27472 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules

DATES: The meeting will be at 2:00 p.m.

on June 14, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will

held at: Office of Personnel

Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room

1350, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Beverly Fayson, FAR Secretariat,

General Services Administration, 18th

and F Streets NW., Washington, DC

20405. Telephone: (202) 501–4755; FAX

(202) 501–4067.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In order to

implement Section 2191 of the Act, the

Cost Principles Team drafted a proposed

rule which would use the Federal

Travel Regulation/Joint Travel

Regulation (FTR/JTR) rates as a baseline,

while allowing contractors to propose

alternative maximum per diem rates

based on existing travel cost

reimbursement systems. After review

and analysis of the public comments on

the proposed rule, the team has

preliminarily decided to recommend

retention of the current cost principle

language at FAR 31.205–46 without

change and to withdraw the proposed

rule.

The team’s preliminary determination

to retain the current cost principle

language is based on the following: (i)

Industry and Government agency

commentors generally agreed that the

proposed rule’s alternative maximum

per diem rate requirements would place

an undue administrative burden on

contractor and Government personnel;

(ii) commentors proposing a revision to

the ‘‘reasonableness standard’’ did not

provide any empirical data to support

claimed inequities or increased

administrative burdens under the

current rule; and (iii) the commenters’

alternatives were considered by the

team to be administratively burdensome

and inadequate to protect the

Government’s interests. The team’s

preliminary conclusion is that retaining

the current FAR requirement will

reduce disagreements and disputes

between contractors and the

Government, is less burdensome

administratively than any alternative

proposed, and results in equitable

reimbursement of per diem costs.

To allow the public to present its

views on this determination, a public

meeting will be held on June 14, 1995.

Persons or organizations wishing to

make presentations will be allowed 10

minutes to present their views, provided

they notify the FAR Secretariat at (202)

501–4745 and provide an advance copy

of their remarks not later than June 9,

1995. All participants should be

prepared to provide data to support

their positions. The team is particularly

interested in data which supports the

contention that FTR/JTR rates are

inequitable or that the current FAR

requirements are more administratively

burdensome than would be other

proposed alternatives, either proposed

during the public comment process, or

presented at this meeting. Alternatives,

other than those previously proposed

during the public comment period, may

be submitted the consideration. The

team will enter into discussion with

commentors and the audience during

this meeting.

Dated: May 18, 1995.

Edward C. Loeb,

Deputy Project Manager for Implementation

of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act

of 1994.

[FR Doc. 95–12659 Filed 5–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 575

[Docket No. 94–30, Notice 2]

RIN 2127–AF17

Consumer Information Regulations

Uniform Tire Quality Grading

Standards

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to

amend the Uniform Tire Quality

Grading Standards to:

1. Revise treadwear testing procedures

to maintain the base course wear rate of

course monitoring tires at its current

value. That revision should eliminate

treadwear grade inflation, reduce testing

expenses, and reduce the adverse

environmental consequences of

operating testing convoys;

2. Create a new traction grading

category of ‘‘AA’’ in addition to the

current traction grades of A, B, and C to

differentiate those tires with the highest

traction characteristics from lower

performing tires;

3. Replace the temperature resistance

grade with a rolling resistance/fuel

economy grade. This change would

provide a measure of a key fuel

economy characteristic of tires, and

responds to the President’s Climate

Change Action Plan.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be

received on or before July 10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

the docket and notice number shown

above and be submitted to Docket

Section, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW, Room 5111, Washington, DC

20590. Docket room hours are from 9:30

a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Orron Kee, Office of Market Incentives,

Office of the Associate Administrator for

Rulemaking, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Room 5320, Washington,

DC 20590, telephone (202) 366–0846.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

II. April 25, 1994 Request for Comments

A. Treadwear

1. Treadwear Test and Calculation

Procedures

a. Candidate Tires

b. Course Monitoring Tires

2. Treadwear Grade Inflation

3. Possible Solutions to Treadwear Grade

Inflation

B. Traction

1. Traction Test and Calculation

Procedures

2. Ability of Traction Grading System to

Differentiate Highest Traction Tires

3. Possible Solutions to Traction Grading

Problems

C. Temperature and Rolling Resistance/

Fuel Economy

1. Temperature Resistance

2. Rolling Resistance/Fuel Economy

3. Issues Regarding Temperature/Rolling

Resistance/Fuel Economy

III. Summary of Public Comments, Agency

Decisions, Benefits and Costs

A. Treadwear

1. Summary of Comments

2. Agency Decision

3. Costs and Benefits

B. Traction

1. Public Comments

2. Agency Decision

3. Costs and Benefits

C. Temperature/Rolling Resistance/Fuel

Economy

1. Public Comments

2. Agency Decision

a. Temperature Resistance

b. Rolling Resistance/Fuel Economy

3. Costs and Benefits

D. Leadtime

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. National Environmental Policy Act

D. Federalism

E. Civil Justice Reform

V. Comments

I. Background

49 U.S.C. 30123(e) requires the

Secretary of Transportation to prescribe

a uniform system for grading motor

vehicle tires to assist consumers in
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules 27473

making informed choices when

purchasing tires. NHTSA implemented

this congressional mandate by issuing

the Uniform Tire Quality Grading

Standards (UTQGS) (49 CFR § 575.104).

The UTQGS are applicable to most

passenger car tires.

The UTQGS require manufacturers to

grade their tires for treadwear, traction,

and temperature resistance. Those

characteristics were adopted by NHTSA

after an extended process of study,

testing, and public comment. NHTSA

believed that those three characteristics

provided the best balance of tire

properties that would be the most

meaningful to consumers. Because those

three characteristics interact with each

other, however, manufacturers must use

care in trying to improve any particular

characteristic since improving one

characteristic could detract from one or

both of the other characteristics. For

example, treadwear life could be

extended by adjusting the tire

compounds to produce a harder tread.

That adjustment, however, could detract

from traction performance. Tread life

could also be extended by adding more

rubber compound to the tread. That

addition, however, could increase

rolling resistance, causing greater

internal heating. The increased heating

could, in turn, result in temperature

buildup and possibly result in tire

failure.

II. April 25, 1994 Request for

Comments

On April 25, 1994, NHTSA published

a Request for Comments in the Federal

Register (59 FR 19686) requesting

public comment on possible

improvements to the UTQGS.

Specifically, the agency requested

comments on ways to cure a problem of

treadwear grade inflation, whether to

add an additional rating category to

provide a means of differentiating tires

with the highest traction characteristics,

and whether to commence the grading

of tires for rolling resistance. In view of

the complexity of the subject matter of

this notice, the agency is repeating

much of the background explanatory

discussion in the Request for

Comments.

A. Treadwear

In the Request for Comments, the

agency described the testing of

candidate tires, the role played by

course monitoring tires in adjusting the

measured wear of candidate tires and

the possible sources of treadwear rating

inflation.

1. Treadwear Test and Calculation

Procedures

a. Candidate tires. The treadwear

grade is considered the most meaningful

of the three grades to the public, but

treadwear is also the most difficult of

the three characteristics to grade.

The procedures which NHTSA

follows for testing tires for compliance

with the UTQGS are specified in 49 CFR

575.104(e), Treadwear grading

conditions and procedures. NHTSA

tests treadwear by running the tires

being tested, called candidate tires, on

test vehicles multiple times over a 400-

mile test course on public roads in the

vicinity of San Angelo, Texas. The test

vehicles travel in convoys of two or four

passenger cars, light trucks, or

multipurpose passenger vehicles, each

with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.

To equalize operating conditions, the

drivers are changed at regular intervals,

the tires are rotated to different

positions on the vehicles, and the

vehicles are rotated to different

positions within the convoy.

Candidate tires are subjected to a

6,400 mile test. At the end of the test,

the total measured wear is multiplied by

a factor that reflects the severity of the

environmental conditions during the

test (the purpose and derivation of that

factor is explained below in the

discussion of course monitoring tires).

The result of the multiplication is the

adjusted wear rate (AWR) of the

candidate tires. The AWR is

extrapolated to wearout, which is

considered to be the point at which

1⁄16th of an inch of tread remains. The

extrapolated figure becomes the

treadwear grade. A grade of 100

indicates that the tire can be expected

to achieve 30,000 miles to wear out, as

measured on the San Angelo course. A

treadwear grade of 150 should achieve

50 percent more mileage than the one

graded 100, if tested on the same course

and under the same conditions. NHTSA

emphasizes, however, that the

treadwear grades are not meant to be

indicative of the actual mileage every

consumer can expect from a given tire.

The grades are intended to be indicators

of relative performance rather than

absolute performance. Thus, a tire

graded at 150 should achieve 50 percent

more mileage than one graded at 100.

The actual tire mileage achieved by a

motorist depends on many variables,

such as geographic location, road

conditions, individual driving habits,

climate, weather, tire maintenance, and

so forth.

b. Course Monitoring Tires.

Environmental factors like changes in

road and climatic conditions can cause

course wear rates for the same tire to

vary on a daily basis. In order to

compensate for the effect of such

variables on the amount of wear during

a particular treadwear convoy test,

candidate tires are tested along with

control tires called course monitoring

tires (CMT). Four CMT’s are placed on

one test vehicle and four candidate tires

with identical size designations are

placed on each other test vehicle in the

convoy. CMTs are built to the

specifications of American Society for

Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard

E1136, which specifies tight controls

over the production, handling, and

storage of those standardized control

tires.

Since CMT lots are not precisely

identical, even though manufactured to

ASTM standards, a base course wear

rate (BCWR) is established for each new

batch or lot of CMTs procured by the

agency. The BCWR is the calculated

wear rate of that lot of CMTs under

‘‘average’’ conditions and is applied to

the CMTs to adjust for the variability in

the wear rates between CMT lots. The

BCWR for the new lot is determined by

running tires selected from that lot over

the test course in a convoy along with

CMTs from the previous lot. The

previous CMTs are run in an attempt to

determine whether and to what extent

there have been changes in the

condition of the course. The measure of

those changes is called a course severity

adjustment factor (CSAF). The CSAF is

determined by dividing the BCWR for

the CMTs by the average wear rate of the

4 CMTs in the test convoy. It is assumed

that any difference between the BCWR

and the wear rate reflects changes in the

course. The measured wear rate of the

new CMTs is then multiplied by the

CSAF to obtain the adjusted wear rate

(AWR) of the new CMTs, which then

becomes the BCWR for new CMTs. This

procedure is intended to make the

BCWR of new CMTs comparable to that

of the previous CMTs by removing

changes in the course as a source of

difference between the BCWR of the

previous CMTs and that of the new

CMTs.

Upon completion of the 6,400-mile

test of the candidate tires, the BCWR of

the new CMT lot is divided by the

average measured wear rate of the new

CMTs in the test convoy to determine

the CSAF for that convoy. That CSAF is

then applied to the wear rates of the

candidate tires. The AWR of the

candidate tires is extrapolated to the

point of wear out, which then becomes

the treadwear rating of the candidate

tires.
27474 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules

2. Treadwear Grade Inflation

NHTSA has noted significant

increases in treadwear ratings since the

UTQGS became fully effective in 1980.

