above. The UTQGS temperature rating indicates the tire's resistance to
the generation of heat and its ability to dissipate heat. Sustained
high temperature can cause the material of the tire to degrade and
reduce tire life, and excessive temperature can lead to sudden tire
failure. Tires are tested under controlled conditions on a high-speed
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.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\149\ UTQGS requires tires to be rated a C if they perform at
the lowest level in the UTQGS test. If a tire performs at a higher
level the manufacturer may rate the tire a B. Therefore, while there
may still be grade C tires on the market, NHTSA expects that the
tires could be rated a B, based on the requirements of FMVSS 139.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1995, NHTSA proposed amendments to the UTQGS.\150\ At that time,
NHTSA proposed, based on comments from the public,\151\ to remove the
temperature resistance rating and to add a fuel efficiency rating. It
was believed that the temperature resistance rating was not as well
understood by consumers as the treadwear and traction ratings.\152\ The
rulemaking was terminated \153\ because Congress placed a condition in
NHTSA's 1996 appropriations Act that stated ``none of the funds
appropriated by this Act may be obligated or expended to plan,
finalize, or implement any rulemaking to add to [the UTQGS] any
requirement pertaining to a grading standard that is different from the
three grading standards (treadwear, traction, and temperature
resistance) already in effect.'' \154\ This language has been included
in every DOT Appropriations Act since 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\150\ 60 FR 27472 (May 24, 1995).
\151\ See Request for Comments, 59 FR 19686 (Apr. 25, 1994).
\152\ Id. at 19689.
\153\ See 61 FR 47437 (Sept. 9, 1996).
\154\ Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996, Public Law 104-50, 109
Stat. 436 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In developing today's proposal under EISA, the agency considered
the need and appropriateness of continuing the current UTQGS
requirements. For the reasons discussed below, we have tentatively
concluded that the current UTQGS requirements should either be removed,
once tires meet the new EISA requirements, or amended to conform to the
approach in today's EISA proposal.
For two of the three UTQGS ratings, today's proposal would
establish parallel but different ratings. Thus, consumers would be
receiving the same basic information, but in two different ways. For
the treadwear rating, the durability rating proposed in this notice is
simply a different way of expressing the same rating. For the traction
rating, the safety rating proposed in this notice is based on the same
test procedure; however, the ratings are based on different
measurements, both of which are recorded by the equipment used in the
UTQGS test procedure.
If the agency maintained the current UTQGS ratings in these areas,
there would be concerns about consumer confusion as well as unnecessary
duplication. For example, with both systems in place, a consumer would
see one scale (e.g., letter grades for traction) on the UTQGS label and
on the tire sidewall, but on the tire fuel efficiency label the
consumer would see a safety (i.e., traction) rating on a different
scale (0 to 100). Similarly, the consumer would get a treadwear grade
on the UTQGS label and on the tire sidewall, but would get the same
grade expressed on a different scale (0 to 100) on the tire fuel
efficiency label.
As to the third UTQGS rating, i.e., temperature resistance, NHTSA
notes that 80 percent of current tires are graded either A or B. As
discussed previously, the new performance standards for passenger car
tires will result in only grade A or B tires in the market. Therefore,
the rating does not provide much comparative information. Moreover, for
reasons discussed in the 1995 NPRM,\155\ we believe this rating has
limited relevance to consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\155\ See 60 FR 27472, 27478-27481.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given the above discussion, we are requesting comments on two
alternatives. Under the first alternative, the current UTQGS
requirements would be removed once tires meet the new EISA
requirements. While the new requirements we are proposing today would
be issued under the authority of EISA, we believe the ratings system
proposed in this document for durability (treadwear) and safety (wet
traction) serve the same purposes as the corresponding existing UTQGS
ratings.
We note that, unlike the current UTQGS requirements, manufacturers
would not be required to permanently mold the EISA ratings onto tire
sidewalls or provide information for tires on new motor vehicles.
However, we have tentatively concluded that, given the purposes of both
UTQGS and the EISA ratings, i.e., helping consumers make informed
choices in purchasing tires, and the ways that the relevant information
would be available (including the paper label on replacement tires and
a government Web site), these differences would not be a reason to
maintain the current UTQGS requirements.
Under the second alternative, the current UTQGS requirements would
be amended to conform to the approach in today's EISA proposal. We
would replace the existing UTQGS treadwear and traction ratings with
the ratings proposed in today's notice for durability (treadwear) and
safety (wet traction), and the rating for temperature resistance would
be removed. The requirement for UTQGS information to be provided on a
tire tread surface label would be

[[Page 29575]]

written broadly enough that if the ratings were provided on the EISA
label they need not be provided on a separate UTQGS label. Under this
alternative, we would also remove the requirement for the UTQGS ratings
to be molded on the tire sidewalls. We believe this requirement is
duplicative and results in unnecessary costs. For replacement tires,
the ratings would be provided on the paper label. While we question
whether there is a need to provide this information for the tires on
new vehicles, we request comments on this issue. We also request
comments on the most appropriate way to require the information to be
provided, should we decide to continue to do so. Finally, as part of
this alternative, we would make any necessary conforming changes to the
other UTQGS requirements.
We note that our proposed regulatory text does not include changes
with respect to removing or revising the current UTQGS requirements. If
this part of the proposal is adopted as a final rule, we would make the
necessary changes in the final rule's regulatory text.
In developing this aspect of our proposal, we have specifically
considered 49 U.S.C. 30123(b) (the statutory requirements concerning
UTQGS), 49 U.S.C. 32304A (Consumer Tire Information, i.e., the relevant
part of EISA), and the current DOT Appropriations Act. As to the
language of the DOT Appropriations Act, discussed earlier, we construe
that language to prohibit us from adding to the UTQGS program any new
grading standards beyond those currently in effect (treadwear,
traction, and temperature resistance), but not from removing current
standards or making minor modifications in the current standards, such
as those discussed above under the second alternative. We note that the
fuel efficiency rating proposed by today's document would be issued
solely under the authority of EISA, i.e., it would not be part of the
UTQGS program under any of the alternatives we are considering.

VIII. NHTSA's Consumer Education Program

As noted elsewhere in the notice, section 111 of EISA requires that
the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program for replacement
tires include ``a national tire maintenance consumer education program
including, information on tire inflation pressure, alignment, rotation,
and treadwear to maximize fuel efficiency, safety, and durability of
replacement tires.'' 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(2)(D). In order to develop the
most effective communication materials to comply with this requirement,
the agency conducted consumer testing in January 2009 on informational
materials and potential tire labeling.\156\ The goals of this research
were to (1) explore reactions to consumer expectations for a tire fuel
efficiency rating program; (2) measure feedback related to the
effectiveness of the communication materials used to convey the tire
labeling information; and (3) gauge consumer preferences of tire label
designs presented to determine how best to design a consumer friendly
label for the program. Consumers have expressed interest in ways this
new information should be conveyed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\156\ NHTSA Rolling Resistance Focus Group Report (January
2008). This report will be posted to the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA is using consumer testing research to help maximize consumer
understanding of the program and to develop communication materials to
assist consumers in making more educated tire purchasing decisions.
NHTSA requests comments on the most effective way to establish and
implement a consumer education program to fulfill the statutory
requirements and purposes behind today's proposed tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program.

