Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19553 

eCCF. Rather, it presents another means 

of compliance for all entities, as is 

currently permitted under the HHS 

mandatory guidelines. It does not create 

additional burdens, but may alleviate 

some paperwork burdens if entities opt 

to use the eCCF. Thus, in accordance 

with 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I certify that this 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The PRA requires that the DOT 

consider the impact of paperwork and 

other information collection burdens 

imposed on the public. Because the 

DOT is obligated by statute to use 

whatever procedures and forms that 

SAMHSA adopts with respect to chain 

of custody and control for drug testing 

specimens, SAMHSA has accounted for 

the DOT burden in its recently approved 

information collection request. For more 

information regarding these burdens, 

you may review SAMHSA’s ICR 

201307–0930–003 and supplemental 

information at www.reginfo.gov. 

Privacy Act 

The DOT conducted a PIA of this rule 

as required by section 522(a)(5) of 

division H of the FY 2005 Omnibus 

Appropriations Act, Public Law 108– 

447, 118 Stat. 3268 (Dec. 8, 2004) and 

section 208 of the E-Government Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–347, 116 Stat. 

2889 (Dec. 17, 2002). The assessment 

considers any impacts of the final rule 

on the privacy of information in an 

identifiable form. In addition to the PIA 

issued by HHS in conjunction with its 

ICR for the approved CCF, the DOT 

issued a supplemental PIA, further 

explaining how the eCCF may be used 

by DOT-regulated entities and the 

measures that have been put into place 

to ensure not only the integrity and 

security of the testing process, but the 

privacy of individuals subject to testing. 

Copies of the DOT’s supplemental PIA, 

as well as SAMHSA’s PIA, have been 

placed in the docket for this rulemaking. 

V. How To Obtain Additional 

Information 

A. Rulemaking Documents 

An electronic copy of a rulemaking 

document may be obtained by using the 

Internet—1. Search the Federal 

Document Management System (FDMS) 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); or 

2. Access the Government Publishing 

Office’s Web page: www.gpo.gov. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 40 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Drug testing, Laboratories, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Safety, Transportation. 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Department of Transportation amends 

part 40 of Title 49, Code of Federal 

Regulations, as follows: 

PART 40—PROCEDURES FOR 

TRANSPORTATION WORKPLACE 

DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING 

PROGRAMS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 40 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 101, 102, 301, 322, 

5331, 20140, 31306, and 45101 et seq. 

■ 2. In § 40.3 revise the definition of 

‘‘chain of custody’’ to read as follows: 

§ 40.3 What do the terms of this part 

mean? 

* * * * * 

Chain of custody. The procedure used 

to document the handling of the urine 

specimen from the time the employee 

gives the specimen to the collector until 

the specimen is destroyed. This 

procedure uses the Federal Drug Testing 

Custody and Control Form (CCF) as 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 40.45 by revising 

paragraph (a) and adding paragraphs 

(c)(5) and (f) to read as follows: 

§ 40.45 What form is used to document a 

DOT urine collection? 

(a) The Federal Drug Testing Custody 

and Control Form (CCF) must be used 

to document every urine collection 

required by the DOT drug testing 

program. You may view this form on the 

Department’s Web site (http://

www.dot.gov/odapc) or the HHS Web 

site (http://

www.workplace.samhsa.gov). 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(5) When using an electronic CCF, 

you must establish adequate 

confidentiality and security measures to 

ensure that confidential employee 

records are not available to 

unauthorized persons. This includes 

protecting the physical security of 

records, access controls, and computer 

security measures to safeguard 

confidential data in electronic form. 

* * * * * 

(f) An employer who uses an 

electronic CCF must ensure that the 

collection site, the primary and split 

laboratories, and MRO have compatible 

systems, and that the employee and any 

other program participants in the testing 

process will receive a legible copy of the 

CCF. 

■ 4. Amend § 40.73 by revising 

paragraph (a) introductory text, 

redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph 

(c), and adding a new paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§ 40.73 How is the collection process 

completed? 

(a) As the collector, when using the 

paper CCF, you must do the following 

things to complete the collection 

process. You must complete the steps 

called for in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(7) of this section in the employee’s 

presence. 

* * * * * 

(b) As a collector, when using other 

forms of the CCF as approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget, you 

must follow the procedures approved 

for that form. 

(c) As a collector or collection site, 

you must ensure that each specimen 

you collect is shipped to a laboratory as 

quickly as possible, but in any case, 

within 24 hours or during the next 

business day. 

* * * * * 

Issued under the authority provided in 

Pub. L. 102–143, in Washington, DC, on 

April 6, 2015. 

Anthony R. Foxx, 

Secretary of Transportation. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08256 Filed 4–10–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Parts 574 and 579 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0084] 

RIN 2127–AL54 

Tire Identification and Recordkeeping 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The tire identification number 

(TIN), which must appear on virtually 

all new and retreaded motor vehicle 

tires sold in the United States, plays an 

important role in identifying which tires 

are subject to recall and remedy 

campaigns for safety defects and 

noncompliances. This final rule makes 

two amendments to the TIN. First, 

because NHTSA has run out of twosymbol codes to identify new tire 

plants, NHTSA is expanding the first 

portion of the TIN, previously known as 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
19554 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1 36 FR 1196 (Jan. 26, 1971). 

the manufacturer identifier, but more 

commonly referred to as a ‘‘plant code,’’ 

from two symbols to three for 

manufacturers of new tires. This 

amendment substantially increases the 

number of unique combinations of 

characters that can be used to identify 

individual manufacturers of new tires. 

Second, NHTSA is standardizing the 

length of the tire identification number 

to eliminate confusion that could arise 

from the variable length of tire 

identification numbers. This final rule 

standardizes the length of the TIN at 13 

symbols for new tires and 7 symbols for 

retreaded tires, making it easier to 

identify a TIN from which a symbol is 

missing. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

April 13, 2015. 

Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions 

for reconsideration of this final rule 

must be received by May 28, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration 

of this final rule must refer to the docket 

number set forth above and be 

submitted to the Administrator, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. 

SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical issues, you may contact Chris 

Wiacek, Office of Crash Avoidance 

Standards, by telephone at (202) 366– 

4801. For legal issues, you may contact 

David Jasinski, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, by telephone at (202) 366– 

2992, and by fax at (202) 366–3820. You 

may send mail to both of these officials 

at the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In January 1971, the agency 

established a requirement in 49 CFR 

part 574 for a tire identification number 

(TIN) that must be labeled on one 

sidewall of each tire that is newly 

manufactured or retreaded.1 The 

purpose of the TIN is to facilitate 

notification of purchasers of defective or 

noncompliant tires. Furthermore, the 

information contained in the TIN may 

be used by consumers to obtain 

information about the tire such as the 

actual manufacturer of the tire (in the 

case of a tire sold under a different 

brand) and the date of manufacture. Part 

574 also provides for the registration of 

tires, including the collection of the TIN 

and the contact information of 

purchasers of tires, to enable 

manufacturers to notify tire owners of 

recalls. 

From its adoption in 1971, the TIN 

has consisted of up to four groups of 

symbols. The first group of symbols 

identifies the manufacturer of the tire. 

Each individual tire plant has its own 

identifier; thus, one tire manufacturer 

may have multiple codes. Although part 

574 has referred to this grouping as the 

manufacturer’s identification mark, it 

may also be known informally as a 

‘‘plant code.’’ For new tires, this code 

consists of two symbols, and for 

retreaded tires, the code consists of 

three symbols. This plant code is 

assigned to new manufacturers and 

retreaders when they contact NHTSA 

and provide contact information and 

information about what types of tires 

they are producing. 

The second and third groupings 

provide information about the tire itself. 

The second grouping is up to two 

characters and identifies the tire size. 

Although the original TIN requirement 

had a list of tire sizes and two-symbol 

codes, the agency has since left it to 

manufacturers to determine their own 

codes and provide decoding information 

to NHTSA upon request. This change 

allowed manufacturers to create new 

tire sizes without NHTSA first having to 

modify its regulations to provide a tire 

size code. 