Early in the UTQGS program, the

treadwear ratings remained at roughly

the same level. As the years progressed,

however, treadwear ratings have drifted

steadily upward in both manufacturers’

and NHTSA’s testing results. In part,

this increase reflects the fact that

current tires are of higher quality,

perform better and last longer than tires

produced even a few years ago. Such

improvements result from industry

developments such as improvements in

rubber compounds, cord materials, tire

designs, and tread configurations.

The agency believes, however, that

some of the increase in treadwear grades

cannot be explained by improvements

in tires. A significant amount of the

unexplained increase is traceable to a

decline in the BCWRs of each

successive lot of CMTs. Under the

formula for calculating treadwear, the

BCWRs for CMTs and treadwear vary

inversely, Thus, as the BCWRs decrease,

treadwear increases.

3. Decline in Base Course Wear Rate

Since the first lot of CMTs was

procured in 1975, there has been a

steady and consistent decline in the

BCWRs of each successive lot of CMTs.

Although measured wear rates for CMTs

have varied, BCWRs have steadily

declined from 4.44 mils per thousand

miles for the original lot of CMTs to 1.47

mils per thousand miles for the last lot

purchased in 1993, as shown in Table

1, below:

TABLE 1.—CMT WEAR RATES AND BASE COURSE WEAR RATE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS

Year tested Manufacturer Series

Wear rate

(mils per

1,000 miles)

BCWR

1975 ................................................... Goodyear .......................................... Batch 1 ............................................. 4.44 4.44

1979 ................................................... Goodyear .......................................... Batch 1 ............................................. 4.08

1979 ................................................... Goodyear .......................................... Batch 2 ............................................. 3.82 4.16

1980 ................................................... Goodyear .......................................... Batch 2 ............................................. 5.29

1980 ................................................... Goodyear .......................................... Batch 3 ............................................. 4.76 3.74

1984 ................................................... Goodyear .......................................... Batch 3 ............................................. 4.22

1984 ................................................... Uniroyal ............................................ 40000 ................................................ 3.27 2.89

1987 ................................................... Uniroyal ............................................ 40000 ................................................ 5.96

1987 ................................................... Uniroyal ............................................ 71000 ................................................ 4.56 2.21

1989 ................................................... Uniroyal ............................................ 71000 ................................................ 5.01

1989 ................................................... Uniroyal ............................................ 91000 ................................................ 4.84 2.14

1991 ................................................... Uniroyal ............................................ 91000 ................................................ 6.24

1991 ................................................... ASTM E1136 .................................... 010000 .............................................. 4.94 1.70

1991 ................................................... ASTM E1136 .................................... 010000 .............................................. 6.96

1992 ................................................... ASTM E1136 .................................... 110000 .............................................. 6.65 1.62

1992 ................................................... ASTM E1136 .................................... 110000 .............................................. 5.83

1992 ................................................... ASTM E1136 .................................... 210000 .............................................. 5.60 1.56

1993 ................................................... ASTM E1136 .................................... 210000 .............................................. 7.21

1993 ................................................... ASTM E1136 .................................... 310000 .............................................. 6.80 1.47

4. Causes of the Decline in BCWRs and

Possible Agency Responses

The decline in the BCWRs suggests

either that the test course itself is

becoming progressively rougher or that

other factors, as yet unidentified, are

responsible, or both. The agency does

not believe that the course has changed

to any significant extent. The test course

is well maintained by the State of Texas

and presumably has changed little in

severity over the years.

Accordingly, the agency has

considered a number of other factors

which could explain the decline, such

as effects of aging and storage on tire

performance, errors in the BCWR

calculation, or some combination of

those and perhaps other factors. The

agency believes that the decline of the

BCWRs may be caused in large part by

the aging of the CMTs themselves while

in storage. In addition, since the

decrease in BCWRs has been so

consistent with each new lot of CMTs,

the agency believes that the problem

may also be caused at least in part by

an as-yet unidentified flaw in the

formula for calculating the BCWR.

As tires age, their chemical

compounds steadily emit minute

amounts of gases. The rate of emission

may be affected by environmental

conditions. Further, environmental

conditions, such as extremes of

temperature can directly affect the tires.

The combined effect of the

environmental conditions and the

emission of gases can cause changes in

the rubber compounds over time. Such

changes adversely affect the resiliency

of the rubber, increasing wear rates and

giving a false indication that the test

course could be becoming more severe.

To minimize the aging factor, the

agency has in recent years procured

CMTs in small lots so as to reduce the

interval between determining the BCWR

for a given lot and subsequently using

tires from that lot in determining the

BCWR for the next lot. The agency has

also begun to store the CMTs in

polyethylene bags in a warehouse in

which the temperature, although not

controlled to the extent specified in

ASTM E1136, normally ranges between

60° and 90°. The agency hopes that by

storing the CMTs in the bags they will

not be exposed to the atmosphere,

thereby diminishing the gas emissions

described above and lessening the

outgas effect on the tires.

With respect to the formula for

calculating BCWR, the agency requested

comment on whether the practice of

recalculating the BCWR of each new lot

of CMTs should be abandoned and the

wear rates of candidate tires compared

directly with those of the CMTs, that is,

without adjusting the wear rate of the

new CMTs to reflect differences

(theoretically due to aging) between the

wear rates of the new CMTs and the

CMTs from the previous lot. The intent

of the BCWR is to provide a common

baseline by which to grade candidate

tires. However, NHTSA’s practice of

relating all new CMTs to the original

CMTs in the manner specified in the

UTQGS has somehow distorted the

treadwear grading procedure to bring

about the inflated results now being

experienced.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules 27475

In asking whether the agency should

switch to direct comparison, the agency

sought available data on whether such

direct comparison of the wear rates of

CMTs and candidate tires would avoid

the effects of flaws in the current

treadwear procedures. The switch to

direct comparison could result in lower,

and perhaps more realistic, treadwear

ratings. On the other hand, it could

change the original intent of the CMT,

which was to provide a common

baseline for comparison of wear rates,

regardless of when a candidate tire was

tested. In addition, it could present a

problem for the tires already graded and

still in production by having to re-test

and re-grade them.

The agency posed four other

questions in the notice, i.e., whether the

current ratings are misleading, whether

a new system should be developed for

treadwear grading, whether the test

should be changed, and whether the

BCWR computation procedure should

be changed.

B. Traction

1. Traction Test and Calculation

Procedures

Traction grades are established by

sliding tires over test pads also located

near San Angelo, Texas. One pad

consists of a wet asphalt surface; the

other, a wet concrete surface. A test

trailer is equipped with two control tires

manufactured in accordance with

ASTM standard E501. The control tires

are inflated to 24 pounds per square

inch (psi), statically balanced, allowed

to cool to ambient temperature with

inflation pressure maintained at 24 psi,

then installed on the test trailer. Each

tire is loaded to 1,085 pounds. The

trailer is first towed over the wet asphalt

surface at a speed of 40 miles per hour

(mph). As one of the wheels with a

control tire passes across the asphalt, it

is locked. The traction coefficient of the

locked wheel is recorded for a period of

0.5 to 1.5 seconds after lockup. The

same procedure is then followed for the

same wheel/control tire as the trailer is

towed across the wet concrete surface.

These tests are conducted 10 times on

each surface for that wheel/control tire.

The same tests are then conducted for

the other wheel/control tire. The 20

measurements taken on each surface are

averaged to find the control tire traction

coefficient for that surface. After the

testing of the control tires, those

coefficients are used in calculating the

traction coefficients of the candidate

tires.

In testing the candidate tires, two tires

of the same type, construction,

manufacturer, line, and size designation

are prepared and tested utilizing the

same procedures described above for the

control tires. The loads on the candidate

tires, however, are maintained at 85

percent of the test loads specified in

§ 575.104(h). The adjusted traction

coefficients of the candidate tires are

determined in accordance with

§ 575.104(f)(2)(ix) and (x).

The grades of the candidate tires are

designated as ‘‘A’’, ‘‘B’’, or ‘‘C.’’ A tire

that achieves both a high level of

traction performance on asphalt (above

0.47μ) and a high level on concrete

(above 0.35μ) is graded ‘‘A.’’ A tire

achieving medium traction performance

(0.38μ on wet asphalt and 0.26μ on wet

concrete) is graded ‘‘B.’’ A tire achieving

traction performance lower than 0.38μ

on asphalt and 0.26μ on concrete is

graded ‘‘C.’’

2. Ability of Traction Grading System to

Differentiate Highest Traction Tires

NHTSA’s analysis of traction test data

since 1989 indicates that tire traction

performance has improved to the extent

that the current grading system does not

adequately differentiate between tires

with different levels of performance,

particularly the highest performing tires.

Another issue being examined by

NHTSA is the implication of the

increasing number of vehicles with

antilock braking systems (ABS) for the

way in which traction is measured. For

non-ABS vehicles, sliding traction is the

primary traction force in panic braking

since the vehicles’ wheels are locked

during such braking. However, for ABS

vehicles, peak tire traction is the

primary traction force since the ABS

keeps the tire rolling during panic

braking.

3. Possible Solutions to Traction

Grading Problems

The agency solicited comments on

whether the traction ratings should be

revised to differentiate the highest

performing tires. One alternative for

addressing this problem would be to

adjust each grade category so that it

would represent a higher band or range

of performance than it currently does.

For example, the A grade could be

adjusted so that it includes tires with

traction coefficients above 0.54μ on

asphalt and above 0.41μ on concrete,

while a B rating could include tires with

traction coefficients above 0.48μ and

0.35μ respectively, and a C rating could

include tires with performance below

that. Another alternative would be to

make no adjustment in the level of

performance represented by the existing

grades, but create a new grade category

of ‘‘AA’’ for the highest performing tires,

i.e., those tires achieving traction

coefficients above 0.54μ and 0.41μ

respectively.

NHTSA also sought comments on

whether to replace or supplement

traction grading based on sliding

traction with traction grading based on

peak tire traction and asked about the

cost of measuring peak traction.

C. Temperature and Rolling Resistance/

Fuel Economy

1. Temperature Resistance

The current provisions of the UTQGS

require grading tires in a third category,

temperature resistance. The temperature

resistance grade indicates the extent to

which heat is generated and/or

dissipated by a tire by measuring the

ability of the tire to operate at high

speeds without tire failure. Heat is

generated by the energy absorbed by the

tire from the friction caused by the

flexing and slipping of the rubber as it

rolls along the road. That energy is

wasted and appears in the tire as heat.

The more energy that is wasted, the

greater the heat buildup. If the tire is

unable to dissipate that heat effectively

or if the tire is unable to resist the heat

buildup, its ability to run at high speeds

without failure is reduced. Therefore, its

temperature resistance grade is lower.

Heat buildup is generally caused by

some combination of tire overloading,

high speed operation, and/or improper

inflation pressure, all of which

contribute to greater flexing and

increased heat buildup. Sustained high

temperature can cause structural

degeneration of the tire compounds

resulting in reduced tire life or outright

tire failure.

NHTSA tests tires for temperature

resistance utilizing the same laboratory

test wheel as the high speed

performance test of Federal motor

vehicle safety standard (Standard) No.