A. Previous Tire Consumer Education Efforts

NHTSA has long recognized the importance of consumer education in
the area of tire maintenance. The Uniform Tire Quality Grading
Standards (UTQGS) ratings, which are molded onto passenger car tire
sidewalls, allow consumers to compare tire treadwear, traction
performance, and temperature resistance. UTQGS consumer information
includes a booklet published annually with comparative UTGQS ratings
for all passenger car tires. NHTSA's consumer based Web site,
Safercar.gov, features a tire lookup database with these comparative
ratings to assist consumers in purchasing new or replacement vehicle
tires.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\157\ See http://www.safercar.gov/portal/site/safercar/menuitem.13dd5c887c7e1358fefe0a2f35a67789/?vgnextoid=9f4baa8c16e35110VgnVCM1000002fd17898RCRD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The What's Your PSI? campaign launched in 2005 challenged consumers
to learn the correct pressure for their vehicle's tires and to help
them maintain proper pressure. Campaign materials included a brochure
distributed by tire safety partners throughout the country and
interactive online tire quiz. These materials are available online
through the Safercar.gov Web site.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\158\ See http://www.safercar.gov/portal/site/safercar/menuitem.13dd5c887c7e1358fefe0a2f35a67789/?vgnextoid=eac9aa8c16e35110VgnVCM1000002fd17898RCRD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2008, NHTSA revised the Tire Safety: Everything Rides On It
brochure, published in 2001. This brochure was published as a consumer
information tool to inform vehicle owners of tire pressure, load
limits, and maintenance. It is also a guidebook that helps consumers
make informed decisions on tire repair and maintenance procedures.\159\
The agency has partnered with industry and retail partners to
distribute the brochure. Additionally in 2008, NHTSA urged drivers to
check their tires during hot weather via a public service announcement
(PSA). The PSA was featured on NHTSA.gov and Safercar.gov, warning of
potential tire failure associated with under-inflation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\159\ See http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/tiresafety/ridesonit/tires_index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Potential Future Consumer Education Efforts

1. What Information Should NHTSA Convey?
In addition to the information dissemination requirements for tire
manufacturers and tire retailers discussed above in section VII of this
notice, NHTSA intends to actively communicate the importance of tire
maintenance generally, including tire inflation pressure, alignment,
rotation, and other tire issues.
All tires require proper inflation and maintenance to achieve their
intended levels of efficiency, safety, wear, and operating
performance.\160\ NHTSA has previously addressed the importance of
proper tire inflation to safety and fuel economy through PSAs.
Additionally, in 2005, NHTSA published a final rule mandating tire
pressure monitoring systems (TPMS) for all new automobiles by the 2008
model year.\161\ TPMS, however, is no substitution for proper tire
maintenance. Despite the fact that all new vehicles are equipped with a
TPMS, NHTSA believes that proper tire maintenance is still the most
important information to convey to consumers. Smaller reductions in
inflation pressure than measured by the TPMS can affect not only fuel
efficiency, but also tire lifespan and vehicle handling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\160\ 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 5.
\161\ See 70 FR 18136 (April 8, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While past consumer information efforts have been effective in
communicating the importance of tire safety and maintenance, the agency

[[Page 29576]]

plans to improve on these efforts by using innovative methods of
dissemination for a new national tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program. According to the agency's recent research,
consumers reacted positively to receiving this information in the
following ways: Point of sale, interactive mediums, and via the
Internet.
2. Point of Sale
While NHTSA is partially addressing the presentation of consumer
education information through the requirements for manufacturers and
tire retailers proposed in today's notice, tire fuel efficiency rating
information may additionally be displayed at kiosks, on overhead
posters, tire plaques, or in advertisements at the point of purchase
(everywhere tires are sold--tire retailers, dealers, online,
manufacturer Web sites). These displays would highlight key information
to be aware of and useful tips to note when shopping to buy replacement
tires. NHTSA plans to develop informative posters and brochures that it
will make available on its Web site for tire manufacturers and tire
retailers to download and make available to educate consumers.
Moreover, as noted above, the agency plans to provide specific size
and design requirements for a paper label with fuel efficiency, safety,
and durability ratings to accompany each tire. A template would be
supplied to tire manufacturers for their inclusion of these ratings on
the label. A similar agency program, Stars On Cars, requires
manufacturers to post vehicle crash test rating information on a
vehicle's window sticker.
3. Interactive Mediums
NHTSA's consumer research shows that a calculator that would show
the amount of fuel and money a driver would save by buying a higher
rated fuel efficiency tire annually, or over the estimated lifetime of
the tire, appeals to consumers. This calculator might be available
online, at a dealership, or a tire retailer. Using the calculator, a
consumer could select tires to compare, enter the fuel economy of their
vehicle (mpg) and the average number of miles they drive each year and
even the dollar amount they are paying for fuel and get a calculation
of differences in fuel usage and/or money saved for the tires under
comparison. In the example shown in Figure 14, gallons saved is
calculated assuming Tire A provides the input gas consumption and Tire
B provides the average gas savings per pound force found in the NHTSA
study (~0.085% per pound).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.013

4. Web Site Development
The agency's Safercar.gov consumer Web site currently provides
information on tire safety. Due to the amount of content available on
tires, NHTSA plans to consolidate all tire information into a dedicated
one-stop micro-site focusing on tires. The core message of the site
would be tire maintenance--information on its importance in terms of
safety, fuel efficiency, tire life and vehicle handling as well as tips
on how best to maintain tires. The site would then make it easier for a
consumer to locate various information regarding tires.
The new site would also be the location for all of NHTSA's
information about tire fuel efficiency. From its new comprehensive tire
Web site, NHTSA also plans to link to other government Web sites that
discuss energy efficiency and consumer products and appliances, so that
upon visiting the government's comprehensive tire Web site, consumers
have the opportunity to learn about fuel efficient vehicles, energy
saving practices, and the energy efficiency of other consumer products,
as well as fuel efficient tires. These may include, but are not limited
to, EPA's Green Vehicle Guide, http://fueleconomy.gov, and the
government's Energy Star Web site.
NHTSA plans to develop a link to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
about the tire fuel efficiency rating system. Similar to the UTQGS tire
lookup tool on Safercar.gov, NHTSA plans to develop a Web-based tire
fuel efficiency search database, which would be a useful tool for
consumers to compare tires prior to visiting a retailer.
The database would also be a site for retailers to obtain
information to assist their customers. A dealer could satisfy the
proposed requirements to have ratings information available when
presenting comparative tire information by providing a computer kiosk
linked to NHTSA's Web site for customers to use while in their store.
5. Paper Brochure Materials
NHTSA intends to publish a brochure to inform consumers about the
tire fuel efficiency ratings program, where to obtain the ratings, as
well as other related information. NHTSA would make this brochure
available on its Web site for tire retailers who wish to print it and
use it in their stores. The agency will also explore other avenues of
distribution to inform future tire purchasers of the availability of
this new information. Promoting awareness of this tire information will
allow

[[Page 29577]]

consumers to spend time carrying out research prior to visiting a tire
retailer.
6. Partnership Development
NHTSA will work with existing partners and identify new ones to
help promote tire fuel efficiency campaign messages. NHTSA will seek to
partner with any interested tire retailers, State or local governments,
as well as manufacturers who share NHTSA's goal of promoting the
importance of proper tire maintenance. NHTSA will also seek to partner
with any interested universities or high schools who may wish to
educate students regarding tire fuel efficiency or proper tire
maintenance. Many high school and college students have used vehicles
with replacement tires and, thus, they are definitely a target audience
for consumer education regarding proper tire maintenance.
These partners will help to distribute those messages to a broader
audience than the agency can do alone. These third-party relationships
also build credibility and awareness among the media, which in turn
helps expand reach. The agency will develop a toolkit that partners can
use when packaging materials for consumer education efforts.
Further, EPA's SmartWay program has experience in transportation
marketing and forming partnership programs.\162\ EPA has experience
with general public outreach and has reached out to NHTSA seeking to
integrate NHTSA's tire fuel efficiency consumer information program
with EPA's similar efforts in its SmartWay Transport program. NHTSA and
EPA believe that a more integrated outreach effort from the Federal
government will best assist consumers in educating themselves about
tire maintenance and fuel efficiency, and thus in making more informed
purchasing decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\162\ See http://www.epa.gov/smartway/index.htm (last accessed
June 4, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Exhibits and Conferencing
NHTSA currently exhibits at a number of auto-related shows and
conferences throughout the year. These shows provide an opportunity to
distribute campaign materials and interface with consumers interested
in vehicle safety information. NHTSA also gives consumers a walkthrough
of agency Web sites to demonstrate how to find information. NHTSA will
use these conference environments to promote the tire fuel efficiency
consumer education program.
The agency also plans on looking into distributing educational
flyers promoting NHTSA's tire education Web site to highly congested
events where large amounts of people drive their vehicles to attend,
such as professional sporting events.
8. Local Education Programs
NHTSA proposes to establish a line of communication with its
regional and local offices and develop a plan that reaches out to the
local universities and high schools in the States to deliver
presentations made available by NHTSA officials. NHTSA plans to
distribute educational material such as brochures and FAQs to each
student body. The reason NHTSA wishes to reach out to university and
high school students, is because the agency believes that this target
audience highly uses replacement tires.