The third grouping may be used at the 

manufacturer’s option to provide any 

other significant characteristics of the 

tire. Except for cases in which a tire is 

manufactured for a brand name owner, 

the third grouping is not required. As 

with the second grouping, a 

manufacturer must maintain 

information regarding the code used and 

provide it to NHTSA upon request. 

The fourth and final grouping is the 

date code, which identifies the week 

and year during which the tire was 

manufactured. Although this code was 

originally three symbols, it has been 

expanded to four symbols. The first two 

symbols have always represented the 

week of manufacture. For example, ‘‘01’’ 

signifies that the tire was manufactured 

during the first full week of the year, 

‘‘02’’ signifies that the tire was 

manufactured during the second full 

week of the year, and so on. The third 

and fourth symbols (originally only one 

symbol) must be the last two digits of 

the year of manufacture. 

The TIN is required to be marked on 

at least one sidewall of each tire that is 

manufactured or retreaded. 

Manufacturers must use one of 30 

alphanumeric symbols in the TIN. 

Certain letters such as G, I, O, Q, S, and 

Z are not allowed to be used because of 

the potential difficulty differentiating 

one symbol from another (for example, 

the number 5 and the letter S). 

Generally, the TIN must be molded 

into or onto one sidewall of the tire. 

However, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, which 

applies to radial tires for vehicles under 

10,000 pounds GVWR, has an additional 

requirement that the other sidewall be 

labeled with either a full or partial TIN. 

A partial TIN excludes the date code 

and may also exclude any optional 

code, such as the third grouping of the 

TIN. 

II. July 2014 Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

On July 24, 2014, NHTSA published 

in the Federal Register a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing 

two amendments to the TIN. First, 

because NHTSA was running out of 

two-symbol codes to identify new tire 

plants, NHTSA proposed to expand the 

plant code, from two symbols to three 

for manufacturers of new tires. Second, 

NHTSA proposed to standardize the 

length of the TIN 13 symbols for new 

tires and 7 symbols for retreaded tires. 

We received 13 comments in response 

to the July 2014 NPRM. Oyatullohi 

Maddud, Tire Rack, the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), 

Specialty Tires of America (Specialty), 

Gillespie Automotive Safety Services 

(GASS), Kojin Kitao, the Japan 

Automobile Tyre Manufacturers 

Association (JATMA), Safety Research 

and Strategies (SRS), the Rubber 

Manufacturers Association (RMA), 

Zhongce Rubber Group Co. (Zhongce), 

the Government of Thailand (Thailand), 

the Tire and Rubber Association of 

Canada, and the Ministry of Trade, 

Industry, and Energy of the Republic of 

Korea (Korea). The comments are 

addressed in the following sections. 

RMA also requested an extension of 

the comment period in order to gather 

additional information regarding the 

cost of converting existing molds to 

three-symbol plant codes and 13-symbol 

TINs. We agree with RMA’s general 

assertion that additional time would be 

necessary in order for them to obtain 

this information. However, the agency is 

faced with the exhaustion of twosymbol plant codes and must begin 

issuing three-symbol plant codes 

immediately in order to allow new 

plants to open. In order to issue threesymbol plant codes immediately, RMA’s 

petition to extend the comment period 

is denied. However, we believe that our 

approach in this final rule, in response 

to RMA’s and others’ comments, 

mitigates the need for extra time to 

respond to the NPRM. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19555 

2NHTSA will directly contact any manufacturer 

whose three-symbol plant code is something other 

than a ‘‘1’’ in front of its existing two-symbol code. 

3RMA notes the inconsistency between the GTR 

and the NPRM and suggests that NHTSA propose 

to amend the GTR to be consistent with our final 

rule. This suggestion is beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking; however, we plan to request that the 

GTR be amended to harmonize with this final rule. 

III. Three-Symbol Plant Code 

NHTSA, through its Office of Vehicle 

Safety Compliance, issues new tire and 

retreaded tire plant codes to 

manufacturers when they apply for 

them. For new tire manufacturers, who 

have a two-symbol code, the entire 

supply of 900 plant codes has been 

depleted. 

In order to assign new plant codes, 

the agency has found it necessary to 

reissue previously issued, but currently 

unused plant codes. This shortage has 

arisen because of the increase over time 

in the number of tire manufacturers. 

This increase is projected to continue. 

However, a recent increase in the 

number of new plant code applications 

has completely depleted the supply of 

previously issued, but currently unused, 

plant codes. Without taking further 

action, the agency would be forced to 

refuse to assign new plant codes, which 

would make it impossible for new 

manufacturers to enter the tire market, 

or to assign identical plant codes to 

multiple manufacturers, which has the 

potential for substantial confusion and 

could impair tire recalls. 

To enable the agency to issue new 

plant codes, the agency proposed to 

change the two-symbol plant code to a 

three-symbol plant code. We believe 

that this is the best long-term solution 

to the lack of supply of new 

manufacturer plant codes. 

Oyatullohi Maddud, Tire Rack, GASS, 

RMA, Zhongce and Thailand agreed that 

NHTSA should begin issuing threesymbol plant codes to new tire 

manufacturers immediately upon 

running out of two-symbol codes. 

NHTSA has run out of two-symbol 

plant codes. Therefore, it is necessary to 

issue this final rule to allow the 

issuance of three-symbol plant codes to 

new tire manufacturers. We are 

adopting the three-symbol plant code as 

proposed. For existing manufacturers 

with two-symbol plant codes, the 

agency will issue new three-symbol 

plant codes in place of each two-symbol 

plant code. For nearly all 

manufacturers, the agency will assign a 

‘‘1’’ symbol in front of each existing 

two-symbol plant code.2 For example, a 

manufacturer using two-symbol code 

‘‘AB’’ will likely be assigned the threesymbol code ‘‘1AB’’. 

IV. Standardizing TIN Length 

The length of a TIN is not currently 

standardized. The second and third 

groupings of the TIN are required to 

contain no more than two and four 

symbols, respectively. Thus, the total 

length of these two groupings may be 

between zero and six symbols, 

depending on whether the tire is new or 

retreaded, and also on decisions by the 

manufacturer regarding the inclusion of 

optional codes. The third grouping is 

optional for all but non-pneumatic tire 

manufacturers, non-pneumatic tire 

assembly manufacturers, and tires 

manufactured for a brand name owner. 

Based on all of the variations in TIN 

length allowed, a full TIN for new tires 

may be anywhere between 6 and 12 

symbols (which would go up to 13 after 

NHTSA adopts a three-symbol plant 

code). 

The nonstandard length of the TIN 

becomes more complicated by the TIN 

marking requirements in FMVSS No. 

139. As mentioned above, FMVSS No. 

139 requires a full TIN to be marked on 

one side of the tire and either a full TIN 

or a partial TIN on the other side of the 

tire. A partial TIN excludes the foursymbol date code and any optional 

code. Thus, a partial TIN may be as long 

as eight symbols (if a two-symbol size 

code is used and a four-symbol third 

grouping is used). 

Because both a full TIN and partial 

TIN could potentially be eight symbols 

in length, it may not always be clear 

whether an eight-symbol TIN obtained 

from one side of a tire meeting the 

requirements of FMVSS No. 139 is a full 

TIN or a partial TIN. The last four 

symbols in a full TIN representing the 

week and year of manufacture are 

always numeric. Nevertheless, we do 

not expect that everyone who records 

TINs for purposes such as crash reports 

or consumer complaints is likely to 

know the requirements for the various 

groupings of the TIN. 

The July 2014 NPRM proposed to 

standardize the length of a TIN for all 

tire manufacturers using the threesymbol plant code at 7 symbols for 

retreaded tires and 13 symbols for new 

tires. We believed that this would 

prevent any confusion regarding 

whether a TIN is a complete TIN or a 

partial TIN. The proposal allowed 

manufacturers that have previously 

been assigned a two-symbol plant code 

to continue to use the existing TIN 

grouping requirements until they begin 

using a three-symbol plant code. We 

expected that manufacturers to begin 

using both the three-symbol plant code 

and the 13-symbol TIN at the same time. 