109, New pneumatic tires. That test is

conducted at speeds up to 85 mph,

while the UTQGS temperature

resistance test is run at speeds of up to

115 mph. A tire is graded ‘‘A’’ if it

completes the test at a sustained speed

of 115 mph without visual evidence of

tread, sidewall, ply, cord, innerliner, or

bead separation, chunking, broken

cords, cracking or open splices, and the

inflation pressure is not less than the

specified test pressure. A tire is graded

‘‘B’’ if it completes the test at speeds

between 100 and 115 mph without the

damage mentioned above, and is graded

‘‘C’’ if it has successfully completed the

test at speeds between 85 and 100 mph.

2. Rolling Resistance/Fuel Economy

NHTSA considers temperature

resistance to be a valid safety concern
27476 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules

and is unaware of any problems with

the accuracy of the ratings. However,

despite the agency’s efforts over the

years to educate the public by means of

consumer information bulletins, press

releases, and labels affixed to tires

explaining the meaning and significance

of the UTQGS ratings, NHTSA has

found that most of the tire-buying

public is not aware of and/or does not

understand the significance of the

temperature resistance rating.

Conversely, increasing interest has

been shown in adding a rating for

rolling resistance on the basis that such

a rating could be readily understood by

the public. The possibility of adding

such a rating was discussed at the White

House Conference on Global Climate

Change on June 10 and 11, 1993

(hereinafter referred to as the

Conference). At a meeting of the Auto

and Light Truck Workshop of the

Transportation Working Group of the

Conference, Michelin presented a paper

asserting that the average rolling

resistance for original equipment allseason radial tires was 22.6 percent less

than that for typical replacement tires.

Further, it was suggested that a 4

percent improvement in fuel economy

could be realized if replacement tires

had the same rolling resistance as

original equipment tires.

As a result of the Conference, the

Administration issued a report on

October 19, 1993, entitled The Climate

Change Action Plan (Plan), setting forth

a series of initiatives to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions. The Plan

calls for reduction of U.S. greenhouse

gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year

2000. One of the initiatives to

accomplish that goal calls for DOT,

through NHTSA, to issue new rules and

test procedures requiring manufacturers

to test and label tires relative to their

rolling resistance.

NHTSA expressed its belief in the

Request for Comments that there is a

close relationship between temperature

resistance and rolling resistance. One of

the causes of heat generation in tires,

the action of the tread on the road

surface, also causes rolling resistance. In

fact, it is the friction resulting from

rolling resistance that is the immediate

cause of heat generation in the tire.

Properties of the road and of tire

materials, such as roughness, softness,

as well as amount of flexing, determine

the amount of friction and therefore the

amount of heat generated.

Rolling resistance is measured in a

procedure similar to that used for

measuring temperature resistance,

namely by running a tire under load on

a test wheel. 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 the rolling resistance.

Safety benefits should not be lost by

substituting rolling resistance for

temperature resistance since the two are

related and determined by similar tests.

Standard No. 109 would continue to

ensure that all tires are capable of safe

operation at speeds of up to 85 mph,

which establishes a minimum safety

threshold. Further, given that the public

is not very responsive to temperature

resistance ratings, the elimination of

those ratings should not cause the tire

manufacturers to lower the temperature

resistance performance of their tires.

3. Issues Regarding Temperature/Rolling

Resistance/Fuel Economy

The agency invited comments on a

wide variety of issues relating to

temperature resistance. Among them

were whether the rolling resistance can

be improved without detracting from

the other rated tire performance

characteristics, whether the temperature

resistance rating should be

supplemented by or replaced by a

rolling resistance rating, whether such a

substitution would have any safety

consequences, and how rolling

resistance values should be translated

into improvements in ‘‘real world’’ fuel

economy.

III. Summary of Public Comments,

Agency Decisions and Benefits and

Costs

To preserve the continuity of

discussion about each type of UTQGS

rating, the agency presents below, as

one unit, the summary of public

comments, the agency decision in

response to those comments, and the

costs and benefits of the decision first

with respect to the treadwear rating

procedures, then traction, and then

temperature/rolling resistance.

A. Treadwear

1. Summary of Comments

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (BF), The

Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

(Goodyear), General Tire (GT), Michelin,

MTS Systems Corporation (MTS),

Dunlop Tire Corporation (Dunlop),

Cooper Tire and Rubber Company

(Cooper), and the European Tyre and

Rim Technical Organisation (ETRTO)

responded to the agency’s treadwear

issues. BF, GT, and Dunlop did not

consider the UTQGS treadwear grade

misleading to consumers, so long as the

grade is used only to compare tires and

not project expected mileage to wearout.

Goodyear, ETRTO, and Michelin, on the

other hand, believed that the treadwear

rating is misleading to the public

because the treadwear test produces

inconsistent results. They argued that

the inconsistencies arose from such

factors as the steady decline in the

BCWR, the relatively short duration of

the treadwear test, and the low wear

rates of the tires, which cause the

treadwear test to overestimate tire life.

Michelin further commented that

although tire technology has improved

considerably in the past few years,

treadwear grades have increased faster

than technological improvements.

Michelin commented that the test

course is not sufficiently demanding.

BF, Goodyear, Cooper, and Dunlop

commented that the treadwear grade

should be deleted altogether, arguing

that it is not needed and is not cost

effective. Goodyear stated that

manufacturers’ tire warranties are better

and more meaningful to consumers, and

BF asserted that NHTSA’s own figures

indicate that 70 percent of the tirebuying public pay no attention to the

treadwear grade. Cooper and Dunlop

asserted that the treadwear grade is

environmentally unfriendly, Dunlop

contending that every test convoy adds

22 tons of greenhouse gases to the

environment and costs $27,524.64.

Goodyear, Dunlop, Michelin, BF, and

MTS commented that if the treadwear

grade remains a part of the UTQGS, a

new system should be developed for

rating it. They contended that the

present rating system is too expensive,

unreliable, and has too many variables.

Goodyear, Dunlop, and MTS urged

development of a standard, repeatable

laboratory test, and BF, Cooper and

Dunlop recommended that NHTSA

participate with the ASTM F9

Committee to develop a new indoor,

environmentally friendly test procedure.

This refers to a committee of the ASTM,

designated the ‘‘F9 Committee,’’ which

was formed to develop a laboratory test

to assess treadwear potential.

Goodyear, Michelin, BF, and MTS all

agreed that the test procedure should be

changed, contending that the vehicle to

vehicle rotation of the candidate tires

creates new variables in addition to the

existing ones. Finally, Goodyear,

Cooper, Dunlop, BF, and GT

recommended that the BCWR be fixed at

its present figure of 1.47 to achieve more

consistent results and save testing costs.

2. Agency Decision

The agency is not persuaded by the

commenters’ assertions that the

treadwear ratings of tires under the

UTQGS are inconsistent and mislead

the public. The agency does not agree

that the treadwear test results are
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules 27477

inconsistent. The treadwear grade

provides a basis on which to compare

the relative treadwear of tires tested

under controlled conditions. The agency

believes that a road test has the inherent

advantage of measuring treadwear rates

under actual road conditions. Further,

the computations used in calculating

the BCWR, CSAF, and the AWR are

specifically intended to make the

treadwear test results as consistent as

possible.

NHTSA does not agree with

commenters that suggested that the

practice of vehicle to vehicle rotation of

candidate tires creates new variables

and should be changed. On the contrary.

NHTSA has found, and so stated in a

previous notice (55 FR 47765) that

rotation of the tires throughout the test

convoy significantly reduced the

variability of treadwear grades resulting

from test car and driver factors.

NHTSA believes that the treadwear

ratings provide consumers with reliable

information on which to distinguish

between the relative performance of the

different tire types and brands. They are

not intended to project the actual

expected mileage of a tire. Tire

purchasers are specifically advised of

this on the label required by 49 CFR

575.104(d)(1)(B)(2), which states that

the treadwear rating is a ‘‘comparative

rating’’ and explains what the rating

represents. The voluntary treadwear

warranties provided by manufacturers

do, by contrast, indicate the amount of

mileage that can be expected from a

given tire. NHTSA considers the

UTQGS treadwear ratings and the

manufacturers’ warranties to be

complementary and, in many instances,

confirm each other. NHTSA’s surveys

show that 74 percent of the public had

heard of the treadwear ratings and 29

percent consider such ratings in making

their tire purchases. While 29 percent

may seem a comparatively small

percentage of the tire buying public, it

is large enough to be influential. Tire

manufacturers continue to make

improvements in treadwear. Further,

treadwear related information is given

prominent treatment in tire advertising.

Cooper and Dunlop commented that

the treadwear rating should be deleted

because the testing is expensive and

‘‘environmentally unfriendly.’’ Since

treadwear is the central feature of the

statutorily-mandated UTQGS, NHTSA is

not proposing to delete treadwear.

NHTSA is well aware of the expense of

treadwear testing. NHTSA’s contract

cost of operating a 4-car test convoy for

the 7,200 mile test (6,400 miles for the

test and 800 miles for the pre-test breakin) is $17,751. Dunlop did not disclose

the basis for the $27,524.64 figure it

quoted. Regardless of the per convoy

cost, the agency notes that the per tire

cost is minimal, considering that the test

cost is averaged over all the tires

produced of the same type. As to

greenhouse gas emissions, NHTSA

estimates that the emissions into the

atmosphere per 4-car convoy is between

14.08 and 15.8 tons. Again, Dunlop did

not explain how it arrived at the 22-ton

figure.

As discussed in section IIA1,

Treadwear test and calculation

procedures, above, the agency believes

that the primary reason for past

treadwear grade inflation has been the

effects of aging on the CMTs while in

storage. The agency believes, however,

that wrapping the CMTs in polyethylene

bags and storing them in a warehouse

where the temperature only varies

between 60° and 90° is minimizing the

aging effects on the different lots of

CMTs.

The agency is persuaded by the

suggestions of Goodyear, Cooper,

Dunlop, BF and GT that the BCWR be

fixed at its present figure, 1.47 mils per

thousand. Maintaining the BCWR at the

current figure would allow existing

treadwear ratings to remain essentially

unchanged and prevent future grade

creep. Further, the fiscal expense and

environmental effects of running test

convoys would be eliminated.

Accordingly, NHTSA proposes to fix the

BCWR of all future lots of CMTs at the

current rate of 1.47 mils per thousand,

or the value in use on the date of

issuance of any final rule resulting from

this proposed rulemaking action. If the

agency issues such a final rule, it would

consider taking the further step of

subsequently substituting the BCWR in

use on the effective date of the final rule

for the BCWR in use on the issuance

date of the final rule. The agency

believes that fixing the BCWR, in

addition to the more strictly controlled

storage procedures, would eliminate or

significantly reduce treadwear grade

inflation and reduce costs both to

NHTSA and the industry by not having

to test each new lot of CMTs.