IX. Costs and Benefits

A. Costs \163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\163\ All costs discussed below are presented in 2008 economics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are three sets of costs involved for manufacturer: Costs to
test tires to obtain rating information, costs of the consumer
information and, assuming the program drives the market to demand
different tires, costs to improve tires. Costs for the first two
categories are estimated to be around $10.5 million annually, with one-
time costs of around $4 million.
As discussed more thoroughly below under benefits, the costs for
the third category are difficult to estimate. There are many different
ways that a manufacturer might choose to improve the rolling resistance
rating of their tires. The agency estimates that the increased cost at
the consumer level of such improvements is $2.00 to $4.00 per tire for
tires subject to this regulation if all other tire properties were held
constant.\164\ However, total costs for this category are dependent on
market demand for different tires as a result of this program. The PRIA
estimates that between 2 and 10 percent of the targeted tire population
will be improved as a result of the proposal. Under this assumption and
using a cost of $3 to improve the rolling resistance of one tire, the
costs to improve tires are estimated to be between $8.4 and $42
million. The agency requests comments on this cost estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\164\ This is the cost to reduce rolling resistance by 10
percent from today's average replacement tire rolling resistance,
holding other tire properties constant. Using silica is a well known
method. There are a variety of ways to improve rolling resistance
and not hold other properties constant, with different cost
implications. That is one reason that the agency feels it is
important to have rolling resistance, traction, and treadwear on the
same label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on a report from Smithers Scientific Services, Inc. presented
at the February 5, 2009 Staff Workshop for the California Energy
Commission's Fuel Efficient Tire Program, there are 20,708 tires that
would need to be tested initially to provide information. If each one
of these were tested once for tire rolling resistance, the initial
costs to the industry would be $3,727,000. Based upon the average
number of reports the agency receives under the UTQGS program, the
agency estimates that 125 new/redesigned tires will need to be tested
annually, for ongoing testing costs of $22,500. Since the UTQGS already
requires testing for treadwear and traction, those costs are already in
the baseline and are not incremental costs of this proposal.
Information program costs include manufacturer costs to report
information to NHTSA and to label tires. Tire manufacturers are
required to provide information to NHTSA on the rating system. We are
proposing to require manufacturers to report to NHTSA for each tire
that is individually rated under this tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program data on each of the three ratings: fuel efficiency,
traction, and treadwear. In the early warning system (EWR) there are 28
tire manufacturers that report. Each manufacturer will need to set up
the software in a computer program to combine the testing information,
organize it for NHTSA's use, etc. We estimate this cost to be a one-
time charge of about $10,000 per company. In the EWR analysis, we
estimated the annual cost per report per tire manufacturer to be $287.
There are also computer maintenance costs of keeping the data up to
date, etc. as tests come in throughout the year. In the EWR
analysis,\165\ we estimated costs of $3,755 per year per company. Thus,
the total annual cost is estimated to be $4,042 per company, and
$280,000 + $113,176 = $393,176 for the first year and $113,176 as an
annual cost for all 28 tire manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\165\ Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation, Tread Act Amendments to
Early Warning Reporting Regulation Part 579 and Defect and
Noncompliance Part 573, August 2008, (Docket No. 2008-0169-0007.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposal also requires a color label to be added to the current
label that is glued onto a tire. The label will have the three scales
in color and other information. We estimate the incremental cost of
adding the color label to the existing label to be $0.05 per tire. We
assume it will not change the way the label is attached to the tire, so

[[Page 29578]]

will not result in additional labor at the tire manufacturer plant.
There are roughly 200 million replacement tires sold per year.\166\
We estimate that 5 percent (10 million) of the replacement tires are LT
tires, and therefore not covered by this proposal, and 4.5 percent (9
million) of the replacement tires are snow tires or other types of
tires that are exempt from the consumer information program. Thus, the
cost to provide consumer information on a label is estimated to be
$9.05 million ($0.05*181 million).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\166\ According to Modern Tire Dealer in 2008, there were 198
million replacement tires sold. http://www.moderntiredealer.com/FAQ/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For tire retailers, the agency estimates that this proposal would
have no cost. The only proposed requirements for retailers are to leave
the label on the tire until it is sold and to display a poster. Since
manufacturers will supply the label, and NHTSA will supply the poster,
there should be no cost to retailers.
There are three sets of costs to the government: Enforcement costs,
costs for maintaining the Web site, and costs to provide the poster to
retailers. NHTSA anticipates spending $730,000 annually to do
compliance testing for this program. Based on costs for the existing
areas of the NHTSA Web site, NHTSA estimates that it will cost
approximately $550,000 per year to set up and update the part of the
Web site to include information on 20,000 tires. For the poster, NHTSA
currently provides a booklet to tire dealers with the UTQGS
information. That booklet is on 8.5 x 11 paper
and is 141 pages long. The printing costs are $3,190 per year. NHTSA
anticipates that providing the posters would be a similar expense.
Therefore, the combined costs to the government are estimated to be
$1.28 million.

B. Benefits

There are three categories of potential benefits (or disbenefits)
from this rule: Fuel economy, safety and durability. For each of these
categories a significant unknown is likely consumer behavior in
response to this program, and as a result of that, likely manufacturer
reaction. For example, if consumers value fuel efficiency but are
unwilling to increase the price they pay for tires, tires with improved
fuel efficiency but decreased safety and/or durability may enter the
market. If consumers care most about safety, and if there is a tradeoff
between fuel economy and safety, one effect of this rule may be to
increase safety while decreasing fuel economy. NHTSA would have to
quantify the value of all three categories of benefits/disbenefits
under such a scenario and construct a range of likely scenarios to
calculate the combined potential benefits of this rule. Other scenarios
can also be imagined. NHTSA requests comments on how it might more
narrowly analyze the uncertainty regarding the anticipated outcomes of
this proposal.
In addition to the unknown reactions of consumers and
manufacturers, calculating benefits is complicated by several
additional factors. We explain these additional complications for each
of the three rating systems in the remainder of this section. In each
of these discussions we consider how to compute the benefit of a
difference of X points on the particular rating scale.
For fuel economy, one of the reasons the agency is basing the fuel
efficiency rating on RRF rather than RRC is that it allows the program
to readily provide consumers with a statement such as ``a difference of
X on the fuel efficiency rating scale equates to Y gallons of fuel
saved.'' To calculate benefits for an individual tire purchase, if the
driver knows the baseline fuel economy of the vehicle the tires will be
mounted on, the fuel efficiency rating of the existing tires, the fuel
efficiency rating of the replacement tires, and the number of miles
driven annually, the driver can calculate the reduction (or increase)
in the number of gallons of fuel the driver will need to operate the
vehicle for a year. By using fuel price forecasts, you can estimate the
cost of that fuel, and make an economic decision about whether or not
to buy those replacement tires.
To calculate fuel savings benefits for this rule, we would need to
know how many consumers are likely to purchase lower (or higher) fuel
efficiency rated tires as a result of the information in this program
and the average reduction (or increase) in rolling resistance of the
tires they purchase. The agency is planning to do additional consumer
testing or other means to help it estimate the expected consumer
reaction to this program. The PRIA develops hypothetical estimates
assuming that between 2% and 10% of targeted tires are improved and
that the average reduction in rolling resistance among improved tires
is between 5% and 10%. Under these assumptions, the proposal is
estimated to save between 7.9 and 78 million gallons of fuel and
prevent the emission of 76,000-757,000 metric tons of CO2
annually. The values of the fuel savings are between $22 million and
$220 million at a 3 percent discount rate and between $20 million and
$203 million at a 7 percent discount rate. The agency requests any
information commenters may have about how to estimate consumer reaction
and fuel savings.
Benefit estimates for the safety rating are more difficult to
quantify. As noted, information is lacking about likely consumer
responses to the proposed label. Even if such information were
available, it is not as straight forward as it is for a fuel efficiency
rating to develop a rule of thumb for the safety rating scale such as
``each difference of X on the safety rating scale equates to Y percent
fewer crashes and Z dollars less in resultant economic damages.'' One
possible way to do this would be to try and correlate a rating with a
set stopping distance, and then estimate the reduction in crash
injuries and fatalities resulting from a given reduction in stopping
distance. The latter could be done by developing an injury probability
profile for crashes as a function of impact speed (Delta-V) and measure
the change in Delta-V that would occur when braking distance is
changed. The agency has used this method to measure safety impacts in 2
previous rulemakings, those for Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems
(TPMSs),\167\ and for truck trailer braking improvements.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\167\ Final Economic Assessment, Tire Pressure Monitoring System
FMVSS No. 138, Office of Regulatory Analysis and Evaluation, Plans
and Policy, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. (March, 2002), Docket
No. NHTSA-2002-8572-0216.
\168\ Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake
Systems Amending Stopping Distance, Office of Regulatory Analysis
and Evaluation, National Center for Statistics and Analysis (Not Yet
Published).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, these calculations are complicated by the fact that they
depend on other factors (in addition to the traction rating of the
tires) such as the handling characteristics of the vehicle on which
they are mounted, the force with which the brakes are applied, and the
loading of the vehicle. To put a tire's safety rating information on an
economic scale, all of these characteristics would have to be assumed
for all tires. But in reality, there is not a single vehicle that all
replacement tires can be mounted on. We invite comments on these
important issues, but we are concerned that the difference between two
such tire safety ratings would not reflect the same economic difference
in terms of safety, where the tires were mounted on two different types
of vehicles. What we can communicate with the proposed rating is that
tires with better traction ratings stop in less distance than tires
with worse ratings. And as noted, the societal safety impacts depend on
consumer and