We received comments from JATMA, 

RMA, Thailand, and the Tire and 

Rubber Association of Canada regarding 

the length of the TIN. Tire Rack 

supported adopting a standardizedlength TIN. The other commenters cited 

the development of a global technical 

regulation (GTR) on light vehicle tires. 

The length of the TIN in the adopted 

GTR is specified as 15 symbols, 

including an 8-symbol manufacturer 

code. The commenters were concerned 

that the 8-symbol manufacturer code in 

the GTR is different than the 6-symbol 

code specified in the NPRM. Zhongce 

questioned the need for the 

standardized six-symbol manufacturer’s 

code. Zhongce stated that they currently 

use five symbols for the optional code 

and questioned the need to add an 

additional character in existing molds. 

After the comment period closed, 

GTR No. 15 related to passenger car tires 

was adopted. A TIN is included in GTR 

No. 15. The TIN format in the GTR is 

nearly identical to the July 2014 NPRM, 

with one notable exception. Both the 

GTR and the NPRM include a threesymbol plant code and a four-symbol 

date code. However, the GTR has an 

eight-symbol manufacturer code, 

whereas the NPRM included a sixsymbol manufacturer code. Thus, the 

total TIN length in the GTR is 15 

symbols, instead of the 13 symbols in 

the NPRM. 

We are not making any changes to the 

proposal related to these comments. 

Although the GTR was not mentioned in 

the NPRM, we were aware of the 

discrepancy between the then-draft GTR 

and the NPRM at the time of the NPRM, 

but chose to propose a shorter 

manufacturer code to minimize the cost 

transitioning to the new TIN format. 

Although an 8-symbol manufacturer 

code is included in the adopted GTR, 

we believe that a 6-symbol manufacturer 

code will reduce the costs of 

standardizing the length of the TIN. No 

tires currently sold have a TIN longer 

than 12 symbols. If we were to adopt a 

15 symbol TIN, manufacturers would 

need to allocate space on the tire for at 

least three extra symbols (and possibly 

more). Based on the comments received 

from tire manufacturers regarding the 

expense of adding of at least one symbol 

to the TIN, we believe that the costs of 

adding at least three symbols to the TIN 

would be much higher. Therefore, we 

are not modifying the TIN length to 

expand the manufacturer code to eight 

symbols.3

Moreover, we cannot agree with 

Zhongce’s suggestion to allow the use of 

shorter manufacturer codes, thereby 

making the length of the TIN 

nonstandard. Making all TINs using a 

three-symbol plant code 13 symbols 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
19556 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

4See 64 FR 36807 (Jul. 8, 1999) (four digit date 

code); 63 FR 28912 (May 27, 1998) (metric labeling 

on truck tires). 

5See 67 FR 69600, 69608 (Nov. 18, 2002) (RMA 

comment that mold life expectancy is up to five 

years); Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0132–0018, at 4 

(comments of RMA on truck tire NPRM stating that 

the average mold life for radial truck and bus tires 

is five years). 

6We believe that $957 per mold represents a high 

estimate of the cost of modifying a mold. Some 

molds may be modified simply by inserting new 

screw-in plates or a similarly uncomplicated 

process at substantially less than $957 per mold. 

However, in order to provide a conservative cost 

estimate, we will assume the cost per mold 

estimated by RMA. 

7See Factbook 2014—Summary ed., Rubber 

Manufacturers Association. 

8We believe the costs can be spread out over such 

a long period, in part, because there is no gradual 

phase-in for existing plants. That is, all molds that 

need to be modified will not need to be modified 

until 2025. The only molds we expect to be 

modified during the first half of the 10-year lead 

time would be molds that are moved from one plant 

to another. Those molds would already require 

long is necessary to ensure the 

identification of the manufacturer with 

the TIN. Existing TINs are up to 12 

symbols long, but use two-symbol plant 

codes. If we allow manufacturers with 

three-symbol plant codes to use TINs 

that are 12 symbols or shorter, we will 

have no way of knowing whether the 

TIN uses a two-symbol or three-symbol 

plant code. Without knowing that, the 

manufacturer of the tire cannot be 

ascertained from the TIN. Thus, it is 

necessary for NHTSA to specify a 13- 

symbol TIN to accompany the threesymbol plant code. 

V. Lead Time 

In the July 2014 NPRM, we 

recognized that, for existing 

manufacturers currently using twosymbol plant codes, immediately 

requiring the use of a three-symbol plant 

code and standardized TIN length 

would impose additional costs with 

little benefit. The NPRM therefore 

proposed to make the use of the threesymbol plant code and standardized 

TIN length optional for existing 

manufacturers with two-symbol plant 

codes, beginning immediately upon 

issuance of a final rule implementing 

the proposal. NHTSA proposed that 

mandatory compliance with the use of 

the three-symbol plant code and 13- 

symbol TIN would be required 

beginning not sooner than five years 

after publication of a final rule 

implementing the proposal. NHTSA 

believed that five years would be 

sufficient lead time before 

manufacturers would be required to use 

a three-symbol plant code and 13- 

symbol TIN. 

Several commenters objected to 

requiring existing manufacturers to use 

a three-symbol plant code on the basis 

of cost and inconvenience. JATMA and 

Korea asserted that existing plants 

should not be required to adopt threesymbol plant codes because of their 

concern about the cost and time needed 

to upgrade existing molds and because 

they did not believe that there was 

sufficient space between the 

certification symbol and a ‘‘1’’ that was 

inserted before the plant code in an 

existing mold. Thailand asserted that 

products produced using a two-symbol 

plant code should be allowed to 

continue to be produced using a twosymbol code because increasing the 

number of symbols would affect cost 

without improvement in quality. 

Specialty requested that limited 

production tires be excluded from any 

requirement to use a three-symbol plant 

code because of the cost of modifying 

those molds. 

RMA requested that NHTSA provide 

additional lead time and further 

requested that the comment period by 

extended for RMA to provide additional 

information on how much lead time 

they believed would be necessary to 

minimize costs to the industry. RMA 

stated that requiring existing plants to 

convert to 13-symbol TINs imposed 

substantial burdens on manufacturers 

not using all of the currently optional 

portions of the TIN. RMA also stated 

that the agency was incorrect to assume 

that the average life of a mold is five 

years. 

RMA suggested that, because NHTSA 

would soon exhaust the supply of twosymbol codes, NHTSA should go 

forward with the three-symbol 

manufacturer identifier and the 

standardized-length TIN, but consider a 

longer implementation period. In its 

comments, RMA and the Tire and 

Rubber Association of Canada suggested 

that a 10-year lead time is more 

appropriate. JATMA and Korea also 

asserted that a longer lead time was 

appropriate. 

Because of the immediate need for 

three-symbol plant codes, NHTSA must 

go forward with a rule allowing the use 

of three-symbol plant codes. Moreover, 

to ensure that plant codes for new tires 

are recognizable, we are moving forward 

with a requirement that manufacturers 

who use a three-symbol plant codes use 

the 13-symbol TIN. NHTSA continues to 

believe that eventual standardization of 

TIN length is valuable for ensuring 

quick identification of the tire 

manufacturer, for the reasons discussed 

above. However, in light of the 

comments received, we are extending 

the lead time from five years to 10 years 

for existing plants to adopt the threesymbol plant code and standardized 13- 

symbol TIN. 

NHTSA’s proposed five-year lead 

time was based upon the assumption 

that the average life of a tire mold is five 

years. Past rulemakings related to tire 

labeling have offered five years of lead 

time or less.4 Moreover, our assumption 

was partially based upon RMA’s 

comments on the adoption of FMVSS 

No. 139 and an NPRM proposing 

upgrades to truck tire requirements.5

However, the issues identified by the 

commenters suggest that the 

assumptions underlying NHTSA’s 

assertion that manufacturers could 

replace or modify existing molds to use 

13-symbol TINs with minimal costs may 

be outdated or incorrect. 