3. Costs and Benefits

The agency believes that assigning a

fixed value to the BCWR would reduce

to insignificance, if not eliminate

entirely, the inflation of treadwear

ratings. The change in storage

procedures is internal to NHTSA and

will not result in any costs to tire

manufacturers or consumers. Fixing the

BCWR at its present rate also would

have no cost effect on manufacturers or

consumers because it involves no

additional testing, retesting or relabeling

of tires. The treadwear amendments

would, however, benefit both

manufacturers and the public by

simplifying the required treadwear

grading of tires and by making the

treadwear grades more realistic and

consistent.

B. Traction

1. Public Comments

Goodyear, Dunlop, ETRTO, GT, MTS,

and BF recommended maintaining the

current traction rating method. GT and

Dunlop stated that changing the rating

system could cause confusion both to

consumers and to the industry, and

MTS stated that the current system

produces reliable, repeatable results.

Cooper, on the other hand,

recommended changing the rating

system, arguing, without explanation,

that the current system is oversimplified

and potentially misleading. Cooper

argued further that the traction numbers

generated since NHTSA changed the

test pads at San Angelo in 1989 are

significantly lower than before the pads

were changed and that therefore there is

no need for an additional traction grade

level. Specifically, Cooper cited traction

tests conducted on the new skid pads in

1992 and 1993 on 54 tires of 28 different

brands from 12 different manufacturers.

Cooper stated that those tests showed an

arithmetic mean of only 0.48±.04 for

traction coefficients on the wet asphalt

surface and 0.34±.02 on the wet

concrete surface. Cooper stated that

these figures showed a significantly

different statistical distribution than

that cited by NHTSA in support of the

suggestion to upgrade the traction

grading system. In addition, Cooper

noted that none of the 54 tires tested

would qualify for NHTSA’s suggested

‘‘AA’’ traction grade. Finally, Cooper

suggested that the agency work with the

ASTM F9 Committee to develop a better

test method.

Only Michelin supported the

suggestion that the traction grade be

upgraded. Cooper and Dunlop opposed

upgrading the traction rating, arguing

that it would confuse the public and

increase costs to the industry with no

consequent benefit to consumers.

Dunlop stated that changes to the

traction grading scheme would mean

most existing tires and those in

production would need to be regraded.

Although Goodyear and ETRTO were

not enthusiastic about upgrading the

traction category, they stated that if the

traction grade were changed, they

favored creation of the ‘‘AA’’ category.

MTS agreed that if the traction grade

were changed, ‘‘AA’’ would be the

simplest and most meaningful change.
27478 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules

With respect to whether peak traction

should be measured and added to the

traction grade, Goodyear, Michelin and

MTS expressed support for the

suggestion, saying that peak traction

correlates with stopping distance and

the measurements are reliable. Dunlop,

Cooper, and BF opposed the suggestion,

however, contending that the majority

of motor vehicles currently on the road

are not equipped with ABS. They also

contended that peak traction data are

more variable than sliding traction data

and thus not so reliable.

The commenters agreed, however,

that the cost of measuring peak traction

would be minimal since both peak and

sliding traction values could be

measured under current test procedures,

although data retrieval systems would

need to be modified.

2. Agency Decision

NHTSA does not agree with the

conclusions that Cooper draws from its

figures regarding the traction

coefficients of the new skid pads at San

Angelo. The agency notes that Cooper’s

figures are based on a relatively small

sample.

NHTSA statistically analyzed larger

samples. Its analysis of traction tests of

254 candidate tires tested on the new

skid pads showed that the distribution

of the traction coefficients of the tested

tires had a mean, or average, value of

0.516 on the wet asphalt surface and

0.364 on the wet concrete surface. The

standard deviation about the mean

values of this tire group was 0.029 on

the wet asphalt and 0.017 on the

concrete surface.

NHTSA’s statistical analysis of 196

candidate tires tested on the old skid

pads showed the mean value of the

traction coefficients of those tires to be

to be 0.533 on the wet asphalt surface

and 0.375 on the wet concrete surface.

The standard deviation about the

arithmetic mean among this group was

0.036 on the old asphalt surface and

0.027 on the old concrete surface. The

agency believes that the difference

between the traction coefficients of the

196 tires tested on the old skid pads and

the 254 tires tested on the new skid

pads may be due to differences in the

old and the new pads or differences in

the tire populations of 1989–1991 and

1992–1994. In any case, all future

traction testing will occur on the new

pads since the old pads no longer exist.

Based on the average traction

coefficient and standard deviation

values from the new pads, the agency

proposes adding a fourth category,

designated as ‘‘AA,’’ to the traction

grade only for tires with traction

coefficients that exceed 0.54

(representing the mean, 0.516, and

adding the standard deviation of 0.029)

when tested on wet asphalt and 0.38

(0.364, the mean, +0.017, the standard

deviation) when tested on wet concrete.

Of the 254 tires tested as described

above, only 8 would currently qualify

for the new ‘‘AA’’ grade. The agency

believes, however, that an optional new

traction rating would provide an

incentive for manufacturers to improve

the traction performance of other tire

lines.

NHTSA disagrees with GT and

Dunlop that providing a means for

differentiating the highest traction tires

would cause confusion among

consumers. To the contrary, NHTSA

believes that adding the ‘‘AA’’ rating

would benefit consumers by providing

them additional guidance for choosing

the proper tires to suit their individual

needs.

Since upgrading traction performance

to take advantage of the ‘‘AA’’ rating is

optional, tire manufacturers would not

necessarily incur any additional costs.

Those manufacturers that chose to use

the AA rating would be free to pass on

whatever additional costs they would

incur to their customers (see discussion

of costs below).

NHTSA agrees with Goodyear,

Michelin and MTS that there is a

correlation between peak and sliding

traction and that both values can be

considered equivalent for grading

purposes. However, the agency is

persuaded by the comments of Dunlop,

Cooper and BF that the majority of

vehicles currently on the road are not

equipped with ABS. Thus, they depend

on sliding traction rather than peak

traction for maximum stopping action.

Accordingly, NHTSA does not propose

to include peak traction in the traction

ratings at this time.

3. Costs and Benefits

The proposed amendments to the

traction grade under the UTQGS would

create an additional level of traction

rating the use of which would be

optional to manufacturers. Therefore,

the proposed ‘‘AA’’ traction rating

would apply only to those

manufacturers who elect to produce

tires that meet the proposed ‘‘AA’’

criteria and label those tires

accordingly. As discussed in IIIB above,

only 8 of the 254 tires skid-tested by

NHTSA would qualify for the proposed

‘‘AA’’ rating. The manufacturers’ costs

of reworking tire molds to accommodate

the new traction rating would be

minimal and would be necessary only

for this small group and only if the

manufacturers of those tires opted to

give those tires the new, higher grade.

The paper labels required by 49 CFR

575.104(d)(1)(i)(B)(2), however, would

need to be changed to reflect the 4-grade

rating system.

C. Temperature/Rolling Resistance/Fuel

Economy

1. Public Comments

All comments on the Request for

Comments addressed the temperature/

rolling resistance/fuel economy issue.

Nine trade and consumer associations

responded, including engineering

companies and test laboratories, 5 of

which supported a rolling resistance

grade and 4 of which were opposed.

Seven tire manufacturers responded, 6

of which opposed a rolling resistance

grade either as a substitute for the

temperature resistance grade or as a

fourth rating category under the

UTQGS. Fourteen private citizens

commented, 9 of whom supported a

rolling resistance grade, while 5 were

opposed.

The members of the public and the

private associations and companies that

opposed a rolling resistance grade cited

various objections to it. For example,

Mr. Christopher Smith of Pennsylvania

asserted that NHTSA should not be

concerned with rolling resistance

because it robs consumers of their

choices. Mr. Fred Crum of California

stated that road surface ratings are more

important than rolling resistance ratings

if fuel savings are to be achieved. Mr.

Robert Burns, President of the Private

Brand Tire Group (PBTG) asserted that

the government should not force

consumers to bear the cost of testing and

remolding a new UTQGS symbol which

will be passed on to them by

manufacturers. Advocates for Highway

Safety (AHS) expressed concern that

addition of a rolling resistance rating

could cause consumers, for reasons of

economy, to purchase tires that have a

lower overall traction performance.

Cooper, Dunlop, Goodyear, BF and

GT argued that rolling resistance and

temperature resistance are separate

properties. They asserted that rolling

resistance measures the energy

consumed by the tire, which relates to

the efficiency of the tire in converting

motive power to distance traveled,

while temperature resistance relates to

the ability of the tire structure and

materials to withstand the temperatures

generated by the flexing of the rubber

and its reinforcing materials. The PBTG

opposed the deletion of the temperature

resistance grade, asserting that the

temperature resistance characteristics of

tires are relevant to such hot climates as

the American desert southwest where

tire dealers choose their tire lines on
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules 27479

this basis. Cooper and Dunlop stated

that such desert countries as Saudi

Arabia require tires imported into their

countries to be rated at least ‘‘B’’ for

temperature resistance. Goodyear, on

the other hand, supported the deletion

of the temperature resistance rating

because, as NHTSA discussed in the

Request for Comments of April 25, 1994,

the majority of consumers pay no

attention to this rating when purchasing

tires. Michelin also supported the

deletion of the temperature resistance

grade, stating that the voluntary speed

ratings placed on some tires by

manufacturers in accordance with SAE

Recommended Practice J1561,

Laboratory Speed Test Procedure for

Passenger Car Tires, adequately

represent the temperature resistance

capability of the tire.

Michelin commented that vehicle

manufacturers, in order to meet fuel

economy requirements, have long

required their tire suppliers to provide

low rolling resistance original

equipment (OE) tires, while still

imposing strict standards on treadwear,

traction, and speed durability. Michelin

stated that since 1980 tire rolling

resistance has in some cases been

reduced by as much as 50 percent while

still maintaining other performance

characteristics. BF asserted that the

rolling resistance of OE tires is

constantly being improved to meet

CAFE standards and that that

technology is included in after-market

tires through standardization. Therefore,

BF argued that there is no need to

establish a rolling resistance grade for

the UTQGS.

NTDRA, PBTG, Goodyear, and GT

argued that a rolling resistance grade

would be costly and yield little or no

consumer benefit because of lack of

consumer interest. NTDRA contended

that a rolling resistance grade would

constitute an unnecessary cost burden

on manufacturers. Goodyear, claiming a

the lack of success of its Invicta GFE

model low rolling resistance tire, stated

that there is little public interest in low

rolling resistance/fuel efficient tires

because of their increased cost. STL

asserted that there are too many

variables in measuring rolling resistance

to be of any consumer benefit.

Goodyear, Michelin, Dunlop and Cooper

stated that even tires of the same size

designation, construction and loadcarrying capacity can have different

rolling resistance characteristics. PBTG,

Goodyear, GT, BF, and Dunlop argued

that rolling resistance cannot be

improved without adversely affecting

treadwear and traction. Michelin

disagreed with this assertion, saying

that tire manufacturers have used tire

technology to reduce rolling resistance

in OE tires without adversely affecting

treadwear or traction.

Manufacturers generally agreed that

there would be a difference in

production and consumer costs between

grading for temperature resistance and

rolling resistance, but did not specify

what such difference might be.

Goodyear stated that it costs less to test

for rolling resistance than for

temperature resistance, but more tests

would probably be required. Goodyear

estimated that rolling resistance tests

cost $175 per test while temperature

resistance tests cost $250 per test. BF

stated that it would be ‘‘extremely

expensive’’ to consumers to implement

all the changes suggested by NHTSA in

the Request for Comments. GT

estimated that to achieve reduced

rolling resistance without loss of the

other tire properties would increase tire

costs to consumers by 15 percent, due

to the increased cost of redesigning and

testing of tire lines. Goodyear asserted

that a tire designed to minimize rolling

resistance may have a shorter tread life,

thereby creating the need for more tires

with associated increased energy

consumption. The American Retreaders

Association expressed concern that such

low rolling resistance tires may not be

retreadable.

PBTG, Goodyear, BF, GT, Dunlop,

NTDRA and Cooper asserted that the

best course of action would be for

NHTSA to mount a publicity campaign

to educate the public with respect to

proper tire maintenance and encourage

people to maintain proper inflation

pressure, proper balance and alignment,

and obey speed limits. The commenters

asserted that those measures would

have a more significant effect on

reduction of greenhouse gasses than

grading tires for their rolling resistance

characteristics. Nevertheless, Dunlop,

BF, Goodyear, GT, and Cooper

suggested that if NHTSA decides to

proceed with the rolling resistance

grade, the agency should make the

requirement effective for newlyintroduced tire lines only.

The lone manufacturer supporting the

establishment of a rolling resistance

grade was Michelin. That company

supported the deletion of the

temperature resistance grade, stating

that it does not serve the purpose for

which it was intended and does not

provide useful consumer information.

Michelin asserted, on the other hand,

that establishment of a rolling resistance

grade for all tires would encourage

manufacturers to improve the rolling

resistance characteristics of replacement

tires and bring them up to the

capabilities of OE tires. Michelin

estimated that the additional consumer

cost would be less than $1 per tire, but

in any case no more than $2.50 per tire.

Michelin believes that those costs

would be more than offset by the value

of the fuel conservation and reduction

of global warming gases that rolling

resistance labeling would make

possible.

2. Agency Decision

a. Temperature resistance. The

temperature resistance grade under the

UTQGS represents a tire’s ability to

dissipate and withstand heat buildup

that can cause the tire to degenerate and

result in a reduction of tire life or even

tire failure. Currently, 20.4 percent of

new replacement tire lines are rated A,

51.8 percent are rated B, and 26.4

percent are rated C.

The temperature resistance grade is

not widely understood by consumers

and therefore most do not find it useful

when purchasing tires. NHTSA’s data

indicate that of consumers purchasing

tires for their own use, 38 percent have

heard of the temperature resistance

grade, while only 12 percent consider it

in making tire selections. The

comparable figures for the other types of

ratings are 74 percent and 29 percent for

the treadwear ratings and 65 and 27

percent for the traction ratings.

As stated above, in order to create

wider knowledge and better

understanding of the UTQGS ratings

among consumers, including the

temperature resistance rating, NHTSA

has issued consumer information

bulletins, press releases, and has

required labels to be affixed to each

individual tire. These efforts seemed to

arouse little public interest and had no

lasting effect. NHTSA has considered

expanding its publicity efforts into

nationwide publicity campaigns, but

such publicity campaigns are very

expensive. Further, based on the lack of

response to previous publicity on the

subject, NHTSA has no reason to believe

that a widespread, expensive publicity

campaign would produce any more

significant results than past efforts.

NHTSA believes that the safety

purposes of the temperature resistance

grade can be essentially met by other

existing measures. The high speed

performance test specified in section

S5.5 of Standard No. 109, New

pneumatic tires, assures the minimum

temperature resistance performance for

all passenger car tires. That section

requires that tires be tested at 75 miles

per hour (mph) for 30 minutes, at 80

mph for 30 minutes, and again at 85

mph for 30 minutes. At the end of the

test, the tire must have not less than the

initial inflation pressure and must not
27480 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules

show the indications of damage

specified in paragraph S4.2.2.5(a) of

Standard No. 109. Successful

completion of this test equates to a

temperature resistance grade of ‘‘C’’

under the UTQGS. That meets at least

the minimum requirements under the

UTQGS.

To accommodate those with special

needs, such as law enforcement vehicles

that require tires capable of sustained

high speeds or those operating in areas

of high ambient temperatures, tire speed

ratings are available. These ratings are

voluntary industry ratings in accordance

with the procedures set forth in SAEJ1561. Such ratings are indicated by

symbols molded onto or into tire

sidewalls which range from the ‘‘S’’

category, meaning capability of

sustained speeds up to 112 mph, to the

‘‘Y’’ category, meaning capability of

sustained speeds up to 186 mph. Tires

above the ‘‘S’’ category would be

equivalent to a UTQGS temperature

resistance rating of ‘‘A.’’

With respect to Michelin’s comment,

noted above, that the manufacturers’

voluntary speed ratings adequately

represent the temperature resistance

capability of a tire, NHTSA has no data

about the number of consumers who

know of and consider the industry

speed ratings. The agency believes,

however, that consumers who need, for

reasons such as occupation or climate,

tires with higher speed ratings are

motivated to obtain information about

the industry speed ratings and consider

them in selecting replacement tires.

For those reasons, NHTSA proposes

to delete the temperature resistance

rating from the UTQGS, substituting

therefor a rolling resistance/fuel

economy rating, as discussed below.

NHTSA believes that since the UTQGS

are intended to be meaningful and

helpful to the tire-buying public in

selecting tires that suit their individual

needs, the agency should continue its

efforts to make the UTQGS as

meaningful and helpful as possible to

consumers by rating those tire

characteristics which the public

understands and in which the public is

interested.

b. Rolling resistance/fuel economy.

Based on the public comments in

response to the agency’s April 25, 1994

Request for Comments, the agency

believes that there is a direct correlation

between rolling resistance and fuel

economy. Michelin commented that a 5

percent reduction in rolling resistance

results in a 1 percent fuel savings at

highway speeds, regardless of the

vehicle’s fuel consumption. The agency

would welcome comments on the

validity of this relationship.

NHTSA also solicits comments on

how the relationship would be affected

by various real-world driving

conditions, such as temperature,

precipitation, vehicle speed, and road

conditions, and vehicle conditions such

as wheel alignment, tire balance, and

inflation pressures. Even if that

relationship would not be affected by

those conditions, NHTSA assumes that

any such fuel savings would be reduced

in direct proportion to the number of

tires on the vehicle that do not have low

rolling resistance. For example, under

this assumption, a vehicle equipped

with 2 low rolling resistance tires and

2 tires with rolling resistance typical of

current replacement tires would achieve

only half the savings of the same vehicle

equipped with 4 low rolling resistance

tires. The agency requests comment on

that assumption.

The agency does not agree with the

assertions of some commenters that

rolling resistance cannot be improved

without detracting from the other tire

characteristics. NHTSA agrees with

commenters on the Request for

Comments that although rolling

resistance and temperature resistance

are separate properties, there is a

correlation between rolling resistance

and heat generation. Rolling resistance

contributes to heat buildup which can

ultimately result in tire failure. Thus, a

tire with lower rolling resistance will

normally run cooler, and therefore safer,

than a tire with higher rolling

resistance. In addition, a tire with lower

rolling resistance creates less friction,

thus contributing to tire efficiency

which in turn results in less fuel

consumption.

Michelin and other commenters

pointed out that the rolling resistance of

OEM tires has been significantly

reduced in recent years to assist vehicle

manufacturers in meeting corporate auto

fuel economy (CAFE) standards,

without loss of traction or treadwear.

Since the achievement of rolling

resistance reductions without adverse

safety consequences is a significant

issue, NHTSA solicits more specific

data on the differences in rolling

resistance and traction characteristics

between OEM and replacement tires at

the manufacturers’ recommended

pressures and at typical inflation

pressures.

While the cheapest way of reducing

rolling resistance would also reduce

traction, there are other ways, such as

alternative tread compounds, that are

reasonable in cost and that may not

affect traction. Further, the UTQGS

traction ratings would inform

purchasers when making a particular

tire choice that would involve a

reduction in traction. Therefore, there

should logically be no inherent

detraction from treadwear or traction

capabilities by the production and

purchase of low rolling resistance

replacement tires. Nevertheless, the

agency solicits comments on the extent

to which, if at all, there is or could be

a trade-off between safety characteristics

such as traction and low rolling

resistance. If such trade-offs do exist—

(1) to what extent would this occur in

real-world driving and vehicle

conditions and typical inflation

pressures? (2) how do tire

manufacturers trade off those

characteristics between OEM and

replacement tires? (3) to what extent to

the trade-offs vary for the different ways

of reducing rolling resistance?

NHTSA has no data regarding

Goodyear’s assertion that low rolling

resistance tires may have a shorter tread

life, thus requiring more tires with

associated increased energy

consumption and the adverse

environmental consequences of more

scrap tires for disposal. NHTSA has not

received any reports or indication that

low rolling resistance OEM tires tend to

have lower treadwear grades. To the

contrary, as discussed above, treadwear

grades have steadily increased over the

past several years. Nevertheless,

information is requested on any

differences in treadwear ratings between

OEM and replacement tires.

Several comments suggested that

there was no public interest in lower

rolling resistance. This suggestion

appears to be based largely on

speculation. One commenter did rely on

the lack of success of its reduced rolling

resistance tire. The agency does not

believe that much reliance can be

placed on that experience. When that

tire was being sold, there was no

comparative information available to the

public regarding the rolling resistance of

other tires.

NHTSA believes that while significant

improvements have been made in the

rolling resistance of OEM tires in the

last 15 years, changes in replacement

tire rolling resistance have lagged

behind somewhat. The agency has no

data, and Michelin provided no

specifics, regarding that company’s

assertion that the rolling resistance of

OEM tires has been reduced by 50

percent since 1980. Similarly, NHTSA

has no data indicating that, as BF

contended, the low rolling resistance

technology of OEM tires is being

applied to replacement tires. Although

that might eventually happen, NHTSA

believes that there is an equally strong

possibility that it will not. The agency

would welcome data on the amount of
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules 27481

reduction in rolling resistance in OEM

tires since 1980 and to what extent, if

any, such technology has been applied

to currently available replacement tires.

Tire manufacturers have been

producing low rolling resistance OEM

tires for vehicle manufacturers since

1980 and equivalent low rolling

resistance tires are available on the

replacement market to some extent.

However, comparative information on

the fuel economy benefits of such tires

is not available to consumers. The

agency seeks to expedite the availability

of low rolling resistance tires by

encouraging tire manufacturers to

produce low rolling resistance

replacement tires and emphasize the

economic and environmental

advantages of such tires in their

promotional advertising. NHTSA will

also publicize the advantages of low

rolling resistance tires and encourage

the public to purchase them.

NHTSA disagrees with commenters

that suggested that a public education

program encouraging proper tire

maintenance would result in as much

fuel conservation as requiring a rolling

resistance grade. The agency is aware

that a great deal of fuel is unnecessarily

consumed by improper tire

maintenance, particularly improper

inflation pressure. However, the agency

believes that even if the motoring public

did properly maintain all tires, there

would continue to be potential fuel

savings available by reducing the rolling

resistance of replacement tires.

ARA did not explain why it thought

low rolling resistance tires would not be

retreadable. In response to the ARA

comment, however, Michelin stated that

low rolling resistance tires have

routinely been retreaded without any

problems. NHTSA has not received any

information or complaints on this issue,

which could indicate that there is no

significant problem with retreading low

rolling resistance tires. The agency also

notes that it is not aware that many car

tires are currently retreaded. NHTSA

would welcome comments on this issue,

however, particularly if there are

problems with retreadability, including

the types and sizes of tires involved.

Some commenters stated that the

rolling resistance of larger tires is less

than that of smaller tires under the same

loading conditions. For instance, Cooper

commented that tire size makes a

difference in rolling resistance

measurements because tire loading is

not precisely proportional to tire size.

Michelin reported rolling resistance

values of 8.3 kilograms per ton to 9.8

kilograms per ton for tires in a given tire

line having the same rim diameter and

aspect ratio, but of different width.

NHTSA does not believe that the

variation in the rolling resistance of

different sized tires would be so great as

that reported by Michelin under the

procedures of SAE J–1269. The agency

believes that, as measured under test

loading conditions, rolling resistance

should remain approximately the same

for all tire sizes in a tire line. If certain

tire lines do show substantial

differences in rolling resistance among

sizes, testing of each size may be

necessary to determine fuel economy

grades. Depending on the number of

tires and lines involved, manufacturers

might choose to grade each size

individually or assign the lower value to

all tires within the same line. At the

extreme, there may be two or three

rolling resistance values for a tire line,

just as there is presently for temperature

resistance or treadwear.

For the reasons discussed above, the

agency proposes to delete the

temperature resistance grade from the

UTQGS and substitute a fuel economy

grade. The agency considers fuel

economy more understandable and

more meaningful to the tire-buying

public than the temperature resistance

rating. As pointed out above, the latter

is not widely understood or utilized by

the public in their tire purchases.

Finally, addition of the fuel economy

grade furthers the initiatives in the

Climate Change Action Plan issued by

the Administration in a national effort

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The agency is proposing to base the

new fuel economy rating on a rolling

resistance coefficient instead of rolling

resistance itself since this will partially

normalize rolling resistance variations

by tire size within a tire line. The rolling

resistance coefficient (Cr) is calculated

by dividing the rolling resistance by the

load on the tire when tested in

accordance with SAE J–1269. Michelin

stated that this coefficient ranges from

0.0073 to 0.0156, while Goodyear

assessed the range as being between

0.0067 and 0.0152, and STL fixed it at

0.005 to 0.015.

Using 0.010 as the midpoint of the

range, one method of rating fuel

economy based on the rolling resistance

coefficient would be by rating tires with

a coefficient of less than 0.010 as ‘‘A’’

for fuel economy. Tires with a

coefficient of 0.010 to 0.015 could be

graded ‘‘B’’, while tires with a rolling

resistance coefficient greater than 0.015

could be rated ‘‘C’’. This approach

would be consistent with the views of

those commenters who stated that if a

rolling resistance/fuel economy rating

were established, the A, B, and C ratings

would be simpler, and therefore

preferable.

Michelin, on the other hand, prefers

a more differentiated, quantitative

expression of the amount of potential

fuel savings than would be provided by

a general indication as in the case of the

letter ratings. The agency believes that

some consumers might also prefer this

method. For example, a rolling

resistance coefficient of 0.0080 would

be graded as a 9 percent increase in fuel

savings (100(0.0150–0.0080)/(0.0150)(5))

compared to a rolling resistance

coefficient of 0.0150 (the number (5) in

the preceding calculation represents a 5

percent change in rolling resistance,

corresponding to a 1 percent change in

fuel economy). A rolling resistance

coefficient of 0.0150 or greater would be

graded as 0 percent, indicating no fuel

savings.

The agency seeks to make the rolling

resistance/fuel economy rating as

meaningful as possible to consumers.

Accordingly, the agency solicits

comments on the feasibility and

preferability of the two methods of

expressing the rating as discussed

above, namely the A, B, and C method

or the method quantifying the amount of

potential fuel savings of the tire.

Note: All amendments related to the former

method are identified in the regulatory text

as ‘‘alternative 1’’ and all those related to the

latter method are identified as ‘‘alternative

2.’’

3. Costs and Benefits.

The requirement to test and label all

tires for rolling resistance could add to

the testing costs associated with the

production of tires. NHTSA believes

that some of the costs of grading tires for

rolling resistance would be offset by the

deletion of testing for temperature

resistance. Some commenters stated that

although the rolling resistance test is

less costly than the temperature

resistance test, tire manufacturers may

need to conduct more rolling resistance

tests on different tire sizes to determine

accurate fuel economy grades.

GT estimated the cost of rolling

resistance testing at $250 per test, while

Goodyear estimated $175 and BF

estimated $100. Considering those

comments, NHTSA believes that, as

stated in the Request for Comments of

April 25, 1994, the cost of a rolling

resistance test should not exceed $250.

The commenters variously estimated the

cost of rolling resistance testing

machines at between $400,000 and $1.2

million. Cooper stated that if rolling

resistance tests were required, it would

require a capital investment of $1.2

million to purchase 4 test machines.

Considering the data submitted by

commenters, NHTSA estimates that a

single tire station rolling resistance test
27482 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules

machine can be purchased for $500,000.

NHTSA also notes, however, that tire

manufacturers have the option of

contracting with independent testing

laboratories for their testing

requirements, thereby avoiding a large

capital outlay.

NHTSA estimates that the costs of

labeling for fuel economy would be

minimal, probably no more than

pennies per tire. That conclusion is

based on Cooper’s statement that its

total UTQGS labeling costs are $0.10 per

tire, and Michelin’s statement that its

total UTQGS labeling could cost up to

$0.15 per tire. On this issue, NHTSA

agrees with Michelin that if given

sufficient lead time to change tire molds

during a regular replacement cycle, the

proposed labeling changes would have

negligible cost impact.

NHTSA estimates that the consumer

cost of improving rolling resistance

would be no more than $5 per tire, or

$20 per set of 4. However, those figures

are based on the projected cost of

reducing the average rolling resistance

of OEM tires by 10 percent, not on the

cost of reducing average aftermarket

tires’ rolling resistance values to the

level of average OEM tires. NHTSA

solicits additional and more specific

comments on the cost per tire of

decreasing the rolling resistance of

typical replacement tires to that of

typical OEM tires, including the

magnitude of that reduction in rolling

resistance (Michelin asserted that the

average rolling resistance of OEM tires

is 22.6 percent lower than that of

average replacement tires) and a

description of the specific materials and

design changes on which the cost

estimate(s) is based. Further, are any

alternative materials or designs that

would significantly lower costs? To

what extent are the answers to this

question affected by typical tire and

vehicle maintenance habits by

consumers, such as inflation pressure,

wheel alignment and tire balance?

NHTSA estimates that, assuming the

realization of fuel economy gains of 4

percent, the use of 4 low rolling

resistance replacement tires on a typical

passenger car could result in fuel

savings of 67 gallons over an assumed

40,000 mile tread life. The present value

of such fuel savings, excluding Federal

and state taxes, would be approximately

$58. The average cost-benefit ratio of

fuel savings per tire purchase would

therefore be 2.9 to 1 ($58/$20) for

passenger cars. Given these

assumptions, the improved rolling

resistance of the tires could in most

cases pay for itself in slightly more than

1 year.

However, NHTSA notes that the

imposition of rolling resistance grading

would not include any obligation for

tire manufacturers to reduce the rolling

resistance of their tires. In fact, if the

manufacturers believe that there is no

consumer interest in low rolling

resistance tires, they need not make any

changes in their tires other than adding

the grade marking on the sidewall.

D. Lead Time

The agency is proposing to make

these amendments effective one year

after issuance of the final rule. The

agency believes that this would be

sufficient for the following reasons.

None of the amendments would require

tire manufacturers to redesign their

tires. Further, neither the treadwear nor

the traction amendments would require

the retesting of any tires. The rolling

resistance/fuel economy amendments

would require the testing of all existing

tires. However, the agency believes that

that testing could be readily completed

in time to begin labeling tires with

rolling resistance information at the end

of a year.

Several tire manufacturers urged that

the rolling resistance requirement be

made effective for newly introduced tire

lines only. The agency lacks authority to

establish effective dates in the requested

fashion. It could phase-in the

requirement by percentage of

production, as it has various vehicle

standards, or by type of tire. However,

NHTSA believes that a year should be

sufficient lead time and that a phase-in

would not be necessary. Nevertheless,

the agency requests comment on these

lead time issues.

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. E.O. 12866 and DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures

This notice has not been reviewed

under E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning

and Review. The agency has considered

the impact of this rulemaking action and

has concluded that it is not

‘‘significant’’ under the DOT’s

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The

amendments proposed in this notice are

intended to make the UTQGS more

meaningful and helpful to consumers in

selecting tires to meet their needs. The

amendments to the provisions regarding

the treadwear and traction ratings are

intended to reduce the treadwear rating

inflation experienced in the past, and to

add a traction grade category that

differentiates the highest traction tires

from lower traction tires. Neither of

those testing and labeling amendments

inherently involves any additional costs

either to manufacturers or to consumers.

The testing costs for a fuel economy

grade would be offset by the savings

realized by not having to conduct

temperature resistance testing. The

rolling resistance test is cheaper than

the temperature resistance test, but more

tire sizes may need to be tested.

Additional discussion of these issues is

contained in the agency’s Preliminary

Regulatory Evaluation, a copy of which

has been placed in the public docket

with this rulemaking action.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has considered the impacts of

this rulemaking action under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby

certify that the proposed amendments

would not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Accordingly, the agency has not

prepared a preliminary regulatory

flexibility analysis.

The agency believes that no passenger

car tire manufacturers qualify as small

businesses. Small businesses, small

organizations, and small governmental

units would be affected by this

rulemaking only to the extent that

initially they may voluntarily pay as

much as $5 more per tire for low rolling

resistance tires in order to obtain the

fuel savings associated with such tires.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking

for purposes of the National

Environmental Policy Act and has

determined that implementation of this

action would have no significant impact

on the quality of the human

environment.

Rolling resistance labeling could

indirectly result in some modest

environmental benefit, to the extent that

such labeling encourages consumers to

buy more fuel efficient aftermarket tires.

However, the agency currently is unable

to estimate the extent of any increase in

sales of such tires. For illustrative

purposes, the agency estimated the

impacts that would result from 5, 10,

and 15 percentage point increases in the

sales of tires with low rolling resistance

(NHTSA believes that the current

market share for low rolling resistance

tires in the aftermarket is about 15

percent). Such sales increases could

reduce fleet fuel consumption by 155,

309, and 464 million gallons,

respectively, over the assumed 40,000

mile tread lives of tires. This range of

reductions is equivalent to oil savings of

10 to 30 thousand barrels per day.

Further, such reductions in fuel

consumption would result in vehicle

carbon dioxide emission reductions of

approximately 1.4, 2.7, and 4.1 million
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules 27483

metric tons over the tread lives of the

tires.

D. Federalism

NHTSA has analyzed this proposal in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in E.O. 12612 and has

determined that the proposals in this

notice do not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant preparation of a

Federalism Assessment. No state laws

would be affected.

E. Civil Justice Reform

The proposed amendments in this

notice would not have any retroactive

effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b),

whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety

standard is in effect, a state or political

subdivision thereof may prescribe or

continue in effect a standard applicable

to the same aspect of performance of a

motor vehicle only if the state’s

standard is identical to the Federal

standard. However, the United States

government, a state or political

subdivision of a state may prescribe a

standard for a motor vehicle or motor

vehicle equipment obtained for its own

use that imposes a higher performance

requirement than that required by the

Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets

forth a procedure for judicial review of

final rules establishing, amending or

revoking Federal motor vehicle safety

standards. A petition for reconsideration

or other administrative proceedings is

not required before parties may file suit

in court.

V. Comments

A. Comment Closing Date

NHTSA has determined that it is in

the public interest to provide a

comment period of less than 60 days in

this instance because of the importance

of the President’s Climate Change

Action Plan to fuel conservation and the

reduction of greenhouse gas emissions

into the environment. In addition, the

Joint Conference Report on the

Department of Transportation’s Fiscal

Year 1995 Appropriations directed the

agency to issue a rolling resistance tire

labeling rule by June 1, 1995.

B. General

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on the amendments

proposed in this rulemaking action. It is

requested but not required that any

comments be submitted in 10 copies

each.

Comments must not exceed 15 pages

in length (49 CFR 553.21). This

limitation is intended to encourage

commenters to detail their primary

arguments in concise fashion. Necessary

attachments, however, may be

appended to those comments without

regard to the 15-page limit.

If a commenter wishes to submit

certain information under a claim of

confidentiality, 3 copies of the complete

submission including the purportedly

confidential business information

should be submitted to the Chief

Counsel, NHTSA at the street address

shown above, and 7 copies from which

the purportedly confidential

information has been expunged should

be submitted to the Docket Section. A

request for confidentiality should be

accompanied by a cover letter setting

forth the information specified in 49

CFR part 512, the agency’s confidential

business information regulation.

All comments received on or before

the close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above for the

proposal will be considered, and will be

available to the public for examination

in the docket at the above address both

before and after the closing date. To the

extent possible, comments received too

late for consideration in regard to the

final rule will be considered as

suggestions for further rulemaking

action. Comments on the proposal will

be available for public inspection in the

docket. NHTSA will continue file

relevant information in the docket after

the closing date, and it is recommended

that interested persons continue to

monitor the docket for new material.

Those persons desiring to be notified

upon receipt of their comments in the

rules docket should enclose a selfaddressed stamped postcard in the

envelope with their comments. Upon

receiving the comments the docket

supervisor will return the postcard by

mail.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 575

Consumer protection, Motor vehicle

safety, Reporting and recordkeeping,

Tires.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49

CFR Part 575 would be amended as

follows:

PART 575—CONSUMER

INFORMATION REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for Part 575

continues to read as follows:

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

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

2. Section 575.104 would be amended

by revising paragraphs (a); (d)(1)(i)(B);

(d)(1)(ii); (d)(1)(iii); (d)(2)(i), and

(d)(2)(ii) introductory text; adding

paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(D); revising

paragraphs (d)(2)(iii); (e)(2)(ix)(C); and

(g); Table 1; and Figure 1; and in Figure

2, by revising Part I and in Part II, by

removing the paragraph for

‘‘Temperature’’ and adding a paragraph

for ‘‘Fuel Economy’’; and by removing

Table 2A and sections (i) through (l).

§ 575.104 Uniform tire quality grading

standards.

(a) Scope. This section 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 fuel

economy.

* * * * *

(d) Requirements—(1) Information. *

* *

Alternative 1 to paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B)

(i)(B) Each tire manufactured on and

after the effective date of these

amendments, other than a tire sold as

original equipment on a new vehicle,

shall have affixed to its tread surface so

as not to be easily removable a label or

labels containing its grades and other

information in the form illustrated in

Figure 2, Parts I and II. The treadwear

grade attributed to the tire shall be

either imprinted or indelibly stamped

on the label containing the material in

Part I of Figure 2, directly to the right

of or below the word ‘‘TREADWEAR’’.

The traction grade attributed to the tire

shall be indelibly circled in an array of

the potential grade letters AA, A, B, or

C, directly to the right of or below the

words ‘‘TRACTION’’ in Part I of Figure

2. The fuel economy grade attributed to

the tire shall be indelibly circled in an

array of the potential grade letters A, B,

or C directly to the right of or below the

words ‘‘FUEL ECONOMY’’ in Part I of

Figure 2. The words ‘‘TREADWEAR’’,

‘‘TRACTION’’, and ‘‘FUEL ECONOMY,’’

in that order, may be laid out vertically

or horizontally. The text of Part II of

Figure 2 may be printed in capital

letters. The text of Part I and the text of

Part II of Figure 2 need not appear on

the same label, but the edges of the two

texts must be positioned on the tire

tread so as to be separated by a distance

of no more than one inch. If the text of

Part I and the text of Part II of Figure

2 are placed on separate labels, the

notation ‘‘See EXPLANATION OF DOT

QUALITY GRADES’’ shall be added to

the bottom of the Part I text, and the

words ‘‘EXPLANATION OF DOT

QUALITY GRADES’’ shall appear at the

top of the Part II text. The text of Figure

2 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
27484 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules

circumference, the text of Figure 2 shall

read in the same direction as the tire

size designation.

ALTERNATIVE 2 TO PARAGRAPH

(d)(1)(i)(B)

(i)(B) Each tire manufactured on and

after the effective date of these

amendments, other than a tire sold as

original equipment on a new vehicle,

shall have affixed to its tread surface so

as not to be easily removable, a label or

labels containing its grades and other

information in the form illustrated in

Figure 2, Parts I and II. The treadwear

grade attributed to the tire shall be

either imprinted or indelibly stamped

on the label containing the material in

Part I of Figure 2, directly to the right

of or below the word ‘‘TREADWEAR.’’

The traction grade attributed to the tire

shall be indelibly circled in an array of

the potential grade letters AA, A, B, or

C, directly to the right of or below the

word ‘‘TRACTION.’’ The fuel economy

grade attributed to the tire shall be

either imprinted or indelibly stamped

on the label containing the material in

Part I of Figure 2, directly to the right

of or below the words ‘‘FUEL

ECONOMY.’’ The words

‘‘TREADWEAR,’’ ‘‘TREADWEAR,’’ and

‘‘FUEL ECONOMY,’’ in that order, may

be laid out vertically or horizontally.

The text of Part II of Figure 2 may be

printed in capital letters. The text of

Part II of Figure 2 may be printed in

capital letters. The text of Part I and the

text of Part II of Figure 2 need not

appear on the same label, but the edges

of the two texts must be positioned on

the tire tread so as to be separated by a

distance of no more than one inch. If the

text of Part I and the text of Part II of

Figure 2 are placed on separate labels,

the notation ‘‘See EXPLANATION OF

DOT QUALITY GRADES’’ shall be

added to the bottom of the Part I text,

and the words ‘‘EXPLANATION OF

DOT QUALITY GRADES’’ shall appear

at the top of the Part II text. The text of

Figure 2 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 text of Figure 2 shall

read in the same direction as the tire

size designation.

ALTERNATIVE 1 TO PARAGRAPH

(d)(1)(ii)

(ii) In the case of information required

in accordance with § 575.6(c) to be

furnished to prospective purchasers of

motor vehicles and tires, each vehicle

manufacturer and each tire

manufacturer or brand name owner

shall, as part of that information, list all

possible grades for traction and fuel

economy, and restate verbatim the

explanations for each performance area

specified in Figure 2. The information

need not be in the same format as in

Figure 2. In the case of a tire

manufacturer or brand name owner, the

information must indicate clearly and

unambiguously the grade in each

performance area for each tire of that

manufacturer or brand name owner

offered for sale at the particular

location.

ALTERNATIVE 2 TO PARAGRAPH

(d)(1)(ii)

(ii) In the case of information required

in accordance with § 575.6(c) to be

furnished to prospective purchasers of

motor vehicles and tires, each vehicle

manufacturer and each tire

manufacturer or brand name owner

shall, as part of that information, list all

possible traction grades and restate

verbatim the explanations for each

performance area specified in Figure 2.

The information need not be in the same

format as in Figure 2. In the case of a

tire manufacturer or brand name owner,

the information must indicate clearly

and unambiguously the grade in each

performance area for each tire of that

manufacturer or brand name owner

offered for sale at the particular

location.

ALTERNATIVE 1 TO PARAGRAPH

(d)(1)(iii)

(iii) In the case of information

required in accordance with § 575.6(a)

to be furnished to the first purchaser of

a new motor vehicle, other than a motor

vehicle equipped with tires

manufactured prior to the effective date

of these amendments, each

manufacturer of motor vehicles shall, as

part of the information, list all possible

grades for traction and fuel economy,

and restate verbatim the explanation for

each performance area specified in

Figure 2. The information need not be

in the format of Figure 2, but it must

contain a statement referring the reader

to the tire sidewall for the specific tire

grades for the tires with which the

vehicle is equipped.

ALTERNATIVE 1 TO PARAGRAPH

(d)(1)(iii)

(iii) In the case of information

required in accordance with § 575.6(a)

to be furnished to the first purchaser of

a new motor vehicle, other than a motor

vehicle equipped with tires

manufactured prior to the effective date

of these amendments, each

manufacturer of motor vehicles shall, as

part of the information, list all possible

grades for traction and fuel economy,

and restate verbatim the explanation for

each performance area specified in

Figure 2. The information need not be

in the format of Figure 2, but it must

contain a statement referring the reader

to the tire sidewall for the specific tire

grades for the tires with which the

vehicle is equipped.

(2) Performance—(i) Treadwear. Each

tire shall be graded for treadwear

performance with the word

‘‘TREADWEAR’’ followed by a number

of two or three digits representing the

tire’s grade for treadwear, expressed as

a percentage of the NHTSA nominal

treadwear value, when tested in

accordance with the conditions and

procedures specified in paragraph (e) of

this section. Treadwear grades shall be

in multiples of 20 (for example, 80, 120,

and 160).

(ii) Traction. Each tire shall be graded

for traction performance with the word

‘‘TRACTION,’’ followed by the symbols

C, B, A, or AA, when the tire is tested

in accordance with the conditions and

procedures specified in paragraph (f) of

this section.

* * * * *

(D) The tire may be graded AA only

when its adjusted traction coefficient is

both:

(1) More than 0.54 when tested in

accordance with paragraph (f)(2) of this

section on the asphalt surface specified

in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section; and

(2) More than 0.38 when tested in

accordance with paragraph (f)(2) of this

section on the concrete surface specified

in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section.

ALTERNATIVE 1 TO PARAGRAPH

(d)(2)(iii)

(iii) Fuel economy. Each tire shall be

graded for fuel economy performance

with the words ‘‘FUEL ECONOMY’’

followed by the letter A, B, or C, based

on its performance when the tire is

tested in accordance with the

procedures specified in paragraph (g) of

this section.

(A) The tire may be graded A only if

its rolling resistance coefficient is less

than 0.010.

(B) The tire may be graded B only if

its rolling resistance coefficient is equal

to or greater than 0.010 but less than

0.015.

(C) The tire may be graded C if its

rolling resistance coefficient equal to or

greater than 0.015.

ALTERNATIVE 2 TO PARAGRAPH

(d)(2)(iii)

(iii) Fuel economy. Each tire shall be

graded for fuel economy performance
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules 27485

with the words ‘‘FUEL ECONOMY’’

followed by the tire’s rated percentage

of increase in fuel savings, such as

‘‘5%’’, based on the tire’s performance

when tested in accordance with the

procedures specified in paragraph (g) of

this section.

* * * * *

(e) Treadwear grading conditions and

procedures. * * *

(2) Treadwear grading procedure. * *

*

(ix) * * *

(C) Determine the course severity

adjustment factor by assigning a base

wear rate of 1.47 to the course

monitoring tires and dividing that rate

by the average wear rate for the four

course monitoring tires.

* * * * *

ALTERNATIVE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (g)

(g) Fuel economy grading. The fuel

economy grade is calculated as follows:

(1) The tire’s rolling resistance

coefficient is determined in accordance

with the procedures of SAE

Recommended Practice J–1269, Rolling

Resistance Measurement Procedure for

Passenger Car, Light Truck, and

Highway Truck and Bus Tires, revised

March, 1987 (SAE J–1269).

(2) The rolling resistance coefficient

(Cr) is the ratio of rolling resistance force

(Fr) to the normal load on the tire: (Fn)

or Cr=Fr ÷ Fn.

Example No 1. Fn=1,100 pounds of force (lbf);

Fr=8 lbf; then Cr=8 ÷ 1,00=0.00727.

A rolling resistance coefficient of 0.00727

would result in a grade of ‘‘A’’ for fuel

economy.

Example No. 2. Fn=1,100 lbf, and Fr=18 lbf,

then Cr=18 ÷ 1,100=0.01636.

A rolling resistance coefficient of 0.01636

would result in a grade of ‘‘C’’ for fuel

economy.

ALTERNATIVE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (g)

(g) Fuel economy grading. The fuel

economy grade is calculated as follows:

(1) The tire’s rolling resistance

coefficient is determined in accordance

with the procedures of SAE

Recommended Practice J–1269, Rolling

Resistance Measurement Procedure for

Passenger Car, Light Truck, and

Highway Truck and Bus Tires, revised

March, 1987 (SAE J–1269).

(2) The rolling resistance coefficient

(Cr) is the ratio of rolling resistance

force (Fr) to the normal load on the tire:

(Fn) or Cr=Fr÷Fn.

Example No 1. Fn=1,100 pounds of force

(lbf); Fr=8 lbf; then

Cr=8=÷1,100=0.00727.

Example No. 2. Fn=1,100 lbf, and Fr=18 lbf,

then Cr=18÷1,100=0.01636.

(3) Determine the tire’s fuel economy

grade by subtracting its rolling

resistance coefficient from 0.0150, then

multiply by 1,333. The resulting

number, rounded to the nearest whole

number, is the fuel economy grade,

expressed as a percentage.

(i)(A) Using the numbers in Example

No. 1 in paragraph (g)(2) of this section,

given the rolling resistance coefficient

(Cr) of 0.00727, the fuel economy grade

(Fg) would be calculated as follows:

Fg=(0.0150–

0.00727)×1,333=(0.00773)×1,333=10.30

percent, rounded to 10 percent.

(B) This would represent an increase

of 10 percent in fuel economy,

expressed as a fuel economy grade of

‘‘10%’’.

(ii) Using the numbers in Example No. 2

in paragraph (g)(2) of this section: If

Fn=1,100 lbf, and Fr=18 lbf, then

Cr=18÷1,100=0.01636

Fg=(0.0150–0.01636) ×1,333=(¥0.00136)

×1,333 =¥1.82 or 0 percent A negative

value represents a 0 percent increase in

fuel economy, and would be expressed

as a fuel economy grade of ‘‘0%’’.

TABLE 1.—TEST INFLATION PRESSURES

Maximum permissible inflation pressure for the treadwear test

Tires other than CT tires CT Tires

Psi kPa kPa

32 36 40 60 240 280 300 340 350 290 330 350 390

24 28 32 52 180 220 180 220 230 230 270 230 270

* * * * *

ALTERNATIVE 1 TO FIGURE 1

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
27486 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules 27487

ALTERNATIVE 2 TO FIGURE 1:

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
27488 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules

ALTERNATIVE 1 TO FIGURE 2—

[PART I]

Figure 2—[Part I]—DOT Quality Grades

TREADWEAR

TRACTION AA A B C

FUEL ECONOMY A B C

ALTERNATIVE 2 TO FIGURE 2—

[PART I]

TREADWEAR

TRACTION AA A B C

FUEL ECONOMY

ALTERNATIVE 1 TO FIGURE 2—

[PART II]

[Part II] * * *

* * * * *

FUEL ECONOMY

The fuel economy grade gives a relative

value of the tire’s potential to affect a motor

vehicle’s fuel economy. For example, a

vehicle with four tires rated ‘‘A’’ for fuel

economy would have lower rolling resistance

and therefore greater fuel efficiency than a

vehicle with four tires rated ‘‘B’’ or ‘‘C’’.

Saving fuel reduces carbon dioxide emissions

which contribute to global warming. It

should be noted, however, that actual fuel

savings depend on driving habits, proper

vehicle and tire maintenance, proper tire

inflation pressure, road conditions, and

climate. The fuel economy grade is based on

testing the tire for rolling resistance under

controlled conditions using specified test

procedures. Only tires of the size appropriate

for your car should be compared.

[ALTERNATIVE 2 TO FIGURE 2—

[PART II]

[Part II * * *]

* * * * *

FUEL ECONOMY

The fuel economy grade gives a relative

value of the tire’s potential to affect a motor

vehicle’s fuel economy. For example, a

vehicle with four tires rated ‘‘2%’’ for fuel

economy would achieve 2% higher fuel

economy than a vehicle with four tires rated

‘‘0%.’’ A vehicle with two tires rated ‘‘2%’’

and two tires rated ‘‘0%’’ would achieve 1%

higher fuel economy than a vehicle with four

tires rated ‘‘0%.’’ Saving fuel reduces carbon

dioxide emissions which contribute to global

warming. It should be noted, however, that

actual fuel savings depend on driving habits,

proper vehicle and tire maintenance, proper

tire inflation pressure, road conditions, and

climate. The fuel economy grade is based on

testing the tire for rolling resistance under

controlled conditions using specified test

procedures. Only tires of the size appropriate

for your car should be compared.

* * * * *

Issued on May 17, 1995.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 95–12513 Filed 5–18–95; 1:52 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 675

[Docket No. 950206040–5040–01; I.D.

051595J]

Groundfish of the Bering Sea and

Aleutian Islands Area; Apportionment

of Reserve

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration,

Commerce.

ACTION: Apportionment of reserve;

request for comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to apportion

reserve to certain target species in the

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

management area (BSAI). This action is

necessary to allow for ongoing harvest

and account for previous harvest of the

total allowable catch (TAC). It is

intended to promote the goals and

objectives of the North Pacific Fishery

Management Council.

DATES: Comments must be received at

the following address no later than 4:30

p.m., Alaska local time June 7, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to

Ronald J. Berg, Chief, Fisheries

Management Division, Alaska Region,

NMFS, 709 W. 9th, Room 453, Juneau,

AK 99801 or P.O. Box 21668, Juneau,

AK 99802, Attention: Lori Gravel.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nick

Hindman, 907–586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

groundfish fishery in the U.S. BSAI

exclusive economic zone is managed by

NMFS according to the Fishery

Management Plan for the Groundfish

Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian

Islands Area (FMP) prepared by the

North Pacific Fishery Management

Council under authority of the

Magnuson Fishery Conservation and

Management Act. Fishing by U.S.

vessels is governed by regulations

implementing the FMP at 50 CFR parts

620 and 675.

The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS,

has determined that the initial TACs

specified for pollock, Greenland turbot,

and Pacific ocean perch (POP) in the

Bering Sea (BS) subarea; for pollock,

Greenland turbot, POP, and sharpchin/

northern rockfish in the Aleutian

Islands (AI) subarea; for Atka mackerel

in the combined Eastern Aleutian

District and BS subarea; for Atka

mackerel in the Central and Western

Aleutian Districts; and for Pacific cod,

arrowtooth flounder, and the ‘‘other

species’’ category in the BSAI; need to

be supplemented from the non-specific

reserve in order to continue operations

and account for prior harvest.

Therefore, in accordance with

§ 675.20(b), NMFS proposes to

apportion from the reserve to TACs for

the following species: (1) For the Bering

Sea subarea —93,750 metric tons (mt) to

pollock, 700 mt to Greenland turbot,

and 277 mt to POP; (2) for the AI

subarea—4,245 mt to pollock, 350 mt to

Greenland turbot, 1,575 mt to POP; and

765 mt to sharpchin/northern rockfish;

(3) for the combined Eastern Aleutian

District and BS subarea—2,025 mt to

Atka mackerel; (4) for the Central

Aleutian District—7,500 mt to Atka

mackerel; (5) for the Western Aleutian

District—2,475 mt to Atka mackerel;

and (6) for the BSAI—37,500 mt to

Pacific cod, 1,534 mt to arrowtooth

flounder, and 3,000 mt to the ‘‘other

species’’ category.

These proposed apportionments are

consistent with § 675.20(a)(2)(i) and do

not result in overfishing of a target

species or the ‘‘other species’’ category,

because the revised TACs are equal to

or less than specifications of acceptable

biological catch.

Pursuant to § 675.20(a)(3)(i) the

proposed apportionments of pollock are

allocated between the inshore and

offshore components: (1) For the BS

subarea - 32,812 mt to vessels catching

pollock for processing by the inshore

component and 60,938 mt to vessels

catching pollock for processing by the

offshore component; (2) for the AI

subarea—1,486 mt to vessels catching

pollock for processing by the inshore

component and 2,759 to vessels

catching pollock for processing by the

offshore component.

Pursuant to § 675.20(a)(3)(iv) the

proposed apportionment of the BSAI

Pacific cod TAC is allocated 750 mt to

vessels using jig gear, 16,500 mt to

vessels using hook-and-line or pot gear,

and 20,250 mt to vessels using trawl

gear.

In accordance with the 1995 final

specifications for the BSAI (FR 60 8479,

February 14, 1995) the allocation of

Pacific cod to hook-and-line/pot gear

will result in seasonal apportionments

as follows: For the period January 1

through April 30—80,300 mt, for the

period May 1 through August 31—

20,900 mt, and for the period September

1 through December 31—8,800 mt.

Classification

This action is taken under 50 CFR

675.20 and is exempt from review under

E.O. 12866.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.