[[Page 29579]]

manufacturer reactions to the program. We seek comments on all of these
questions.
For durability, the rating is a relative rating compared to a
control tire, which would be rated 10 on our scale. A tire rated 20
should last twice as long as a tire rated a 10 and so forth. Several
assumptions would need to be made to develop a rule of thumb for the
durability rating scale of the form ``each difference of X on the
durability rating scale equates to equates to a reduction of $Y in tire
purchases over the lifetime of the vehicle.'' Tire lifetimes are
complicated by factors such as: The vehicle the tire is mounted on,
driving habits, tire maintenance, weather/environment/temperature, etc.
NHTSA could however come up with a set scenario and come up with
mileage estimates if the tires are driven as in that scenario. Drivers
could translate that into a reduction in tire purchase costs over the
lifetime of a vehicle given the price of the tires being considered--a
$50 tire that is expected to last 10,000 miles would have the same
expected lifetime cost (over the life of a vehicle) as a $100 tire that
is expected to last 20,000 miles.

X. Lead time

While manufacturers currently calculate the rolling resistance of
at least some tires for vehicle manufacturers to use when selecting
which tires to equip new vehicles with, NHTSA believes that lead time
is necessary for tire manufacturers to conduct additional testing and
to prepare rating information for all affected tires. In addition, time
will be necessary for NHTSA to collect all reported rating information
into a database and to prepare consumer information materials.
On February 5, 2009, at a CEC staff workshop on their Fuel
Efficient Tire Program, Smithers Scientific Services, Inc. (Smithers)
presented the results of research done for the CEC to evaluate test
facility capacity to conduct rolling resistance testing. Smithers based
their analysis on current availability at independent laboratories, and
also an estimate of test machine availability at manufacturer-owned
laboratories. Depending on the scenario evaluated, they estimated that
testing all affected tires would take 0.7 to 8.2 years.
NHTSA notes that Smithers' evaluation included some factors that
are different from today's proposed Federal program. First, Smithers
assumed that three tests would be required for each tire, while the
program we are proposing today would only require a single test.
Second, the proposal was based on estimates of both passenger car and
light truck tires, while today's proposal only applies to passenger car
tires.\169\ Adjusting for these two factors, the Smithers data would
suggest that manufacturers need 0.2 to 2.4 years to test one
replacement passenger car tire of each different size specification, as
proposed in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\169\ Smithers estimated that there were 62,124 passenger car
tires and 9,888 light truck tires that would need to be tested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA believes this number may still be an over-estimate of the
time needed to test and rate all tires affected by this proposed
program. Based on our research, NHTSA estimates it may be possible that
less than 25 percent of the affected tires will have to be tested in
accordance with the ISO 28580 procedures in order to rate them for this
program. It is likely that manufacturers will be able to develop
equations to calculate the effect of differences in tread pattern,
etc., and use those equations to compute the test results from ISO
28580 from other tires that have been tested. Tire manufacturers will
be able to extrapolate estimates of the test procedure values from
knowing the test procedure values of similar sized tires. In addition,
manufacturers already have rolling resistance information on many, if
not all tires, as this information is used by vehicle manufacturers
when choosing which tires to install as original equipment. Even if
these data were gathered using other test methods, NHTSA's research
shows that equations can translate the data to the test procedure
specified in this rule. Recognizing that the deadlines imposed by
Congress in EISA indicate a desire to have information available to
consumers as quickly as possible, NHTSA is therefore proposing to
require manufacturers to report on all existing tires within 12 months
of the issuance of a final regulation.
For new tires introduced after the effective date of this rule,
NHTSA is proposing to require reporting of information at least 30 days
prior to introducing the tire for sale, as is required for UTQGS
information.
Regarding the poster NHTSA is proposing to require in retailers
that have a display room, the agency is proposing to make this poster
available within 12 months of the issuance of a final regulation. At
that time NHTSA will publish a Federal Register notice announcing the
availability of the poster. The agency is proposing that a tire
retailer must have the poster on display within 60 days of the issuance
of the notice of availability in the Federal Register. We are proposing
that a tire retailer will be able to comply with the requirement of
displaying the poster either by downloading and printing it, in color
and with the specifications from NHTSA's Web site, or by contacting the
agency and requesting that we send the retailer a copy of the poster.
For tire retailers and tire manufacturers with an Internet
presence, NHTSA is proposing that those Web sites link to NHTSA's tire
Web site within 12 months of the issuance of a final regulation. NHTSA
will provide the direct link to the comprehensive tire Web site in that
final regulation.

XI. Compliance Tolerances

The test procedure proposed in this notice is the one NHTSA will
use for compliance testing. Today's notice also proposes tolerances for
RRF, traction, and treadwear which indicate what NHTSA is proposing to
consider a noncompliance for the reporting and rating requirements if
there is a difference between NHTSA's test result and a reported
rating. In establishing tolerances, at this state of the rulemaking
process, the agency has considered the repeatability of a tire tested
as well as the variability of machine-to-machine tests, lab-to-lab
tests, and the potential for different results due to different
manufacturing dates.
For UTQGS, NHTSA specifies a test procedure for each rating. For
traction and temperature resistance, the regulation then sets a
performance level at which the tire must be rated a C, and higher
levels at which the manufacturer may rate it a B, A, or in the case of
Traction AA. The regulation was written this way as an acknowledgement
of some level of necessary variability in the manufacture of tires. For
tires that perform near a performance level that would allow a higher
traction grade, the regulation allows the manufacturer to ``underrate''
to allow for the possibility that NHTSA might select a tire for
compliance testing that would perform at the lower level.
For a consumer that purchases, for example, a B-rated tire and
receives a tire that actually performs better than expected, there is
no concern. However, there is some concern that a consumer may choose
to pay extra for a B-rated tire when a comparable tire is
``underrated'' as a ``C.'' Thus, for the UTQGS definition of
compliance, there is a risk that ratings information communicated will
not be accurate.
Section 111 of EISA added a new sub-provision to 49 U.S.C. 32308
(General prohibitions, civil penalty, and enforcement) which provides
for civil

[[Page 29580]]

penalties of not more than $50,000 for each violation of the tire fuel
efficiency provisions. 49 U.S.C. 32308(c). Given this, in deciding how
to define what would be considered a noncompliance for the tire fuel
efficiency program, NHTSA tentatively has the concern that the program
not result in a situation where NHTSA would be taking enforcement
action against a manufacturer for the safety and durability ratings
under this program, when enforcement action would not be warranted for
UTQGS ratings based on the same test procedures. For this reason, NHTSA
is proposing to require the ratings reported by a manufacturer under
this proposed rule must be less than or equal to the rating determined
by the agency using the procedures specified in this rule.
However, as discussed previously, NHTSA's research allows the
agency to quantify the range of most of the variability that can be
expected when determining the RRF value for a tire. Similarly, based on
NHTSA experience conducting the traction and treadwear tests for the
UTQGS program, NHTSA believes it can determine the range of variation
for the safety and durability ratings proposed in this rule. NHTSA is
requesting comments on a requirement which would require the ratings
reported by a manufacturer to be within a specified tolerance limit as
explained below for each rating. Because of the concern with the
accuracy of the information being reported in this program, NHTSA is
also seeking comment on whether to consider a non-compliance to exist
when NHTSA's test value results in rating that is outside the tolerance
band, but is higher than the rating reported by tire manufacturer.

A. Fuel Efficiency

For the fuel efficiency rating, the agency is proposing a tolerance
for compliance purposes of plus and minus ()5.5 percent of
the rating set by the manufacturer. The agency bases this tolerance on
an analysis of in-house test data to date, while considering the
machine variability specification under ISO 28580, which is 0.05
Newtons per kiloNewton (N/kN) for RRC.
The agency selected a percentage tolerance because test data
revealed that the variability of testing a tire increases as the load
rating of the tire increases; this was found on multiple tests of the
same tires. It was found that the variability for a passenger car tire
with a mid-range load index had variability around the mean of 0.66 pounds-force (lbf) which translated to 95 percent of the
data being within 5.5 percent of the mean. A similar
analysis revealed that the same 5.5 percent was an
effective tolerance for the tires of lower and of higher load ranges,
as well. So, a small tire tested repeated times would reveal small RRF
variations, but within 5.5 percent of the mean, and a large
load range tire revealed larger RRF variations, but also within 5.5 percent range of its respective mean.
So for compliance purposes, the agency is proposing that the RRF
rating established by the manufacturer must be between 5.5
percent of the RRF revealed from agency testing. The agency
acknowledges that any RRF will be obtained from a tire that is
different from the tire or tires that the manufacturer used to
establish the reported RRF. In these cases, there will be new
variability introduced into the compliance testing of a production tire
from such factors as from machine-to-machine tests, lab-to-lab tests,
different manufacturing dates, different batches of material, and
possibly at different manufacturing plants. The agency does not have
sufficient data to comprehensively establish tolerances considering
these factors, so the agency solicits comments and proposals for a
tolerance that considers these factors, and requests that wherever
possible, supporting data is provided. The manufacturer will be
required to submit to the agency the RRF and the rating for each tire.

B. Safety

The calculation of the safety (i.e., traction) rating is discussed
in detail in section VI.B.1 of this notice. For compliance purposes,
the agency is proposing that the adjusted peak coefficient of friction
for asphalt ([micro]APA) and the adjusted peak coefficient
of friction for concrete ([micro]APC) must individually be
between 0.06 of the respective peak coefficients of
friction revealed from agency testing. These proposed tolerances are
based on agency test data wherein peak coefficients of friction for
asphalt and concrete were recorded, and the average and standard
deviation calculated for each.\170\ The standard deviation was doubled
and assigned a plus/minus tolerance to capture 95 percent of the data
for the tested tires for each surface; the tolerance for the concrete
was 0.06, and the tolerance for the asphalt was also 0.06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\170\ See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA
Tire Rolling Resistance Rating System Test Development Project:
Phase 2--Effects of Tire Rolling Resistance Levels on Traction,
Treadwear, and Vehicle Fuel Economy (February 2009). This Phase 2
research report will be placed in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The agency acknowledges that any adjusted peak coefficient of
friction result will be obtained from a tire that is different from the
tire or tires that the manufacturer used to establish the reported
adjusted peak coefficient of friction. In these cases, there will be
new variability introduced into the compliance testing of a production
tire from such factors as from machine-to-machine tests, lab-to-lab
tests, different manufacturing dates, different batches of material,
and possibly at different manufacturing plants. The agency does not
have sufficient data to comprehensively establish tolerances
considering these factors, so the agency solicits comments and
proposals for a tolerance that considers these factors, and requests
that wherever possible, supporting data is provided.
The agency also considered another approach to the safety (i.e.,
traction) rating calculation, and the agency solicits comment on this
approach, as well. This approach would require the manufacturer to
report to the values for both the peak and sliding (or locked-wheel)
coefficients of friction for both concrete and asphalt for each
separately rated tire. For each testing surface, the manufacturer will
report the coefficient acquired on that surface and a rating that is
calculated by dividing the average peak coefficient from the test tire
by the average peak coefficients from the control tires, times 100. The
data would be weighted based on the sequence of the test (candidate)
tires (T) and control (standard) tires (C). For example if the test
order was C1-T1-T2-C2, then the value used in obtaining the rating for
the first test tire would be T1/(\2/3\ C1 + \1/3\C2) and for the other
test tire T2/(\1/3\ C1 + \2/3\C2), each multiplied by 100. This gives a
value based on the relationship of the test tire and the control tires
that ran with it. This rating (one for asphalt and one for concrete)
would be added together and normalized on a 1 to 100 scale for the
final safety rating.

C. Durability

As explained above in section VI.B.1, NHTSA is proposing
calculating a durability (i.e., treadwear) rating by taking the UTQGS
treadwear rating (as specified in 49 CFR 575.104), and dividing by 10.
For compliance testing, the agency is proposing a tolerance on the
UTQGS wear rate of the tire of 2.5 mils per 1,000 miles as
defined in 49 CFR 575.104(e).
The agency proposes this compliance tolerance based on the wear
rates measured on the ASTM E1136 Course Monitoring Tire (CMT) from
testing as specified in 49 CFR 575.104(e). When

[[Page 29581]]

analyzed, the data revealed the standard deviation to be 0.84 mils per
1,000 miles, and normally, the agency would consider 2
standard deviations (1.6 mils per 1,000 miles) to be a suitable
tolerance, which would capture 95 percent of the data around the
average wear rate. However, the CMT is a limited production tire made
to tightened specifications, and the agency believes that this
justifies an expansion of the tolerance to 3 standard
deviations (2.5 mils per 1,000 miles) which will capture 99 percent of
the data around the average wear rate. For compliance purposes, the
wear rate established by the manufacturer must be between 2.5 mils per 1,000 miles of the wear rate revealed from agency
testing.
The agency acknowledges that any wear rate result will be obtained
from a tire that is different from the tire or tires that the
manufacturer used to establish the reported wear rate. In these cases,
there will be new variability introduced into the compliance testing of
a production tire from such factors as from machine-to-machine tests,
lab-to-lab tests, different manufacturing dates, different batches of
material, and possibly at different manufacturing plants. The agency
does not have sufficient data to comprehensively establish tolerances
considering these factors, so the agency solicits comments and
proposals for a tolerance that considers these factors, and requests
that wherever possible, supporting data is provided. The manufacturer
will be required to submit to the agency the wear rate from testing and
the durability rating it assigned for each tire.

XII. Regulatory Alternatives

Throughout sections specific to various portions of the tire fuel
efficiency consumer information program for replacement tires, NHTSA
has discussed other options considered by the agency.

XIII. Public Participation

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be
more than 15 pages long.\171\ We established this limit to encourage
you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you
may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no
limit on the length of the attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\171\ See 49 CFR 553.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please submit your comments by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on
the electronic docket site by clicking on ``Help'' or ``FAQ.''
Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: (202) 493-2251.
If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe)
file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using Optical
Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search
and copy certain portions of your submissions.\172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\172\ Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of
converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or
electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's
guidelines may be accessed at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/DataQualityGuidelines.pdf.

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

If you submit your comments by mail and wish Docket Management to
notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed,
stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon
receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by
mail.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. When you send a comment
containing information claimed to be confidential business information,
you should include a cover letter setting forth the information
specified in our confidential business information regulation.\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\173\ See 49 CFR part 512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted
the claimed confidential business information, to the Docket by one of
the methods set forth above.

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

We will consider all comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent
possible, we will also consider comments received after that date.
Therefore, if interested persons believe that any new information the
agency places in the docket affects their comments, they may submit
comments after the closing date concerning how the agency should
consider that information for the final rule.
If a comment is received too late for us to consider in developing
a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that
comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document
(e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other
interested persons) at any time by going to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also
read the materials at the Docket Management Facility by going to the
street address given above under ADDRESSES. The Docket Management
Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

XIV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, Oct. 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action''
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy,

[[Page 29582]]

productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local or Tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
We have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures. The annual effect on the economy of this
rulemaking depends on consumer and manufacturer responses to the
program. However, this rulemaking is significant due to public interest
in the issues. Therefore, this document was reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review.''
This document would amend 49 CFR part 575 by adding a new section
for requirements pursuant to the National Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer
Information Program. The agency has prepared a Preliminary Regulatory
Impact Analysis (PRIA) and placed it in the docket and on the agency's
Web site. There are two sets of costs involved: Costs to set up the
information program and provide consumer information and costs to
improve the rolling resistance of tires. Program costs are estimated to
be about $9.1 million per year. Costs per tire are estimated to range
from $2 to $4 per tire and average around $3 per tire. If 10 percent of
the target tire population (15 million tires) decreased their rolling
resistance, the annual cost would be $45 million. Assuming 10 percent
of tires improve their rolling resistance, the combined annual cost of
the program would be $54.1 million. For a further explanation of the
estimated costs, see the PRIA provided in the docket for this proposal.