Therefore, NHTSA has extended the 

lead time from the five years proposed 

in the NPRM to 10 years, as suggested 

by the commenters. We believe that this 

change, as well as others discussed 

below, will minimize the impact of this 

final rule on existing plants. 

To estimate the total cost of a 10-year 

lead time, we have used RMA’s estimate 

that 20,504 molds would need to be 

modified at an average cost per mold of 

$957 (valued in 2014 dollars).6 We 

believe that RMA members represent 

approximately 62 percent of new tire 

production for the U.S. market and nonRMA members represent approximately 

38 percent of new tire production for 

the U.S. market.7 We have assumed that 

the 20,504 molds that RMA members 

are required to modify represent 62 

percent of the total molds that will need 

to be modified as a result of this rule, 

and that non-RMA members will need 

to modify 12,612 molds in order to 

comply with this final rule. Thus, we 

believe that 33,116 molds will need to 

be modified at a total cost of 

approximately $31.7 million. 

Although only some molds will need 

to be modified to comply with this final 

rule, we expect that the costs of this rule 

will be spread out over all tires sold, not 

just tires manufactured in the molds 

that must be modified. Based on the 

data provided by RMA in its comments 

regarding the rates at which molds will 

be retired over a 5–10 year period, we 

have used a linear regression to estimate 

that nearly all molds currently in use 

today will be retired within 13 years. 

Given an annual average tire production 

of approximately 300 million, we 

believe that approximately 3.6 billion 

new tires will be produced for the U.S. 

market during this 13-year period. We 

expect that the $31.7 million cost of 

modifying molds could be spread out 

over all tires produced in this 13-year 

period.8 Thus, the average cost increase 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19557 

some modification under the current requirements 

and we would reasonably expect that the additional 

modifications to those molds as a result of this rule 

could be done at a relatively low cost. 

9We have not considered retreaders in this 

analysis because we believe that the process by 

which retreaders label the TIN on a tire does not 

require modification of molds. We expect the cost 

of any modifications that retreaders may be 

required to make as a result of this final rule to be 

negligible. 

of a tire as a result of this rule over the 

next 13 years is expected to be less than 

one cent ($0.009).9

VI. Changes to Figures 1 and 2 

The July 2014 NPRM proposed minor 

changes to Figures 1 and 2 of 49 CFR 

574.5. For example, the new proposed 

Figures 1 and 2 included a requirement 

for a 50 mm blank space following the 

date code. We received comments from 

JATMA, RMA, Zhongce, Thailand, the 

Tire and Rubber Association of Canada, 

and Korea objecting to this requirement. 

RMA and the Tire and Rubber 

Association of Canada also stated that 

some Canadian tire manufacturers use 

the 50 mm space following the TIN to 

display Canada’s National Safety Mark, 

and argued that this proposed 

requirement represented a barrier to 

trade that was not justified by safety. 

RMA noted that this change was not 

discussed in the preamble to the NPRM. 

Zhongce and Thailand also argued that 

the 50 mm blank space requirement may 

unnecessarily cause difficulties in tire 

design. Korea suggested that a 20 mm 

space requirement may be more 

appropriate. 

In light of the potential inconsistency 

between the proposed specification in 

Note 3 of Figure 1 that that there be a 

blank space of at least 50 mm (2 inches) 

after the date code and Canadian tire 

marking requirements, we have not 

included this specification in this final 

rule. Although we were concerned 

about the potential for confusing the 

date code with other information, we 

did not discuss this matter in the 

preamble of the NPRM and did not 

intend to propose it. Moreover, we have 

no data to suggest that any benefit to the 

public as a result of this change would 

be justified by the creation of a potential 

inconsistency with the Canadian tire 

labeling requirements. 

Separately, RMA suggested that 

NHTSA remove the 6 mm space 

requirement between the DOT symbol 

and the beginning of the TIN. RMA also 

requested that NHTSA reduce the 

minimum height requirement for the 

TIN to 4 mm for all tires rather than 

only for tires with smaller sidewall 

areas. RMA stated that these changes 

would give manufacturers additional 

flexibility to modify existing molds to 

include a three-symbol plant code. 

We are not adopting these suggestions 

in this final rule. We believe that the 

specified minimum space after the DOT 

symbol ensures that the TIN is 

distinguished from the certification 

symbol. Moreover, we believe that the 6 

mm letter height (which is currently the 

requirement for all tires, including those 

with shorter sidewalls) ensures 

readability and that the exception for 

smaller letter height should only apply 

to tires with shorter sidewalls. 

In contrast, Tire Rack suggested that 

the 6 mm minimum letter height size be 

maintained throughout the TIN, 

particularly the date code. Our response 

is that, for the tires for which the 6 mm 

minimum letter height requirement 

applies, that requirement applies to both 

the TIN and the certification symbol. 

Tire Rack also suggested that 

condensed fonts can be difficult to 

distinguish and included attachments 

with specific examples. Tire Rack 

suggested that NHTSA specify the use of 

bold fonts and prohibit condensed and 

lightweight fonts. However, having 

examined the photographs submitted by 

Tire Rack, we believe that the letters 

used in condensed fonts can be 

distinguished and that specifying/

prohibiting bold, condensed, or 

lightweight fonts is not necessary at this 

time. 

Additionally, on the topic of fonts, we 

inadvertently proposed to modify Note 

1 of Figures 1 and 2 regarding requests 

for the use of other fonts that are 

submitted to NHTSA. The proposal 

would have modified the language to 

specify that requests are submitted to 

the ‘‘Administrator’’ rather than the 

‘‘Administration.’’ Historically, NHTSA 

has considered the use of other fonts to 

be a matter of legal interpretation 

decided by the Chief Counsel. It was not 

our intent in the NPRM to reserve this 

authority to the Administrator. In this 

final rule, we are specifying that a 

petition to use an alternate font is 

submitted to NHTSA. 

RMA requested that NHTSA should 

continue to permit the use of print types 

that have previously been approved. 

Nothing in this rulemaking affects 

previously approved print types, 

although we have not attempted to list 

those types in this regulation. 

Zhongce suggested that NHTSA 

remove the specification for font type, 

or alternatively standardize the heightwidth ratio of the font. Zhongce argued 

that the specified fonts are not pleasant 

looking and manufacturers will want to 

use other fonts. We have not made any 

change in response to these comments. 

The specified fonts (and others 

approved by NHTSA) were chosen or 

approved for the ease of distinguishing 

characters, and the specification of font 

type has not, to our knowledge, had any 

effect on tire customers’ purchasing 

decisions. Moreover, although the 

regulation does not specify the heightwidth ratio, we believe that the 

specification of fonts inherently 

specifies a height-width ratio for the 

characters. That is, if a manufacturer 

varies the height-width ratio for a 

particular font, it may not be using the 

specified font. 

Regarding the allowable fonts, we 

have discovered that the list of 

allowable fonts in Figures 1 and 2 has 

been inadvertently modified to specify 

that ‘‘Future Bold, Modified 

Condensed’’ or ‘‘Gothic’’ are the only 

two allowable fonts. However, the 

original font specification allowed four 

fonts: Futura Bold, Futura Modified, 

Futura Condensed, and Gothic. We have 

changed the location of the quotation 

marks and added commas to make clear 

in Figures 1 and 2 that there are four 

allowable fonts, not two. 

Kojin Kitao requested three 

clarifications regarding Figures 1 and 2: 

(1) Whether the DOT symbol and the 

TIN, or the TIN alone, must be in the 

specified fonts; (2) whether the entire 

TIN can be laser etched on a tire as in 

the proposed Figures 1 and 2, or 

whether only the date code may be laser 

etched as specified in § 574.5(d)(1); and 

(3) clarification on the location of the 

certification symbol and TIN on certain 

tires where it appeared that proposed 

Figure 1 had duplicate language. First, 

although the proposal stated that both 

the certification symbol and the TIN 

must be in the specified fonts, the 

version of Figures 1 and 2 in this final 

rule applies the font requirement solely 

to the TIN. We did not discuss this 

change in the preamble and did not 

intend the font requirement to apply to 

the certification symbol. Second, we 

intended to allow only the date code to 

be laser etched on a tire as specified in 

§ 574.5(d)(1). We have eliminated 

contrary language from Figures 1 and 2 

suggesting that other information may 

be laser etched. Third, we recognize that 

the proposed language in Figures 1 and 

2 regarding the location on the tire for 

the certification symbol and DOT code 

contains duplicate language, and we 

have corrected this duplication. These 

changes are reflected in this final rule. 

Tire Rack included two additional 

suggestions in its comments. First, it 

requested that NHTSA standardize the 

location of the certification symbol by 

allowing it only to the left of the TIN. 

Tire Rack requested that NHTSA 

eliminate Option 2 as depicted in 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
19558 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

10SRS also raised other matters in its comments. 

However, none of those matters are related to this 

rulemaking. 

11RMA also provided a list of non-regulatory 

changes that RMA believes are necessary to 

accommodate this final rule. RMA included 

suggested changes to the instructions for EWR 

reporting, the templates for EWR reporting, and 

potential changes to the Artemis database system. 

We will consider whether the changes to the EWR 

reporting instructions and templates are necessary. 

We believe that the Artemis database system is 

presently capable of accommodating three-symbol 

plant codes. 

Figures 1 and 2, which allows the 

certification symbol to be located above 

or below the TIN. Tire Rack observed 

that it had not seen any tires using 

Option 2 and believes that its use in the 

future could only cause confusion. 

Second, Tire Rack suggested that the 

branding of TINs on tires should be 

limited to smooth locations on the 

sidewall and be prohibited from being 

branded over multiple background 

surfaces. 

We have not adopted these suggested 

changes. It was not our intent in this 

rulemaking to make substantive changes 

to the labeling of the TIN on the tire, 

other than to accommodate a longer 

plant code and TIN, and we consider 

these comments to be outside of the 

scope of this rulemaking. Moreover, we 

are concerned that these changes would 

eliminate flexibility for manufacturers 

without necessarily improving the 

ability of the TIN to be quickly 

understood in order to facilitate safety 

recalls. 

Zhongce and GASS also identified 

errors in the pictures depicted in 

Figures 1 and 2. Specifically, some of 

the dimension lines did not line up with 

the dimensioning arrows. These errors 

have been corrected in this final rule. 

We received suggestions from GASS 

and Tire Rack to specify required 

spacing between the three groupings of 

symbols of the TIN. We have not 

adopted this suggestion, because we are 

concerned that it will eliminate a costeffective option for converting existing 

tire molds to a 13-symbol TIN. RMA has 

suggested that the modification of 

existing molds that are transferred to 

new plants will not simply involve the 

insertion of a ‘‘1’’ in front of the TIN. A 

mandatory minimum space between the 

groupings could prevent manufacturers 

from placing symbols between the 

existing groupings in order to use 13- 

symbol TINs on existing molds. We do 

not seek to impose costs unnecessarily; 

if this is a cheaper approach to achieve 

a clearly legible 13-symbol TIN, we 

would want manufacturers to be able to 

take advantage of it. 

VII. Other Suggested Changes and 

Technical Amendments 

NTSB and SRS 10 commented that the 

agency should alter the TIN to change 

the format of the date code. SRS 

requested that NHTSA use a non-coded 

date of manufacture. Currently, the last 

four numbers represent the week and 

year of manufacture of a tire. The 

commenters did not specify, however, 

how NHTSA should require the date of 

manufacture to be presented on the tire. 

Given that we did not propose any 

changes to the date code portion of the 

TIN, nor did we discuss or request 

comment on any potential changes to 

the date code, such a change may be 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

Even if it were in scope, however, we do 

not believe a change to the date code is 

necessary for consumers to determine 

when their tires were manufactured. 

NHTSA’s tire consumer Web site, 

http://www.safercar.gov/tires/

index.html, explains in several places 

how to find and interpret the date code. 

Furthermore, a person should easily be 

able to determine the location of the 

date of manufacture on a tire is located 

either by querying an internet search 

engine or by asking a tire dealer. 

NTSB and Tire Rack suggested that 

the use of partial TINs on some tires has 

not allowed consumers to have 

necessary information about their tires 

and requested that full TINs be required 

on both sides of a tire. This suggestion 

is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

We did not discuss or propose any 

changes to the placement of the TIN on 

one or both sidewalls. 

NTSB also suggests that NHTSA 

enhance the usability of TIN coding by 

requiring that any coding used by 

manufacturers be reported to NHTSA 

and be made public. NTSB particularly 

notes that the manufacturer, brand 

name, model, size, and date of 

manufacture be made available. We are 

not making the suggested changes. The 

information referenced by NTSB is 

already required to be marked on the 

sidewall of any tire certified to FMVSS 

requirements. We do not believe that 

safety would be improved by requiring 

this information to be additionally 

included in the TIN itself. 

GASS stated that in the first sentence 

of proposed § 574.5(a)(3) specifying 

marking requirements for nonpneumatic tires, the agency should 

specify that, instead of saying the TIN 

has to be placed ‘‘onto one side of’’ the 

tire, the agency should specify that it be 

placed ‘‘onto at least one side of’’ the 

tire. GASS reasoned that this change 

would be consistent with requirements 

for other types of tires. We agree, and 

we have made this suggested change. 

GASS raised other technical issues 

that we have not adopted. First, GASS 

suggested that proposed § 574.5(b)(1) 

and (b)(3) be modified to make explicit 

references to Figures 1 and 2, as we 

have done in § 574.5(b)(2). We do not 

believe this change is necessary. 

Second, GASS suggested that the list of 

authorized symbols in § 574.5(f) has the 

letter ‘‘I’’ instead of the number ‘‘1’’. 

This is not correct. The number ‘‘1’’ was 

used in the NPRM. Third, GASS 

suggested that the list be modified to 

make explicit notations of the symbols 

that are letters and those that are 

numerals. We do not believe this change 

is necessary because the context in 

which the information is presented 

(alphabetical and numerical order) 

makes clear which symbols are letters 

and which are numbers. 

RMA stated that in proposed 

§ 574.5(a)(4) regarding the labeling of 

tires manufactured for mileage-contract 

purchasers, NHTSA incorrectly 

converted 0.25 inches into 13 

millimeters rather than 6 millimeters. 

We agree that this conversion was 

incorrect. We have included the correct 

metric conversion in this final rule. 

Finally, we sought comment on 

whether it is necessary to make any 

technical amendment to any of the tire 

labeling regulations in light of the 

proposed changes. RMA suggested 

several other technical amendments that 

were necessary. First, RMA suggested 

that NHTSA amend S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS 

No. 139, which includes language that 

allows optional codes to be excluded 

from partial TINs allowed on one 

sidewall of a tire. However, this final 

rule does not completely eliminate 

optional codes. Existing plants with 

two-symbol plant codes will be allowed 

to continue to use the old TIN format. 

Thus, it would be premature to remove 

the reference to optional codes in 

FMVSS No. 139. 

Second, RMA stated that the Early 

Warning Reporting (EWR) regulations in 

49 CFR 579.26 contain three references 

that should be corrected. First, the 

general provisions specify that 

manufacturers located in the United 

States may report ‘‘the two-character 

DOT alphanumeric code’’ identifying 

the production plant. In addition, 

paragraphs (a) and (d) contain 

references to ‘‘tire type codes’’ which, 

under the new TIN format, would be the 

manufacturer’s code. We agree that 49 

CFR 579.26 requires technical 

corrections for consistency with the 

changes to part 574, and have included 

RMA’s suggested technical corrections 

in this final rule.11


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19559 

VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866, Executive 

Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures 

NHTSA has considered the impact of 

this rulemaking action under Executive 

Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, 

and the Department of Transportation’s 

regulatory policies and procedures. This 

rulemaking is not considered significant 

and was not reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget under E.O. 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ The rulemaking action has 

also been determined not to be 

significant under the Department’s 

regulatory policies and procedures. The 

agency has further determined that the 

impact of this proposal is so minimal as 

to not warrant the preparation of a full 

regulatory evaluation. 

This final rule will impose costs upon 

some existing tire manufacturers. New 

tire manufacturers would be issued 

three-symbol plant codes immediately 

and would be required to use the 

standardized 13-symbol TIN. For these 

new manufacturers or existing 

manufacturers opening new plants, this 

final rule will impose at most negligible 

costs. Manufacturers constructing new 

molds for a new plant should be able to 

comply with the new TIN requirements 

at no additional cost. For existing 

plants, new tire manufacturers will be 

required to modify any molds still in 

service in 10 years to accommodate a 

three-symbol plant code and a 13- 

symbol TIN. As discussed in more detail 

in section V, above, we expect that, for 

existing plants, this final rule will result 

in a one-time cost of approximately 

$31.7 million to modify molds to 

accommodate a three-symbol plant code 

and a 13-symbol TIN. We estimate that 

this cost could be spread out over all 

tires produced over a 13-year period, 

resulting in an increase in cost per tire 

of less than one cent. 

We do not believe that the safety 

benefits of this final rule can be 

expressly quantified, but we anticipate 

that these amendments would benefit 

the public in two ways. First, without 

expanding the plant code to three 

characters, the agency would need 

either to stop issuing new plant codes 

or to issue identical codes to multiple 

manufacturers. Either of these 

approaches could lead to confusion in 

the identification of the manufacturer of 

a tire, particularly those tires that are 

manufactured for another brand name 

owner. Second, the standardization of 

the TIN length eliminates the potential 

for confusion regarding whether a TIN 

is a full TIN or a partial TIN, which may 

assist consumers with identifying 

whether their tires may be subject to 

recall and may prevent crash 

investigators from recording partial 

TINs rather than full TINs on their 

reports. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency is required 

to publish a notice of rulemaking for 

any proposed or final rule, it must 

prepare and make available for public 

comment a regulatory flexibility 

analysis that describes the effect of the 

rule on small entities (i.e., small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions). The 

Small Business Administration’s 

regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a 

small business, in part, as a business 

entity ‘‘which operates primarily within 

the United States.’’ (13 CFR 121.105(a)). 

No regulatory flexibility analysis is 

required if the head of an agency 

certifies the rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

SBREFA amended the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to require Federal 

agencies to provide a statement of the 

factual basis for certifying that a rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

NHTSA has considered the effects of 

this final rule under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. I certify that this final 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This final rule 

would directly impact manufacturers 

and retreaders of tires for use on all 

motor vehicles. Although we believe 

many manufacturers affected by this 

final rule are considered small 

businesses, we do not believe this final 

rule will have a significant economic 

impact on those manufacturers. We 

expect that many changes that need to 

be made by manufacturers as a result of 

this final rule be done during the 

normal mold replacement cycle at no 

additional cost to manufacturers. The 

new tire manufacturers that would bear 

the costs of this rule as discussed in 

section V, above, are not small 

businesses. Although some retreaders 

are likely small businesses, we believe 

that they can make the modifications 

required by this final rule without 

incurring significant costs. The process 

by which retreaders label tires with 

TINs is different than for new tire 

manufacturers. Retreaders do not label 

TINs on tires using tire molds; rather, 

they use smaller, less expensive means 

for labeling tires. We do not believe that 

this final rule would cause retreaders to 

modify molds, and we believe that any 

modifications to TIN labeling methods 

necessary to comply with this rule 

could be made at minimal cost. 

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has examined today’s final 

rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and 

concluded that no additional 

consultation with States, local 

governments or their representatives is 

mandated beyond the rulemaking 

process. The agency has concluded that 

the rulemaking would not have 

sufficient federalism implications to 

warrant consultation with State and 

local officials or the preparation of a 

federalism summary impact statement. 

The final rule would not have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ The agency 

expects that general principles of 

preemption law would operate so as to 

displace any conflicting State law or 

regulations. 

D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

With respect to the review of the 

promulgation of a new regulation, 

section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729; Feb. 

7, 1996), requires that Executive 

agencies make every reasonable effort to 

ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly 

specifies the preemptive effect; (2) 

clearly specifies the effect on existing 

Federal law or regulation; (3) provides 

a clear legal standard for affected 

conduct, while promoting simplification 

and burden reduction; (4) clearly 

specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) 

specifies whether administrative 

proceedings are to be required before 

parties file suit in court; (6) adequately 

defines key terms; and (7) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. This document is consistent 

with that requirement. 

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes 

as follows. The issue of preemption is 

discussed above. NHTSA notes further 

that there is no requirement that 

individuals submit a petition for 

reconsideration or pursue other 

administrative proceedings before they 

may file suit in court. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
19560 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required 

to respond to a collection of information 

by a Federal agency unless the 

collection displays a valid OMB control 

number. There is no information 

collection requirement associated with 

this final rule. 

F. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to 

evaluate and use existing voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless doing so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., 

the statutory provisions regarding 

NHTSA’s vehicle safety authority) or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards developed or adopted by 

voluntary consensus standards bodies. 

Technical standards are defined by the 

NTTAA as ‘‘performance-based or 

design-specific technical specification 

and related management systems 

practices.’’ They pertain to ‘‘products 

and processes, such as size, strength, or 

technical performance of a product, 

process or material.’’ 

Examples of organizations generally 

regarded as voluntary consensus 

standards bodies include ASTM 

International, the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE), and the American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI). If 

NHTSA does not use available and 

potentially applicable voluntary 

consensus standards, we are required by 

the Act to provide Congress, through 

OMB, an explanation of the reasons for 

not using such standards. 

There are no voluntary consensus 

standards developed by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies pertaining 

to this final rule. 

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 

requires federal agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

more than $100 million annually 

(adjusted for inflation with base year of 

1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA 

rule for which a written statement is 

needed, section 205 of the UMRA 

generally requires the agency to identify 

and consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives and adopt the 

least costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule. The 

provisions of section 205 do not apply 

when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, section 205 

allows the agency to adopt an 

alternative other than the least costly, 

most cost-effective, or least burdensome 

alternative if the agency publishes with 

the final rule an explanation of why that 

alternative was not adopted. 

This final rule will not result in any 

expenditure by State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector of 

more than $100 million, adjusted for 

inflation. 

H. National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking 

action for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The agency 

has determined that implementation of 

this action would not have any 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. 

I. 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. 

J. Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78). 

List of Subjects 

49 CFR Part 574 

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Tires. 

49 CFR Part 579 

Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Tires. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA amends 49 CFR parts 574 and 

579 as follows: 

PART 574—TIRE IDENTIFICATION AND 

RECORDKEEPING 

■ 1. Revise the authority citation for part 

574 to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.95. 

■ 2. Revise §§ 574.5 and 574.6 to read as 

follows: 

§ 574.5 Tire identification requirements. 

(a) Tire identification number (TIN) 

labeling requirement—(1) New tires. 

Each new tire manufacturer must 

conspicuously label on one sidewall of 

each tire it manufactures, except nonpneumatic tires or non-pneumatic tire 

assemblies, by permanently molding 

into or onto the sidewall, in the manner 

and location specified in Figure 1, a TIN 

consisting of 13 symbols and containing 

the information set forth in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section. 

NOTE: The Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standards may have more 

specific TIN marking requirements for 

some tires. See 49 CFR part 571. 

(2) Retreaded tires. Each tire retreader 

must conspicuously label at least one 

sidewall of each tire it retreads by 

permanently molding or branding into 

or onto the sidewall, in the manner and 

location specified by Figure 2, a TIN 

consisting of seven symbols and 

containing the information set forth in 

paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(3) of this 

section. 

(3) Non-pneumatic tires and nonpneumatic tire assemblies. Each 

manufacturer of a non-pneumatic tire or 

non-pneumatic tire assembly must 

permanently mold, stamp, or otherwise 

permanently mark into or onto at least 

one side of the non-pneumatic tire or 

non-pneumatic tire assembly a TIN 

consisting of 13 symbols and containing 

the information set forth in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section. 

(4) Tires for mileage-contract 

purchasers. Manufacturers or retreaders 

of tires exclusively for mileage-contract 

purchasers may, instead of meeting any 

other requirements of this section, 

permanently mold into or onto the tire 

sidewall in lettering at least 6 mm (0.25 

inch) high the phrase ‘‘for mileage 

contract use only’’. 

(5) Optional phase-out of two-symbol 

plant code. NHTSA will assign to tire 

manufacturers who were previously 

assigned a plant code consisting of two 

symbols a new three-symbol plant code 

to replace each two-symbol plant code. 

A manufacturer may continue to use a 

previously assigned two-symbol plant 

code until April 13, 2025. 

Manufacturers who use a two-symbol 

plant code must comply with paragraph 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19561 

(g) of this section in lieu of the 

requirements in paragraph (b) of this 

section. Retreaders may also optionally 

comply with paragraph (g) of this 

section in lieu of paragraph (b) of this 

section until April 13, 2025. 

(b) TIN content requirements—(1) 

Plant code. The plant code, consisting 

of three symbols, must be the first group 

of the TIN. The plant code represents 

the identity of the new tire 

manufacturer or retreader. The plant 

code is assigned to the manufacturer or 

retreader by NHTSA upon request. See 

§ 574.6. 

(2) Manufacturer’s code. The 

manufacturer’s code, consisting of six 

symbols, is the second group of the TIN 

for all new tires, but it cannot be used 

for retreaded tires. The manufacturer’s 

code must be located between the plant 

code and the date code as shown in 

Figure 1. For new tires, the 

manufacturer’s code may be used as a 

descriptive code for the purpose of 

identifying significant characteristics of 

the tire or to identify the brand name 

owner. For a new non-pneumatic tire or 

a non-pneumatic tire assembly, the 

manufacturer’s code must identify the 

non-pneumatic tire identification code. 

Each manufacturer must maintain a 

detailed record of each manufacturer’s 

code it uses with the corresponding tire 

size, tire characteristic, brand name 

owner, and non-pneumatic tire 

identification code as applicable and 

their respective meanings, which it 

must provide to NHTSA upon request. 

(3) Date code. The date code, 

consisting of four numerical symbols, is 

the final group. The date code must 

identify the week and year of 

manufacture. The first and second 

symbols of the date code must identify 

the week of the year by using ‘‘01’’ for 

the first full calendar week in each year, 

‘‘02’’ for the second full calendar week, 

and so on. The calendar week runs from 

Sunday through the following Saturday. 

The final week of each year may include 

no more than six days of the following 

year. The third and fourth symbols of 

the date code must identify the last two 

digits of the year of manufacture. For 

example, 0109 means the tire was 

manufactured in the first full calendar 

week of 2009, or the week beginning on 

Sunday, January 4, 2009, and ending on 

Saturday, January 10, 2009. The date 

code must be positioned as shown in 

Figures 1 or 2 for new tires and 

retreaded tires, respectively. 

(c) Retreaded tire mark. The symbol 

‘‘R’’ must be used to identify retreaded 

tires, and must be marked at the time of 

TIN marking in a location specified in 

Figure 2. The ‘‘R’’ is not part of the TIN. 

(d) Method of marking. (1) At the 

option of the manufacturer or retreader, 

the information contained in paragraph 

(b)(3) of this section may, instead of 

being permanently molded, be laser 

etched into or onto the sidewall in the 

location specified in Figures 1 or 2, 

respectively, during the manufacturing 

process of the tire and not later than 24 

hours after the tire is removed from the 

mold. 

(2) The labeling for a non-pneumatic 

tire or a non-pneumatic tire assembly 

must be in the manner specified in 

Figure 1 and positioned on the nonpneumatic tire or non-pneumatic tire 

assembly such that it is not placed on 

the tread or the outermost edge of the 

tire and is not obstructed by any portion 

of the non-pneumatic rim or wheel 

center member designated for use with 

that non-pneumatic tire in S4.4 of 

Standard No. 129 (49 CFR 571.129). 

(e) The DOT symbol. (1) The DOT 

symbol constitutes a certification that 

the marked tire conforms to an 

applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard. 

(2) If required, a manufacturer or 

retreader must place the DOT symbol as 

shown and positioned relative to the 

TIN in Figure 1 for new tires and as 

shown in Figure 2 for retreaded tires. 

(3) The DOT symbol must not appear 

on tires to which no Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard is applicable, 

except that retreaders of tires for use on 

motor vehicles other than passenger cars 

may, prior to retreading, remove the 

DOT symbol from the sidewall or allow 

it to remain on the sidewall, at the 

retreader’s option. 

(f) Authorized symbols. The only 

symbols that manufacturers and 

retreaders are allowed to use in the tire 

identification number are: A, B, C, D, E, 

F, H, J, K, L, M, N, P, R, T, U, V, W, 

X, Y, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 0. 

(g) Old TIN content requirement. The 

following requirements are applicable to 

tire manufacturers who were previously 

assigned two-symbol plant codes by 

NHTSA and to retreaders. A new tire 

manufacturer who continues to use a 

previously assigned two-symbol plant 

code in place of a new three-symbol 

plant code and a retreader may 

optionally comply with this paragraph 

instead of paragraph (b) of this section 

until April 13, 2025. 

(1) First grouping. The plant code, 

consisting of two symbols, must be the 

first group of the TIN. The plant code 

represents the identity of the new tire 

manufacturer and was previously 

assigned to the manufacturer by 

NHTSA. 

(2) Second grouping. For new tires, 

the second group, consisting of no more 

than two symbols, must be used to 

identify the tire size. For a nonpneumatic tire or non-pneumatic tire 

assembly, the second group, consisting 

of no more than two symbols, must be 

used to identify the non-pneumatic tire 

identification code. For retreaded tires, 

the second group, consisting of no more 

than two symbols, must identify the 

retread matrix in which the tire was 

processed or a tire size code if a matrix 

was not used to process the retreaded 

tire. Each new tire manufacturer and 

retreader must maintain a record of each 

symbol used, with the corresponding 

matrix or tire size, which it must 

provide to NHTSA upon request. 

(3) Third grouping. The third group, 

consisting of no more than four 

symbols, may be used at the option of 

the manufacturer or retreader as a 

descriptive code for the purpose of 

identifying significant characteristics of 

the tire. However, if the tire is 

manufactured for a brand name owner, 

one of the functions of the third 

grouping must be to identify the brand 

name owner. Each manufacturer or 

retreader who uses the third grouping 

must maintain a detailed record of any 

descriptive brand name owner code 

used, which it must provide to NHTSA 

upon request. 

(4) Fourth grouping. The date code, 

consisting of four numerical symbols, is 

the final group. The date code must 

identify the week and year of 

manufacture. The first and second 

symbols of the date code must identify 

the week of the year by using ‘‘01’’ for 

the first full calendar week in each year, 

‘‘02’’ for the second full calendar week, 

and so on. The calendar week runs from 

Sunday through the following Saturday. 

The final week of each year may include 

no more than six days of the following 

year. The third and fourth symbols of 

the date code must identify the last two 

digits of the year of manufacture. For 

example, 0109 means the tire was 

manufactured in the first full calendar 

week of 2009, or the week beginning on 

Sunday, January 4, 2009, and ending on 

Saturday, January 10, 2009. The date 

code must be positioned as shown in 

Figures 1 or 2 for new tires and 

retreaded tires, respectively. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
19562 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULESER13AP15.004</GPH>

OPTION 1 

Spacing H <II 6 mm (0.25") min 

19 mm (0.75"') max 

(~-~;)mini DOT PPP 

Certification 

L......r--J Plant ~ 

Code 

Symbol (if 

required) 

OPTION 2 

Spacing Tppp 6 mm (0.25") min 

19 mm (0.75") max 

Notes 

Tire Identification Number (TIN) ~ 

MMMMMM DODD 

Manufacturer's Code Date of Manufacture 

Area A 

Tire Identification Number (TIN) ~ 

MMMMMM DODD _t (~-~":')min 

DOT 

1. The TIN shall be in "Futura" Bold, Modified, or Condensed or "Gothic" characters. Other print types 

will be permitted if approved by NHTSA. The certifying symbol and the TIN shall be at least 6 mm in 

height and permanently molded 0.51 mm (0.020") to 1.02 mm (0.040") deep, measured from the 

surface immediately surrounding the symbols into or onto the tire at the indicated location on one 

side. As an option, the information contained in paragraph (b)(3) may also be laser etched in the 

same location to a depth of 0.25 mm (0.01 0") to 1.02 mm (0.040") consistent with the requirements 

of paragraph ( d)(1 ). For tires with a cross section of 152 mm (6 inches) or less or with a bead 

diameter of 330 mm (13 inches) or less, the height of the characters may be 4 mm (0.156 inches) or 

greater. 

2. The certification symbol is not part of the TIN and may only be marked by the manufacturer for tires it 

has certified to a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. The DOT symbol may be located to the left 

of TIN, or it may be wholly located above or below the Manufacturer's code. The spacing between the 

DOT symbol and the TIN shall be no less than 6 mm (0.25 inch) and no more than 19 mm (0.75 inch). 

3. Groups of symbols in the TIN shall be in the order and number of symbols indicated, see Option 1 and 

Option 2, above. Deviation from the straight line arrangement will be pemnitted if required to confomn to 

the curvature of the tire. 

4. Locate the certification symbol and the TIN in the lower segment of one sidewall between the maximum 

section width and bead (Area A), so that data will not be obstructed by rim flange, unless maximum 

section width falls between the bead and one-fourth of the distance from the bead to the shoulder of the 

tire. For tires where the maximum section width falls in that area, locate all required labeling between 

the bead and one-half the distance from the bead to the shoulder so that the data will not be obstructed 

by the rim flange. 

5. Manufacturers who were previously assigned two-symbol plant codes may continue to use two-symbol 

plant codes in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (g). For those tires, the two-symbol plant 

code is followed by a size code that is up to two symbols in length, a tire type code that is up to four 

symbols in length, and the four-symbol date code. 

Figure 1: Tire Identification Number (TIN) for New Tires 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19563 

§ 574.6 How to obtain a plant code. 

To obtain a plant code required by 

§ 574.5(b)(1), each manufacturer of new 

or retreaded pneumatic tires, nonpneumatic tires, or non-pneumatic tire 

assemblies must apply in writing to the 

Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. 

SW., Washington, DC 20590, identify 

itself as a tire manufacturer or retreader, 

and furnish the following information: 

(a) The name, or other designation 

identifying the applicant, and its main 

office address; 

(b) The name, or other identifying 

designation, of each individual plant 

operated by the manufacturer and the 

address of each plant, if applicable; 

(c) The name, or other identifying 

designation, of the corporate owner, if 

applicable, of each plant; 

(d) The email addresses, phone 

numbers, and fax numbers for each 

person or corporation listed, including 

the main office; and 

(e) The type of tires manufactured at 

each plant, e.g., pneumatic tires for 

passenger cars, buses, trucks, or 

motorcycles; pneumatic retreaded tires; 

or non-pneumatic tires or nonpneumatic tire assemblies. 

Note to § 574,6: Additional 

requirements for new tire manufacturers 

may be applicable. See 49 CFR parts 551 

and 566. 

PART 579—REPORTING OF 

INFORMATION AND 

COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT 

POTENTIAL DEFECTS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 579 

continues to read as follows: 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULESER13AP15.005</GPH>
19564 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30102–103, 30112, 

30117–121, 30166–167; delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.8. 

■ 4. Amend § 579.26 by: 

■ a. Revising the fifth sentence of the 

introductory text; 

■ b. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (a); and 

■ c. Revising the second sentence of 

paragraph (d). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 579.26 Reporting requirements for 

manufacturers of tires. 

* * * For purposes of this section, 

the two- or three-character DOT 

alphanumeric code for production 

plants located in the United States 

assigned by NHTSA in accordance with 

§§ 574.5 and 574.6 of this chapter may 

be used to identify ‘‘plant where 

manufactured.’’ * * * 

(a) Production information. 

Information that states the 

manufacturer’s name, the quarterly 

reporting period, the tire line, the tire 

size, the tire type code or 

manufacturer’s code, the SKU, the plant 

where manufactured, whether the tire is 

approved for use as original equipment 

on a motor vehicle, if so, the make, 

model, and model year of each vehicle 

for which it is approved, the production 

year, the cumulative warranty 

production, and the cumulative total 

production through the end of the 

reporting period. * * * 

* * * * * 

(d) Common green tire reporting. 

* * * For each specific common green 

tire grouping, the list shall provide all 

relevant tire lines, tire type codes or 

manufacturer’s code, SKU numbers, 

brand names, and brand name owners. 

Issued on April 3, 2015 in Washington, DC, 

under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 

501.5. 

Mark R. Rosekind, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08418 Filed 4–10–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 150227200–5347–02] 

RIN 0648–BE79 

Fisheries Off West Coast States; West 

Coast Salmon Fisheries; Management 

Reference Point Updates for Three 

Stocks of Pacific Salmon 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule to 

update management reference point 

values for Southern Oregon coastal 

Chinook salmon, Grays Harbor fall 

Chinook salmon, and Willapa Bay 

natural coho, as recommended by the 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(Council) for use in developing annual 

management measures beginning in 

2015. 

DATES: This final rule is effective April 

13, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peggy Mundy at 206–526–4323. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Council manages West Coast 

ocean salmon fisheries under the Pacific 

Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP). Over the course of two Council 

meetings (November 2014 and March 

2015), the Council adopted management 

reference point values for three stocks of 

Pacific salmon: Southern Oregon coastal 

Chinook salmon, Grays Harbor fall 

Chinook salmon, and Willapa Bay 

natural coho. The management 

reference points, as described in the 

proposed rule (80 FR 14066, March 18, 

2015), include: Conservation objective 

(a value unique to the FMP, generally an 

annual spawning escapement goal), the 

fishing mortality rate expected to result 

in maximum sustainable yield (FMSY), 

MSY spawner abundance (SMSY), 

minimum stock size threshold (MSST), 

and maximum fishery mortality 

threshold (MFMT, generally equal to 

FMSY). For one stock that was added to 

the FMP under Amendment 16, Willapa 

Bay natural coho, the Council also 

confirmed the formula for determining 

the annual catch limit (ACL), as 

required under the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (MSA). The proposed rule was 

developed based on Council 

recommendations from the November 

2014 Council meeting. At that time, the 

Council had not explicitly adopted all of 

the management reference point values; 

therefore, NMFS proposed adopting 

some of the values pursuant to NMFS’ 

independent rulemaking authority (18 

U.S.C. 1855(d)), and those values were 

described in the proposed rule. The 

Council took action at the March 2015 

meeting to adopt the remaining 

management reference point values. The 

reference point values being 

implemented by this final rule are based 

on the best available science developed 

through the Council’s 2014 

methodology review. They were 

recommended to the Council by the 

Salmon Technical Team, and were 

reviewed and endorsed, to the extent 

appropriate, by the Scientific and 

Statistical Committee. The reference 

point values being implemented are 

presented in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—UPDATED MANAGEMENT REFERENCE POINTS ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL AND IMPLEMENTED IN THIS FINAL

RULE

Reference point Southern Oregon coastal Chinook Willapa Bay natural coho Grays Harbor fall Chinook 

FMP Conservation Objective 

(escapement).

41,000 (measured at Huntley 

Park).

17,200 ........................................... 13,326. 

SMSY (escapement) ....................... 34,992 ........................................... 17,200 ........................................... 13,326. 

MSST (escapement) ...................... 20,500 (measured at Huntley 

Park).

8,600 ............................................. 6,663. 

MFMT ............................................. 54 percent ..................................... 74 percent ..................................... 63 percent. 

ACL Definition ................................ Not applicable ............................... Based on FABC and annual ocean 

abundance, FABC is FMSY reduced by Tier 1 (5%) uncertainty.

Not applicable. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES