[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27472-27488]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12513]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 [[Page 27473]] making informed choices when purchasing 
tires. NHTSA implemented this congressional mandate by issuing the 
Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) (49 CFR Sec. 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 \1/16\th 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. [[Page 27474]] 
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                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Wear rate              
                                                                                         (mils per              
         Year tested                  Manufacturer                    Series               1,000         BCWR   
                                                                                           miles)               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 deg. and 90 deg.. 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. 
[[Page 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 Sec. 575.104(h). The adjusted 
traction coefficients of the candidate tires are determined in 
accordance with Sec. 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 0.47<greek-m>) and a high level on 
concrete (above 0.35<greek-m>) is graded ``A.'' A tire achieving medium 
traction performance (0.38<greek-m> on wet asphalt and 0.26<greek-m> on 
wet concrete) is graded ``B.'' A tire achieving traction performance 
lower than 0.38<greek-m> on asphalt and 0.26<greek-m> 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 
0.54<greek-m> on asphalt and above 0.41<greek-m> on concrete, while a B 
rating could include tires with traction coefficients above 
0.48<greek-m> and 0.35<greek-m> 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 0.54<greek-m> and 0.41<greek-m> 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 
[[Page 27476]] 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 all-season 
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 tire-buying 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 [[Page 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 break-in) 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 deg. and 90 deg. 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<plus-minus>.04 for traction coefficients 
on the wet asphalt surface and 0.34<plus-minus>.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. 
[[Page 27478]] 
    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 [[Page 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 load-carrying 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 newly-
introduced 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 
[[Page 27480]] 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 SAE-J1561. 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 [[Page 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 
(C<INF>r) 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 
[[Page 27482]] 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 [[Page 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 self-addressed 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).


Sec. 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 [[Page 27484]] 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 
Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 [[Page 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 (C<INF>r) is the ratio of 
rolling resistance force (F<INF>r) to the normal load on the tire: 
(F<INF>n) or C<INF>r=F<INF>r <divide> F<INF>n.

Example No 1. F<INF>n=1,100 pounds of force (lbf); F<INF>r=8 lbf; 
then C<INF>r=8 <divide> 1,00=0.00727.

    A rolling resistance coefficient of 0.00727 would result in a 
grade of ``A'' for fuel economy.

Example No. 2. F<INF>n=1,100 lbf, and F<INF>r=18 lbf, then 
C<INF>r=18 <divide> 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<divide>Fn.

Example No 1. Fn=1,100 pounds of force (lbf); Fr=8 lbf; then 
Cr=8=<divide>1,100=0.00727.

Example No. 2. Fn=1,100 lbf, and Fr=18 lbf, then 
Cr=18<divide>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) x 1,333=(0.00773) x 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<divide>1,100=0.01636
Fg=(0.0150-0.01636)  x 1,333=(-0.00136)  x 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                                       
                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                
(11)Max                                                                                                         
 imum                                                                                                           
 permis                                                                                                         
 sible                                                                                                          
 inflat                                                                                                         
 ion                                                                                                            
 pressu                                                                                                         
 re for                                                                                                         
 the                                                                                                            
 treadw                                                                                                         
 ear                                                                                                            
 test                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
(7)Tire                                                                                                         
 s                                                                                                              
 other                                                                                                          
 than                                                                                                           
 CT                                                                                                             
 tires                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                
(3)CT                                                                                                           
 Tires                                                                                                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
(2)Psi                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                
(4)kPa                                                                                                          
(3)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
      

[[Page 27486]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP24MY95.000



[[Page 27487]]

ALTERNATIVE 2 TO FIGURE 1:

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP24MY95.001


BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 27488]] 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