B. National Environmental Policy Act

We have reviewed this proposal for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have a
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' 13 CFR 121.105(a). No regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act NHTSA has
evaluated the effects of this proposed rule on small entities. The head
of the agency has certified that the proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The following is NHTSA's statement providing the factual basis for the
certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). Tire manufacturers are not small
entities. Out of the 60,000 entities that sell tires, there are a
substantial number of tire dealers/retailers that are small entities.
However, the only part of the proposal with potential cost implications
for tire dealers/retailers is that those with display rooms must
display the program poster which NHTSA will provide. We do not believe
that this will result in a significant economic impact on tire dealers/
retailers.

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

NHTSA has examined today's proposed rule pursuant to Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132
requires agencies to determine the federalism implications of a
proposed rule.
The agency refers readers to section II.B.7 above, ``Application
with State and local laws and regulations.'' As noted there, given the
ambiguity of the statutory language regarding preemption, the agency is
sending a copy of this NPRM directly to the State of California, the
National Governor's Association, the National Conference of State
Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, and the National
Association of Attorneys General. As also noted there, NHTSA has
already generally consulted with counsel for the California Energy
Commission regarding various aspects of this agency's analysis of that
language.

E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' \174\
NHTSA has considered whether this rulemaking would have any retroactive
effect. This proposed rule does not have any retroactive effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\174\ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of a proposed or final rule that includes a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base
year of 1995). Adjusting this amount by the implicit gross domestic
product price deflator for 2007 results in $130 million (119.816/92.106
= 1.30).
Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is needed,
section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
agency publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.
This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, of more than $130
million annually, and will not result in the expenditure of that
magnitude by tire manufacturers and/or tire retailers. In promulgating
this proposal, NHTSA considered a variety of alternative tire fuel
efficiency rating systems and information dissemination requirement
options. NHTSA is statutorily required to establish a national tire
fuel efficiency rating program for the purpose of educating consumers
about the effect of tires on fuel efficiency, safety and durability.
NHTSA tentatively concludes that the proposed requirements are cost-
effective and the least burdensome way to fulfill the statutory
requirements of the program.

[[Page 29583]]

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid
OMB control number. The proposed rule would require manufacturers of
tires to provide data on tires to NHTSA and to attach labels to
replacement tires.
In compliance with the PRA, we announce that NHTSA is seeking
comment on a new information collection.
Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Title: 49 CFR part 575; Tire Fuel Efficiency.
OMB Control Number: Not assigned.
Form Number: The collection of this information uses no standard
form.
Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from the date of
approval.
Summary of the Collection of Information
NHTSA is proposing a new requirement in Part 575 which would
require tire manufacturers and tire brand name owners to rate all
replacement passenger car tires for fuel efficiency (i.e., rolling
resistance), safety (i.e., wet traction), and durability (i.e.,
treadwear), and submit reports to NHTSA regarding the test values on
which these ratings are based. The ratings for safety and durability
are based on test procedures specified under the UTQGS traction and
treadwear ratings requirements. This information would be used by
consumers of replacement passenger car tires to compare tire fuel
efficiency across different tires and examine any trade offs between
fuel efficiency (i.e., rolling resistance), safety (i.e., wet
traction), and durability (i.e., treadwear) in making their purchase
decisions.
The information would be provided in a couple different ways: (1) A
paper label of specified format affixed to the tread face of the new
tire; and (2) tire manufacturers would provide data to NHTSA under a
reporting requirement. Tire retailers would inform consumers of the
fuel efficiency rating system by displaying a poster that NHTSA would
print and distribute. NHTSA would make the ratings data available to
the public both in printed form and via the Internet.
Estimated Annual Burden
The label that NHTSA is proposing to require is already covered by
an existing information collection (OMB Control Number 2127-0519). The
agency estimates that the incremental cost of the additional
information required on the label manufacturers already affix to the
tire would be $.05 cents per label. Based on an estimate of 191 million
replacement tires sold annually that are affected by this proposal, the
cost of the label would be $9.55 million.
The next source of burden to manufacturers is the reporting costs.
NHTSA estimates that there are 28 tire manufacturers that will be
required to report. Each of these will need to set up the software in a
computer program to combine the testing information, organize it for
NHTSA's use, etc. We estimate this cost to be a one-time charge of
about $10,000 per company. Based on the costs used in the Early Warning
Reporting Regulation analysis,\175\ we estimate the annual cost per
report per tire manufacturer to be $287. There are also computer
maintenance costs of keeping the data up to date, etc., as tests come
in throughout the year. In the EWR analysis, we estimated costs of
$3,755 per year per company. Thus, the total annual cost is estimated
to be $4,042 per company. Thus the total costs would be $280,000 +
$113,176 = $393,176 for the first year and $113,176 as an annual cost
for the 28 tire manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\175\ Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation, Tread Act Amendments to
Early Warning Reporting Regulation Part 579 and Defect and
Noncompliance Part 573, August 2008 (Docket No. 2008-0169-0007.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The largest portion of the cost burden imposed by the tire fuel
efficiency program arises from the testing necessary to determine the
ratings that should be assigned to the tires. Two of the proposed tests
are already covered by an existing information collection (OMB Control
Number 2127-0519). The agency estimates that, at least initially, there
are 20,708 tires that would need to be tested to provide information
for the third rating. At a cost of approximately $180 per test, if each
one of these were tested once for tire rolling resistance, the costs to
the industry would be $3,727,000. After the first few years of this
program, the number of tires manufacturers will need to test annually
will probably decrease. Based upon the average number of reports the
agency receives under the UTQGS program, the agency estimates that 125
new/redesigned tires will need to be tested annually, for ongoing
testing costs of $22,500.
Estimated Annual Burden to the Government
The estimated annual cost to the Federal Government is $1.28
million. This cost includes $730,000 for enforcement testing, and about
$550,000 annually to set up and keep up to date a Web site that
includes the information reported to NHTSA.
Number of Respondents
There are approximately 28 manufacturers of replacement tires sold
in the United States.
Comments Are Invited On
Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the Department, including
whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of
the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information
collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the
information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. Please submit any comments to the NHTSA Docket Number
referenced in the heading of this document, and to Mary Versailles as
referenced in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document. Comments are due by August 21, 2009.

H. Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045 \176\ applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866,
and (2) concerns an environmental, health or safety risk that NHTSA has
reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of the proposed rule on
children, and explain why the proposed regulation is preferable to
other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\176\ 62 FR 19885 (Apr. 23, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This proposed rule does not pose such a risk for children. The
primary effects of this proposal are to conserve energy by educating
consumers to make better informed tire purchasing decisions.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would
be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g.,

[[Page 29584]]

the statutory provisions regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or
otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. Technical standards
are defined by the NTTAA as ``performance-based or design-specific
technical specification and related management systems practices.''
They pertain to ``products and processes, such as size, strength, or
technical performance of a product, process or material.''
Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus
standards bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM), the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use available
and potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, we are
required by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of
the reasons for not using such standards.
The notice proposes a national tire fuel efficiency rating system
for replacement passenger car tires to assist consumers in making more
educated tire purchasing decisions. For purposes of the fuel efficiency
rating determination, NHTSA proposed to base the rating determination
on a rolling resistance test method nearly finalized by ISO, ISO 28580:
Tyre Rolling Resistance measurement method--Single point test and
measurement result correlation--Designed to facilitate international
cooperation and, possibly, regulation building. The ISO is a worldwide
federation of national standards bodies that prepares standards through
technical committees comprised of international organizations,
governmental and non-governmental, in liaison with ISO.\177\ Standards
developed by ISO are voluntary consensus standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\177\ ISO Central Secretariat, 1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, Case
postale 56, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland, Telephone +41 22 749 01
11, Fax +41 22 733 34 30, http://www.iso.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Executive Order 13211

Executive Order 13211 \178\ applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866,
and is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a
significant energy action. If the regulatory action meets either
criterion, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\178\ 66 FR 28355 (May 18, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed rule seeks to establish a national tire fuel
efficiency rating program for the purpose of educating consumers about
the effect of tires on fuel efficiency, safety and durability, which if
successful, will likely reduce the rolling resistance of replacement
passenger car tires and, thus, reduce the consumption of petroleum.
Therefore, this proposed rule will not have any adverse energy effects.
Accordingly, this proposed rulemaking action is not designated as a
significant energy action.

K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

L. Plain Language

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this proposal.

M. Privacy Act

Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an organization, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act 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, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Tires.

In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
Part 575 as follows:

PART 575--CONSUMER INFORMATION

1. Revise the authority citation for Part 575 to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32302, 32304A, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30123,
30166, and 30168, Pub. L. 104-414, 114 Stat. 1800, Pub. L. 109-59,
119 Stat. 1144, Pub. L. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492, 15 U.S.C. 1232(g);
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

2. Add Sec. 575.106 to subpart B to read as follows:

Sec. 575.106 Tire fuel efficiency consumer information program.

(a) Scope. This section requires tire manufacturers, tire brand
name owners, and tire retailers to provide information indicating the
relative performance of replacement passenger car tires in the areas of
fuel efficiency, safety, and durability.
(b) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to aid consumers in
making better educated choices in the purchase of passenger car tires.
(c) Application. This section applies to replacement passenger car
tires. However, this section does not apply to deep tread, winter-type
snow tires, space-saver or temporary use spare tires, tires with
nominal rim diameters of 12 inches or less, or to limited production
tires as defined in Sec. 575.104(c)(2).
(d) Definitions. As used in this section:
Passenger car tire means a tire intended for use on passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, that have a gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less.
Ratings graphic means a graphical depiction of a tire's fuel
efficiency, safety, and durability ratings information, as reported to
NHTSA under paragraph (e)(1)(i)(C) of this section, that conforms in
content, format and sequence to the sample label depicted in Figure 1
of this section.
Replacement passenger car tire means any passenger car tire other
than a passenger car tire sold as original equipment on a new vehicle.
Size designation means the alpha-numeric designation assigned by a

[[Page 29585]]

manufacturer that identifies a tire's size. This can include
identifications of tire class, nominal width, aspect ratio, tire
construction, and wheel diameter.
Tire line or tire model means the entire name used by a tire
manufacturer to designate a tire product including all prefixes and
suffixes as they appear on the sidewall of a tire.
Tire retailer means a person or business that offers a tire for
sale and with whom a replacement passenger car tire manufacturer or
brand name owner has a contractual, proprietary, or other legal
relationship, or a person or business who has such a relationship with
a distributor of the replacement passenger car tire manufacturer or
brand name owner concerning the tire in question.
(e) Requirements.--(1) Information. (i) Requirements for tire
manufacturers. Each manufacturer of tires, or in the case of tires
marketed under a brand name, each brand name owner, shall provide
rating information for each tire of which it is the manufacturer or
brand name owner in the manner set forth in paragraphs (e)(1)(i)(A)
through (D) of this section. The ratings for each tire shall be only
those specified in paragraph (e)(2) of this section. For the purposes
of this section, each tire of a different size designation is to be
rated separately. Each tire shall be able to achieve the level of
performance represented by each rating with which it is labeled. An
individual tire need not, however, meet further requirements after
having been subjected to the test for any one rating.
(A) Ratings. Each tire shall be rated with the words, letters,
symbols, and figures specified in paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
Each shall display this rating information using the ratings graphic
illustrated in Figure 1 on either the tire label required by Sec.
575.104(d)(1)(i)(B), or on a separate tire label, as set forth in
paragraph (e)(1)(i)(B) of this section.
(B) Tire label. Each tire manufactured on or after the effective
date of these amendments shall have affixed to its tread surface so as
not to be easily removable a label containing its ratings graphic, as
illustrated in Figure 1. The label shall be no less than 4.5 inches
high and 5.5 inches wide. The fuel efficiency, safety and durability
ratings attributed to the tire shall be either imprinted or indelibly
stamped on the ratings graphic on the label in the appropriate location
along each scale, as described in this paragraph (e)(1)(i)(B). For
purposes of the ratings graphic required by this section, the fuel
efficiency, safety and durability ratings, each an integer ranging from
0 to 100, shall appear in a white box superimposed upon the color
shaded rating scale, and directly above the arrow which shall be
located in the location that corresponds to where the respective rating
falls, where each shaded box represents an increment of 5 on each
rating scale. Namely, since the ratings graphic has 20 boxes for each
rating scale, the first box would contain the arrow pointing to the
white box containing the score if a tire is rated 1 through 4. An arrow
indicating a rating of 5 would appear directly on the rightmost edge of
the leftmost color shaded, i.e., reddest, box. The 20th, or rightmost,
box would contain the arrow pointing to the white box containing the
rating if a tire is rated 96 through 99. An arrow indicating a rating
of 95 would appear directly on the leftmost edge of the rightmost color
shaded, i.e., greenest, box. An arrow indicating a rating of 100 would
appear directly on the rightmost edge of the rightmost color shaded,
i.e., greenest, box.
(1) Ratings graphic text. The text ``FUEL EFFICIENCY and GREENHOUSE
GAS RATING,'' ``SAFETY RATING (WET TRACTION),'' and ``DURABILITY RATING
(TREADWEAR),'' and ``For more information visit www.nhtsa.gov,'' must
have a minimum font size of 12 point. The remaining text in the header
area of the ratings graphic (i.e., ``GOVERNMENT TIRE RATING,'' tire
manufacturer or brand name owner specification, tire line
specification, tire size specification), and the 0 to 100 number rating
on each rating scale, must have a minimum font size of 14 point. All
remaining text and numbers on the label must have a minimum font size
of 10 point.
(2) Ratings graphic color. The text and numbers of the ratings
graphic shall be dark in color, with a background that is light in
color. The three scales on the ratings graphic shall be presented in
color, where the first of 20 squares (i.e., the leftmost square on each
scale) shall be primary red, the 2nd of 20 squares shall be a slightly
lighter shade of red than the leftmost (i.e., 1st) square, the 3rd
square shall be a slightly lighter shade of red than the 2nd square,
and so on until the 10th of 20 squares, which should be nearly white.
The last of 20 squares (i.e., the rightmost square) shall be primary
green, the 19th square shall be a slightly lighter shade of green than
the 20th square, the 18th square shall be a shade of green slightly
lighter than the 19th square, and so on until the 10th of 20 squares,
which should be nearly white. Sample ratings graphics that depict the
appropriate color schemes are available at http://www.nhtsa.gov.
(3) Ratings graphic orientation. The ratings graphic of Figure 1
shall be oriented on the tire tread surface with lines of type running
perpendicular to the tread circumference. If a label bearing a tire
size designation is attached to the tire tread surface and the tire
size designation is oriented with lines of type running perpendicular
to the tread circumference, the ratings graphic of Figure 1 shall read
in the same direction as the tire size designation.
(4) New ratings information. Whenever the tire manufacturer, or in
the case of tires marketed under a brand name the brand name owner,
determines new or different fuel efficiency, safety, or durability
ratings information for a tire, the tire manufacturer or brand name
owner shall include the new ratings information on and with tires
manufactured on or after the date 30 calendar days after receipt by the
manufacturer of the new information.
(C) Reporting requirements. The information collection requirements
contained in this section have been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number
XXXX-XXXX.
(1) Manufacturers of tires, or in the case of tires marketed under
a brand name, brand name owners of tires subject to this section shall
submit to NHTSA electronically, either directly or through an agent,
the following data for each rated replacement passenger car tire by one
year after the effective date of these regulations:
(i) Rolling resistance force, in Newtons and must be followed in
parenthesis by the equivalent pounds-force, e.g., 5 Newtons (1.12
lbf)., as measured in paragraph (f) of this section.
(ii) Test load, in Newtons and must be followed in parenthesis by
the equivalent pounds-force, e.g., 5 Newtons (1.12 lbf), as measured in
paragraph (f) of this section.
(iii) Rolling resistance rating (0 to 100), as determined in
paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section.
(iv) Traction rating (0 to 100), as determined in paragraph
(e)(2)(ii) of this section.
(v) Treadwear rating (0 to 100), as determined in paragraph
(e)(2)(iii) of this section.
(vi) Average peak coefficient of friction for asphalt, as measured
in Sec. 575.104(f).
(vii) Average peak coefficient of friction for concrete, as
measured in Sec. 575.104(f).

[[Page 29586]]

(viii) Adjusted peak coefficient of friction for asphalt
([micro]APA), based on the formula in paragraph (e)(2)(ii)
of this section.
(ix) Adjusted peak coefficient of friction for concrete
([micro]APC), based on the formula in paragraph (e)(2)(ii)
of this section.
(x) Wear rate of tested tire, as measured during the UTQGS
treadwear procedure (49 CFR 575.104(e)).
(2) Format of data submitted. The information required under
paragraph (e)(1)(i)(C)(1) of this section shall be submitted to NHTSA
in electronic format.
(3) New ratings information. Whenever the tire manufacturer, or in
the case of tires marketed under a brand name, the brand name owner
determines new or different information required under paragraph
(e)(1)(i)(C)(1) of this section for a tire, the tire manufacturer or
brand name owner shall submit the new ratings information to NHTSA on
or before the date 30 calendar days after receipt by the manufacturer
of the new information.
(ii) Requirements for tire retailers. Each tire retailer shall
provide rating information for each passenger car tire offered for sale
in the manner set forth in paragraphs (e)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this
section.
(A) A tire retailer shall not remove the label containing the
ratings graphic required by paragraph (e)(1)(i)(B) of this section,
until the tire has been sold.
(B) A tire retailer that has a display room, or that displays
sample tires for sale to consumers, shall display a tire fuel
efficiency consumer information program poster that NHTSA shall print
and provide to tire retailers.
(iii) Linking to NHTSA's tire Web site. Tire manufacturers and tire
retailers that have or maintain Web sites must link to NHTSA's tire Web
site (http://www.nhtsa.gov) from their main (top) Web page no later
than 12 months after this regulation is effective or the day the Web
site is online and available to the public.
(2) Performance.--(i) Fuel efficiency. Each tire shall be rated for
fuel efficiency performance on a scale of 0 to 100, as calculated using
the following formula, where RRF is the NHTSA nominal rolling
resistance force value obtained when the tire is tested in accordance
with the conditions and procedures specified in paragraph (f) of this
section. A fuel efficiency rating (RFE) shall be expressed
as an integer 0 to 100 (for example, 51, 64, 80) by rounding
RFE to the nearest whole number. The maximum rating that may
be assigned to the candidate tire is RFE, as calculated
using this formula.

RFE = (RRFmax-RRF) * 100/(RRFmax-
RRFmin)

Where RRFmax is equal to 25 and represents the highest
rolling resistance the agency believes should be represented on the
fuel efficiency rating scale and where RRFmin is equal to 5
and represents the lowest rolling resistance the agency believes should
be represented on the fuel efficiency rating scale.

(ii) Traction. Each tire shall be rated for traction performance on
a scale of 0 to 100, as calculated using the following formula, where
[micro]APA and [micro]APC are the nominal peak
coefficient of friction values obtained when the tire is tested in
accordance with the conditions and procedures specified in paragraph
(g) of this section. A traction rating (RTC) shall be
expressed as an integer between 0 and 100 (for example, 51, 64, 80) by
rounding RTC to the nearest whole number. The maximum rating
that may be assigned to the candidate tire is RTC, as
calculated using this formula.

RTC = {([micro]APA + [micro]APC) {1-
[([micro]APA-[micro]APC)/([micro]APA +
[micro]APC)]\2\{time} -0.6{time} * (100/2.0)

Where:

[micro]APA = adjusted peak coefficient of friction for
asphalt, and
[micro]APC = adjusted peak coefficient of friction for
concrete

(iii) Treadwear. Each tire shall be rated for treadwear performance
on a scale of 0 to 100, as calculated using the following formula,
where TWUTQGS is the traction grading as specified in Sec.
575.104(d)(2)(i). A traction rating (RTW) shall be expressed
as an integer between 0 and 100 (for example, 51, 64, 80) by rounding
RTW to the nearest whole number. The maximum rating that may
be assigned to the candidate tire is RTW, as calculated
using this formula.
RTW = TWUTQGS/10

(f) Fuel efficiency rating conditions and procedures.--(1)
Conditions. (i) Measurement of rolling resistance force under the test
procedure specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this section shall be made
using either the force or the torque method.
(ii) The test procedure specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this
section shall be carried out on an 80-grit roadwheel surface.
(2) Procedure. The test procedure shall be as specified in
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), ISO 28580: Tyre
Rolling Resistance measurement method--Single point test and
measurement result correlation--Designed to facilitate international
cooperation and, possibly, regulation building, except that the
conditions specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section shall be used.
(g) Traction rating conditions and procedures. (1) Conditions. Test
conditions are as specified in Sec. 575.104(f)(1).
(2) Procedure. (i) Prepare two standard tires as specified in Sec.
575.104(f)(2)(i).
(ii) Mount the tires on the test apparatus described in Sec.
575.104(f)(1)(iv) and load each tire to 1,085 pounds.
(iii) Tow the trailer on the asphalt test surface specified in
Sec. 575.104(f)(1)(i) at a speed of 40 mph, lock one trailer wheel,
and record the peak coefficient of friction on the tire associated with
that wheel. Peak coefficient shall be measured between 0.35 and 0.65
seconds after initiation of braking sequence.
(iv) Repeat the test on the concrete surface, locking the same
wheel.
(v) Repeat the tests specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(iii) and (iv)
of this section for a total of 10 measurements on each test surface.
(vi) Repeat the procedures specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(iii)
through (v) of this section, locking the wheel associated with the
other standard tire.
(vii) Average the 20 measurements taken on the asphalt surface to
find the standard tire average peak coefficient of friction for the
asphalt surface. Average the 20 measurements taken on the concrete
surface to find the standard tire average peak coefficient of friction
for the concrete surface. The standard tire average peak coefficient of
friction so determined may be used in the computation of adjusted peak
coefficient of friction coefficients for more than one candidate tire.
(viii) Prepare two candidate tires of the same construction type,
manufacturer, tire line, and size designation in accordance with
paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section, mount them on the test apparatus,
and test one of them according to the procedures of paragraphs
(g)(2)(ii) through (v) of this section, except load each tire to 85% of
the test load specified in Sec. 575.104(h). For CT tires, the test
inflation of candidate tires shall be 230 kPa. Candidate tire
measurements may be taken either before or after the standard tire
measurements used to compute the standard tire traction coefficient.
Take all standard tire and candidate tire measurements used in
computation of a candidate tire's adjusted peak coefficient of friction
within a single three hour period. Average the 10 measurements taken on
the asphalt

[[Page 29587]]

surface to find the candidate tire average peak coefficient of friction
for the asphalt surface. Average the 10 measurements taken on the
concrete surface to find the candidate tire average peak coefficient of
friction for the concrete surface.
(ix) Repeat the procedures specified in paragraph (g)(2)(viii) of
this section, using the second candidate tire as the tire being tested.
(x) Compute each candidate tire's adjusted peak coefficient of
friction for asphalt ([mu]APA) by the following formula:

[mu]APA = (Measured Candidate Tire Average Peak
Coefficient of Friction for Asphalt + 0.75)-(Measured Standard Tire
Average Peak Coefficient of Friction for Asphalt)

(xi) Compute each candidate tire's adjusted peak coefficient of
friction for concrete ([mu]APC) by the following formula:

[mu]APC = (Measured Candidate Tire Average Peak
Coefficient of Friction for Concrete + 0.60)-(Measured Standard Tire
Average Peak Coefficient of Friction for Concrete)

(h) Treadwear rating conditions and procedures.--(1) Conditions.
Test conditions are as specified in Sec. 575.104(e)(1).
(2) Procedure. Test procedure is as specified in Sec.
575.104(e)(2).

Tables and Figures to Sec. 575.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.014

Issued on: June 16, 2009.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9-14496 Filed 6-18-09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE P