29542 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 575 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0121] 

RIN 2127–AK45 

Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer 

Information Program 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, Department of 

Transportation (NHTSA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This document proposes a 

broad new consumer information 

program for replacement tires to inform 

consumers about the effect of tires on 

fuel efficiency, safety, and durability. 

This consumer information program 

would implement a national tire fuel 

efficiency rating system for replacement 

tires, with the information provided to 

consumers at the point of sale and 

online. Fuel efficiency ratings are 

expected to inform consumers so that 

they will be better informed about 

replacement tire performance. This 

consumer information program seeks to 

enhance energy security and reduce 

costs by improving fuel economy. 

Information would also be provided 

about safety and durability. 

DATES: Comments to this proposal must 

be received on or before August 21, 

2009. In compliance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, NHTSA is also seeking 

comment on a new information 

collection. See the Paperwork Reduction 

Act section under Regulatory Notices 

and Analyses below. Please submit all 

comments relating to new information 

collection requirements on or before 

August 21, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by the docket number in the 

heading of this document, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on the electronic docket site by clicking 

on ‘‘Help’’ or ‘‘FAQ.’’ 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building, Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 

20590. 

• Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Regardless of how you submit 

comments, you should mention the 

docket number of this document. 

You may call the Docket Management 

Facility at 202–366–9826. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the Public Participation heading of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78) or you may visit http:// 

www.dot.gov/privacy.html. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or the street 

address listed above. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

For policy and technical issues: Ms. 

Julie Abraham or Ms. Mary Versailles, 

Office of Rulemaking, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 

20590. Telephone: (202) 366–0846. 

For legal issues: Mr. Stephen Wood or 

Ms. Sarah Alves, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

Telephone: (202) 366–2992. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Overview 

A. Summary 

B. Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007 

C. Proposal 

1. Test Procedures 

2. Proposed Rolling Resistance Rating 

Metric 

3. Proposed Label 

4. Proposed Information Dissemination and 

Reporting Requirements for Tire 

Manufacturers and Tire Retailers 

5. Consumer Education Program 

D. Costs and Benefits 

E. Lead Time 

II. Background 

A. Contribution of Tire Maintenance and 

Tire Fuel Efficiency to Addressing 

Energy Independence and Security 

1. Tire Fuel Efficiency and Rolling 

Resistance 

2. Relationship Between Tire Maintenance 

and Tire Fuel Efficiency and Vehicle 

Fuel Economy 

3. 2006 National Academy of Sciences 

Report 

4. California 

5. European Union 

6. Japan 

B. Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007 Mandated Consumer Tire 

Information Program 

1. Tires Subject to the Consumer 

Information Program 

2. Mandate To Create a National Tire Fuel 

Efficiency Rating System 

3. Communicating Information to 

Consumers 

4. Specification of Test Methods 

5. Creating a National Consumer Education 

Program on Tire Maintenance 

6. Consultation in Setting Standards 

7. Application With State and Local Laws 

and Regulations 

8. Compliance and Enforcement 

9. Reporting to Congress 

III. Which Tires Must Be Rated? 

A. Passenger Car Tires 

B. Replacement Tires 

C. Tires within a Tire Model 

D. Tires Excluded 

IV. Rolling Resistance Test Procedure 

A. Rolling Resistance 

B. Possible Test Procedures Available to 

Measure Rolling Resistance 

C. NHTSA Research Results 

D. Why Select a Single-Point Test Instead 

of Multi-Point? 

E. Why Select ISO 28580 Instead of Other 

Tests? 

V. Proposed Rolling Resistance Rating Metric 

VI. Proposed Rating System 

A. What Should We Convey to Consumers 

in a Rating System? 

1. Fuel Efficiency 

2. Safety 

i. Potential Safety Consequences 

ii. Test Procedure 

3. Durability 

4. Overall Rating 

B. How Should We Convey the Information 

to Consumers in a Rating System? 

1. Proposed Rating Formulas 

i. Fuel Efficiency 

ii. Safety 

iii. Durability 

2. Proposed Label Style 

VII. Proposed Information Dissemination and 

Reporting Requirements for Tire 

Manufacturers and Tire Retailers 

A. The Replacement Passenger Car Tire 

Market 

B. Assumptions about the Average Tire 

Purchaser and the Average Tire 

Purchasing Process 

C. What Are We Proposing To Require of 

Tire Retailers? 

D. What Are We Proposing To Require of 

Tire Manufacturers? 

1. Data Reporting 

2. Tire Labels 

E. Requirements for Tire Retailers and Tire 

Manufacturers With an Internet Presence 

F. Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards 

VIII. NHTSA’s Consumer Education Program 

A. Previous Tire Consumer Education 

Efforts 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 29543 

1Public Law 110–140, 121 Stat. 1492 (Dec. 18, 

2007). 

2Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 27, 

Tables 4–1 and 4–2, available at http://cta.ornl.gov/ 

data/index.shtml (last accessed Mar. 5, 2009). 

3See 70 FR 18136 (April 8, 2005). 4Transportation Research Board Special Report 

286, Tires and Passenger Vehicle Fuel Economy, 

National Research Council of the National 

Academies, 5 (2006) (hereinafter ‘‘2006 NAS 

Report’’). 

5See National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, NHTSA Tire Rolling Resistance 

Rating System Test Development Project: Phase 2— 

Effects of Tire Rolling Resistance Levels on 

Traction, Treadwear, and Vehicle Fuel Economy 

(February 2009). This Phase 2 research report will 

be placed in the docket. 

B. Potential Future Consumer Education 

Efforts 

1. What Information Should NHTSA 

Convey? 

2. Point of Sale 

3. Interactive Mediums 

4. Web Site Development 

5. Paper Brochure Materials 

6. Partnership Development 

7. Exhibits and Conferencing 

8. Local Education Programs 

IX. Costs and Benefits 

A. Costs 

B. Benefits 

X. Lead Time 

XI. Compliance Tolerances 

A. Fuel Efficiency 

B. Safety 

C. Durability 

XII. Regulatory Alternatives 

XIII. Public Participation 

XIV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

B National Environmental Policy Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

H. Executive Order 13045 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 13211 

K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

L. Plain Language 

M. Privacy Act 

I. Executive Overview 

A. Summary 

This document is being issued 

pursuant to the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 (EISA),1 which 

was enacted in December 2007. EISA 

included a requirement that NHTSA 

develop a national tire fuel efficiency 

consumer information program to 

educate consumers about the effect of 

tires on automobile fuel efficiency, 

safety, and durability. Consumers 

currently have little, if any, convenient 

way of determining how tire choices can 

affect vehicle fuel economy. 

The collective effects of the choices 

consumers make when they buy tires 

are matters of public interest. The 240 

million passenger cars and light trucks 

in the United States consume about 135 

billion gallons of motor fuel annually.2

Finding ways to reduce this energy 

consumption is a national goal for 

reasons ranging from ensuring economic 

and national security to improving local 

air quality and reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions. Rolling resistance, or the 

force required to make the tires roll, 

differs from tire to tire and is a 

characteristic that indicates a tire’s fuel 

efficiency. Consumers, if sufficiently 

informed and interested, could bring 

about a reduction in average rolling 

resistance of replacement tires by 

adjusting their tire purchases, and as a 

consequence, significantly reduce the 

amount of fuel consumed annually. 

While the handling, traction, and other 

operating characteristics of tires are of 

particular interest to tire buyers, they 

are also matters of even broader public 

interest in as much as they may 

influence the safety performance of 

vehicles on the nation’s highways. 

Congress required NHTSA to establish 

a tire fuel efficiency consumer 

information program, including a 

replacement tire fuel efficiency rating 

system. This requirement is evidently a 

response to a market failure in the form 

of imperfectly informed decisions on 

the part of consumers; the program 

attempts to respond to the market 

failure. In the same vein, EISA requires 

that NHTSA develop requirements for 

providing this information to 

consumers, and a national tire 

maintenance consumer education 

program. All tires require proper 

inflation and maintenance to achieve 

their intended levels of efficiency, 

safety, wear, and operating performance. 

NHTSA has previously addressed the 

importance of proper tire inflation to 

safety and fuel efficiency in various 

public service campaigns. NHTSA has 

also mandated that tire pressure 

monitoring systems (TPMSs) be 

installed on new motor vehicles,3 but 

TPMS is not a substitute for proper tire 

maintenance. Motorists must be alerted 

to the fact that even small losses in 

inflation pressure can reduce tire 

treadwear life, fuel efficiency, and 

operating performance.4

This document proposes to require 

tire manufacturers to label their 

replacement tires for fuel efficiency, 

safety, and durability based on test 

procedures specified by the agency. 

These tests address three aspects of tire 

performance: rolling resistance, traction 

and treadwear life. As noted above and 

described in further detail below, rolling 

resistance is a measurement of fuel 

efficiency. A measurement of traction is 

intended to indicate a tire’s ability to 

stop on wet pavement. Thus, traction is 

one metric that corresponds to safety. A 

treadwear rating measures a tire’s wear 

rate compared with that of control tires. 

Treadwear life, therefore, corresponds to 

a measure of durability. 

Comparing this new proposed label 

across potential replacement tires would 

enable consumers to see how different 

replacement tires can affect the fuel 

economy they are getting from their 

vehicle. The label would also allow 

consumers to see the tradeoff they may 

be facing between fuel efficiency, safety 

(i.e., traction), and durability (i.e., 

treadwear life), and how the balance of 

these factors may differ from tire to tire. 

NHTSA’s research has found that while 

tire construction need not sacrifice 

traction or treadwear for improved fuel 

efficiency, maintaining the same 

traction and treadwear while increasing 

the fuel efficiency of a given tire often 

entails higher costs.5 Thus, if a 

manufacturer seeks to improve the fuel 

efficiency of a given replacement tire 

construction while keeping cost 

constant, there is a substantial chance 

that the construction will sacrifice 

either traction or treadwear. 

The agency is proposing to require 

that tire retailers display a tire fuel 

efficiency consumer information 

program poster that NHTSA will print 

and provide to retailers. The poster 

would communicate the importance of 

comparing replacement tire ratings as 

well as the importance of proper tire 

maintenance. The agency is also 

proposing to require tire retailers and 

tire manufacturers that maintain Web 

sites to link to NHTSA’s comprehensive 

tire Web site it will be developing as 

part of a national tire maintenance 

consumer education program. The 

agency seeks comments on any other 

information dissemination requirements 

that would ensure that easy-tounderstand information is conveyed in 

a way that is most likely to impact 

consumers’ decisions and, thus, affect 

their behavior and save them and our 

nation fuel and money. 

In developing the proposal, the 

agency conducted tire testing research 

to determine which test procedure 

would best standardize a fuel efficiency 

rating and provide accurate 

discrimination among replacement tires. 

The agency is proposing the specific test 

procedure by which manufacturers are 

to measure rolling resistance for the 

rating system. NHTSA also conducted 

consumer focus group research to 

improve understanding of the typical 

tire purchaser and the tire purchasing 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
29544 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

6Previous attempts to establish a national tire 

fuel efficiency program can be found in proposed 

amendments to various energy bills in prior years. 

See e.g., S. Amdt. 3083, 108th Cong., 150 Cong. Rec. 

S4710 (2004) (proposing to amend S. 150); S. Amdt. 

1470, 108th Cong., 149 Cong. Rep. S10707 (2003) 

(proposing to amend S. 14). These amendments 

proposed regulating the fuel efficiency of tires in 

addition to a tire fuel efficiency grading system and 

consumer information program, and were not 

adopted. 

7Notice of Upcoming Joint Rulemaking To 

Establish Vehicle GHG Emissions and CAFE 

Standards; Notice of Intent To Conduct a Joint 

Rulemaking, 74 FR 24007 (May 22, 2009). 

8 Id. at 24008. 

9 Id. at 24009. 

10 If the ISO 28580 test procedure is not a 

finalized by the time of publication of this notice, 

interested parties may obtain a copy of the draft by 

contacting Mr. Joe Pacuit, U.S. Technical Advisory 

Group (TAG) Secretariat to Technical Committee 

(TC) 31, Tyres, rims and valves. Mr. Pacuit can be 

reached by telephone at (303) 666–8121. 

process for the average consumer. 

NHTSA’s preliminary consumer 

research explored the type of label 

(including forms of rating, scales, and 

graphic) that best communicates the 

information to consumers. In this 

notice, we are proposing a label based 

on the rating scale and presentation that 

tested best with consumers and that 

promises to improve the operation of 

the market in terms of three factors (fuel 

economy, safety, and durability) that 

matter to consumers. We are aware that 

by itself, the rating scale may not make 

the relevant information fully 

meaningful to consumers; from the label 

alone, it is not entirely clear what a high 

rating, rather than a low one, will mean 

in terms of what matters to consumer 

choices. The agency is planning to do 

additional consumer testing, including 

additional types of testing such as 

quantitative and experimental 

techniques, to make the label as 

meaningful as possible. At this point, 

the agency cannot project the expected 

consumer reaction to this program, and 

it will engage in continued testing to 

provide such projections. The agency 

requests comment on the proposed 

rating systems, the proposed label, and 

potential future consumer research. 

NHTSA is also publishing a 

companion Preliminary Regulatory 

Impact Analysis (PRIA) that provides an 

analysis on the potential economic 

impacts of this consumer information 

program. The agency seeks comment on 

this preliminary analysis. 

B. Energy Independence and Security 

Act of 2007 

The provision of EISA that mandates 

the consumer tire information program 

built on a legislative proposal originally 

introduced in 2006 after a NAS report 

was issued suggesting that a tire fuel 

efficiency consumer information 

program could increase vehicle fuel 

economy by an average of 1 to 2 

percent.6 Many factors affect a vehicle’s 

fuel economy, including the tire’s 

rolling resistance, or force required to 

make the tires roll. The 2006 NAS report 

estimated that 4 percent (urban) to 7 

percent (highway) of the energy 

available from the vehicle’s fuel usage is 

used to overcome the rolling resistance 

of the tires. Therefore, reducing rolling 

resistance can reduce a vehicle’s fuel 

consumption. As one of many strategies 

to meet the Federal corporate average 

fuel economy (CAFE) standards for new 

passenger cars and light trucks, 

automobile manufacturers often equip 

vehicles with low rolling resistance 

tires. However, consumers often 

unknowingly purchase higher rolling 

resistance tires when replacing their 

vehicle tires, because information on the 

comparative rolling resistance of tires 

and its impact on vehicle fuel economy 

is not readily available. 

One of the most significant of the 

EISA mandates is the setting of separate 

maximum feasible standards for 

passenger cars and for light trucks at 

levels sufficient to ensure that the 

average fuel economy of the combined 

fleet of all passenger cars and light 

trucks sold by all manufacturers in the 

U.S. in model year (MY) 2020 equals or 

exceeds 35 miles per gallon. In the near 

future, per the President’s 

announcement, NHTSA and the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

intend to initiate a joint rulemaking 

with NHTSA proposing CAFE standards 

under the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended 

by EISA, and EPA proposing greenhouse 

gas emissions standards under the Clean 

Air Act.7 It is intended that this joint 

rulemaking proposal will reflect a 

carefully coordinated and harmonized 

approach to implementing these two 

statutes.8 The new standards will 

propose a significant increase in fuel 

economy by 2016.9 This consumer tire 

information program is one of the 

actions that will contribute towards the 

larger goals of energy independence and 

security. 

Section 111 of EISA added section 

32304A to Chapter 323 of title 49, 

United States Code. This chapter 

codifies consumer information 

requirements initially established by the 

Motor Vehicle Information and Cost 

Savings Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92–513). 

The new section 32304A is entitled 

‘‘Consumer tire information’’ and 

specifies as follows: 

• Within 24 months of the enactment 

of EISA, NHTSA is to promulgate rules 

establishing a national tire fuel 

efficiency consumer information 

program for replacement tires to educate 

consumers about the effect of tires on 

fuel efficiency, safety, and durability. 

• The program must include a 

national tire fuel efficiency rating 

system for replacement tires to assist 

consumers in making more educated 

tire purchasing decisions. 

• NHTSA must specify requirements 

for providing information to consumers, 

including information at the point of 

sale and other potential dissemination 

methods, including the Internet. 

• NHTSA must also specify the test 

methods that manufacturers are to use 

in assessing and rating tires to avoid 

variation among test equipment and 

manufacturers. 

• As a part of the consumer 

information program, NHTSA must 

develop a national tire maintenance 

consumer education program, which 

must include information on tire 

inflation pressure, alignment, rotation, 

and treadwear to maximize fuel 

efficiency, safety and durability of 

replacement tires. 

C. Proposal 

We solicit comment on all aspects of 

this proposal, including the rolling 

resistance test procedure, the rating 

system and label graphic, and the 

requirements for tire manufacturers and 

tire retailers for reporting and 

disseminating information. Specific 

areas where we request comments are 

identified elsewhere in this preamble 

and in the PRIA. Based on public 

comments and other information, 

including new data and analysis, the 

requirements and specifications in the 

final rule could differ from the specific 

ones proposed in this document. 

1. Test Procedures 

This document proposes to require 

tire manufacturers to rate the fuel 

efficiency of their tires using a test 

procedure currently under development 

by the International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO), ISO 28580: Tyre 

Rolling Resistance measurement 

method—Single point test and 

measurement result correlation— 

Designed to facilitate international 

cooperation and, possibly, regulation 

building. The ISO standard is currently 

in Final Draft International Standard 

(FDIS) stage, and is expected to be 

balloted and finalized by October 2009. 

Based on this timeline, the agency 

expects this test procedure to be 

finalized before publication of the final 

rule.10 NHTSA is proposing to specify 

the use of the finalized ISO 28580 test 

procedure. The agency is also seeking 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 29545 

11See 49 CFR 575.104 (2008). 12NHTSA’s Phase 2 research tested 15 models of 

replacement tires, as well as the original equipment 

tires on a fuel economy test vehicle, to examine 

possible correlations between tire rolling resistance 

levels and vehicle fuel economy as measured on a 

dynometer, wet and dry traction, and indoor and 

outdoor treadwear. See National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, NHTSA Tire Rolling 

Resistance Rating System Test Development Project: 

Phase 2—Effects of Tire Rolling Resistance Levels 

on Traction, Treadwear, and Vehicle Fuel Economy 

(February 2009). This Phase 2 research report will 

be placed in the docket. 

13Today’s proposed regulation specifies the 

colors on the far ends of the ratings scales as 

‘‘primary red’’ (for lowest/worst rating box) and 

‘‘primary green’’ (for the highest/best rating box). 

An example of the proposed label in color can be 

found in the docket for this rulemaking and on 

NHTSA’s Web site, http://www.nhtsa.gov. Click on 

the link to this notice, which will appear under 

‘‘What’s New, Latest Updates, and Features on Our 

Site’’ (towards the bottom of the main page). 

comment on the use of other test 

procedures as described in section IV of 

this notice. 

The choice of which test procedure to 

specify for measuring rolling resistance 

is important because measuring rolling 

resistance requires precise 

instrumentation, calibration, speed 

control and equipment alignment for 

repeatable results. As explained in more 

detail in this notice, agency research 

shows that all of the available test 

procedures could meet these 

requirements. However, the ISO 28580 

test method is unique in that it specifies 

a procedure to correlate results between 

laboratories and test equipment, which 

our research shows is a significant 

source of variation. Because other 

established test methods lack such a 

procedure, NHTSA would have to 

develop a new procedure to address this 

variation before any of those test 

methods could be considered. Further, 

the ISO 28580 test procedure is the 

specified test method in the proposed 

European Union Directive, allowing 

manufacturers to do one test to 

determine ratings for both proposed 

regulations. 

As for the safety and durability 

ratings, due to the statutory timeline 

within which this rulemaking must be 

completed, NHTSA is proposing to use 

traction and treadwear test procedures 

that are already specified under another 

tire rating system, the uniform tire 

quality grading standards (UTQGS).11

The agency has been examining other 

metrics for safety and durability, as well 

as possible correlations between tire 

fuel efficiency and wet and dry traction, 

indoor and outdoor treadwear, and 

vehicle fuel economy.12

2. Proposed Rolling Resistance Rating 

Metric 

We are proposing to base a tire’s fuel 

efficiency rating on rolling resistance 

force (RRF) as measured by the ISO 

28580 test procedure. This is in contrast 

to basing a fuel efficiency rating on 

rolling resistance coefficient (RRC), or 

RRF divided by load. The agency is 

aware that the proposed European tire 

fuel efficiency rating system specifies 

tire ratings based on RRC. 

NHTSA is proposing to base the 

rolling resistance rating on the RRF 

metric because such a rating would 

provide more discrimination among 

different tires throughout the system, 

and thus more information to 

consumers, than a rating based on RRC. 

RRF translates more directly to the fuel 

required to move a tire, and based on 

the goals of EISA, appears to be a more 

appropriate metric. 

3. Proposed Label 

To convey information to consumers, 

this document proposes a label, which 

contains an individual tire’s ratings for 

fuel efficiency (i.e., rolling resistance), 

safety (i.e., traction), and durability (i.e., 

treadwear), and which is similar to a 

ratings label that tested well in 

consumer research conducted by 

NHTSA. NHTSA conducted focus group 

studies in which it presented several 

labels using different graphics and 

scales to relay the ratings. Figure 1 

shows the ratings label that NHTSA is 

proposing in today’s notice. The graphic 

shows all the ratings on a scale of 0 to 

100, with 100 being the best rating. 

Consumers expressed an understanding 

of this 0 to 100 scale, and reacted 

positively to the red and green shading, 

with red indicating lower/worse ratings 

and green indicating higher/better 

ratings.13 Other graphics presented in 

NHTSA’s consumer research are 

discussed in section VI.B.3 of this 

notice. 

NHTSA is seeking comment on an 

alternative graphic for the traction rating 

scale because consumers expressed 

some confusion with the graphic as 

presented. The cloud in the symbol for 

traction (representing the source of the 

rain drops) was confusing for some 

consumers who could not make out 

what it was or thought it was a cowboy 

hat. NHTSA is aware that the consumers 

may not fully understand the meaning 

of certain points on the ratings scale and 

is taking steps, with this rule, to help to 

increase understanding. NHTSA is 

seeking comment on how that task 

might best be accomplished, including 

with changes to the label itself. 

For the purposes of the final rule, the 

agency is also considering the concept 

of a combined rating of some sort, 

which would convert all three benefit 

metrics into one overall rating. The 

advantage of such a system for tire 

performance ratings would be that it 

would simplify the ratings, potentially 

relieving consumers of the task of 

weighing the ratings for three different 

metrics for one tire against the three 

ratings for another tire. At the same 

time, if the single combined rating were 

presented to the exclusion of individual 

ratings for each metric, it would obscure 

the relative performance of individual 

components that might carry different 

priorities with different consumers. As 

discussed in detail below in section 

VI.A.4, an example of such a system 

might be expressed as average overall 

cost per mile. As explained in greater 

detail later in this notice, the agency 

seeks comments as to whether such a 

combined rating could be developed 

and, if so, should be adopted in the final 

rule and implemented. The agency 

seeks comments on the relative 

advantages and disadvantages of a 

single combined rating, the three rating 

system in our proposal, and a third 

approach combining the first two 

approaches. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
29546 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

14Manufacturers are required to print UTQGS 

information on a paper label pursuant to 49 CFR 

575.104(d)(1)(B). Many manufacturers include other 

information on this paper label as well. Note that 

NHTSA uses the term ‘‘paper label’’ in the 

colloquial sense; many labels on tires are actually 

made of plastic. 

15See 70 FR 18136 (April 5, 2005); Docket No. 

NHTSA–2005–20586–1. 

4. Proposed Information Dissemination 

and Reporting Requirements for Tire 

Manufacturers and Tire Retailers 

For tire manufacturers, NHTSA is 

proposing that manufacturers be 

required to report various data to the 

agency. This is necessary both for 

enforcement of the rating system, and 

for development of NHTSA’s tire fuel 

efficiency Web site, which will contain 

a database of tire information with a 

calculator tool that allows easy 

comparison of fuel savings between 

various replacement tires. 

Regarding labeling, we are proposing 

to require tire manufacturers to print the 

tire fuel efficiency graphic (Figure 1) in 

color along with any other information 

manufacturers include on an existing 

paper label on the tire.14 At the 

manufacturer’s option they could also 

meet the labeling requirement by 

displaying the tire fuel efficiency rating 

graphic as a separate label in full color. 

As for requirements for tire retailers, 

we are proposing a requirement that the 

paper label containing the new rating 

information must remain on the tire 

until the sale of the tire. The label refers 

consumers to the agency’s Web site for 

further information about the ratings. 

We are further proposing a requirement 

that tire retailers must display a poster 

that NHTSA would print and distribute 

to them which would explain the rating 

system and encourage consumers to 

compare ratings across tires. 

In addition, for tire manufacturers and 

retailers that maintain a Web site, the 

agency is proposing to require those 

Web sites to link to NHTSA’s 

comprehensive tire Web site we will be 

developing as part of the national tire 

maintenance consumer education 

program. The agency also seeks 

comments on any other information 

dissemination requirements that would 

ensure that easy-to-understand 

information is conveyed in a way that 

is most likely to impact consumers’ 

decisions and, thus, affect their behavior 

and save them and our nation fuel and 

money. 

5. Consumer Education Program 

This document identifies and seeks 

comment on various ways that NHTSA 

plans to implement a consumer 

education program to inform consumers 

about the effect of tire properties and 

tire maintenance on vehicle fuel 

efficiency, safety, and durability. All 

tires require proper inflation and 

maintenance to achieve their intended 

levels of energy efficiency, safety, wear, 

and operating performance. NHTSA has 

previously addressed the importance of 

proper tire inflation to fuel efficiency, 

treadwear, and safety in various public 

service campaigns. Although NHTSA 

has mandated tire pressure monitoring 

systems (TPMSs) be installed on new 

motor vehicles,15 a TPMS is not a 

substitute for proper tire maintenance. 

Motorists must be alerted to the fact that 

even small losses in inflation pressure 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2EP22JN09.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 29547 

16When a tire is under-inflated, the shape of its 

footprint and the pressure it exerts on the road 

surface are both altered. One consequence of this 

alteration can be a reduction in the tire’s ability to 

transmit (or generate) braking force to the road 

surface. Thus, under-inflated tires may increase a 

vehicle’s stopping distance on wet surfaces. 66 FR 

38982, 38986 (July 26, 2001). Under-inflated tires 

also increase the rolling resistance of vehicles and, 

correspondingly, decrease their fuel economy. Id. 

can reduce tire treadwear life, fuel 

efficiency, and operating performance.16

Some of NHTSA’s ideas for consumer 

education include informational posters 

or brochures that NHTSA would 

distribute at trade shows and other 

events, and which tire retailers could 

display at the point of sale and a 

centralized, expansive government Web 

site on tires containing a database of all 

tire rating information. NHTSA is also 

planning to develop a comparative 

calculator that would show the amount 

of money a consumer would save 

annually or over the estimated lifetime 

of the tires of varying fuel efficiency 

ratings. Using the calculator, a 

consumer could select tires to compare, 

enter the fuel economy of their vehicle 

(miles per gallon or mpg) and the 

average number of miles they drive each 

year and even the dollar amount they 

are paying for fuel and get a calculation 

of differences in fuel usage and/or 

money saved for the tires under 

comparison. 

Finally, NHTSA plans to develop and 

form new partnerships to distribute 

educational messages about tire fuel 

efficiency and tire maintenance. NHTSA 

will seek to partner with any interested 

tire retailers, State or local governments, 

as well as manufacturers who share 

NHTSA’s goal of promoting the 

importance of proper tire maintenance. 

NHTSA will also seek to partner with 

universities and high schools that may 

wish to educate students regarding tire 

fuel efficiency or proper tire 

maintenance. These various innovative 

tools and education measures will assist 

consumers in making better-informed 

tire purchasing and maintenance 

decisions. 

D. Costs and Benefits 

The annual cost of NHTSA’s proposal 

is estimated to be between $18.9 and 

$52.8 million. This includes testing 

costs of $22,500, reporting costs of 

around $113,000, labeling costs of 

around $9 million, costs to the Federal 

government of $1.28 million, and costs 

of between $8.4 and $42 million to 

improve tires. In addition, NHTSA 

anticipates one-time costs of around $4 

million, including initial testing costs of 

$3.7 million and reporting start-up costs 

of $280,000. 

It is hoped that the proposed rule will 

have benefits in terms of fuel economy, 

safety, and durability. At the very least, 

the proposed rule should enable 

consumers to make more informed 

decisions about these variables, thus 

increasing benefits along dimensions 

that most matter to them. It is possible 

that the rule will help promote 

innovation that will benefit consumers 

along all three dimensions. Because the 

agency cannot foresee precisely how 

much today’s proposed consumer 

information program would affect 

consumer tire purchasing behavior and 

cannot foresee the reduction in rolling 

resistance among improved tires, the 

PRIA estimates benefits using a range of 

hypothetical assumptions regarding the 

extent to which the tire fuel efficiency 

consumer information program affects 

the replacement tire market. 

Specifically, the PRIA develops 

estimates assuming that between 2% 

and 10% of targeted tires are improved 

and that the average reduction in rolling 

resistance among improved tires is 

between 5% and 10%. Under these 

hypothetical assumptions, the proposal 

is estimated to save 7.9–78 million 

gallons of fuel and prevent the emission 

of 76,000–757,000 metric tons of CO2

annually. The values of the fuel savings 

are between $22 and $220 million at a 

3 percent discount rate and between $20 

and $203 million at a 7 percent discount 

rate. 

E. Lead Time 

Recognizing that the deadlines 

imposed by EISA indicate a desire to 

have information available to consumers 

as quickly as possible, NHTSA is 

proposing to require tire manufacturers 

to meet applicable requirements for all 

existing replacement tires within 12 

months of the issuance of a final 

regulation. That is, within 12 months of 

the issuance of a final regulation tire 

manufacturers must submit required 

data to NHTSA on all existing 

replacement tires, and all replacement 

tires sold by the manufacturer or 

transferred to tire retailers must be 

labeled. For new tires introduced after 

the effective date of this rule, NHTSA is 

proposing to require reporting of 

information at least 30 days prior to 

introducing the tire for sale, as is 

currently required for UTQGS 

information. 

Regarding the poster NHTSA is 

proposing to require in retailers that 

have a display room, the agency is 

proposing to make this poster available 

within 12 months of the issuance of a 

final regulation. At that time NHTSA 

will publish a Federal Register notice 

announcing the availability of the 

poster. The agency is proposing that a 

tire retailer must have the poster on 

display within 60 days of the issuance 

of the notice of availability in the 

Federal Register. We are proposing that 

a tire retailer will be able to comply 

with the requirement of displaying the 

poster either by downloading and 

printing it, in color and with the 

specifications from NHTSA’s Web site, 

or by contacting the agency and 

requesting that we send the retailer a 

copy of the poster. 

For tire retailers and tire 

manufacturers with an Internet 

presence, NHTSA is proposing that 

those Web sites link to NHTSA’s tire 

Web site within 12 months of the 

issuance of a final regulation. NHTSA 

will provide the direct link to the 

comprehensive tire Web site in that 

final regulation. 

II. Background 

A. Contribution of Tire Maintenance 

and Tire Fuel Efficiency to Addressing 

Energy Independence and Security 

1. Tire Fuel Efficiency and Rolling 

Resistance 

Without the continual addition of 

energy, a vehicle will slow down. This 

effect is due to many forces, including 

aerodynamic drag, driveline losses, 

brake drag, and tire rolling resistance. 

The first three of these are vehicle 

properties; they will not be discussed 

further. Rolling resistance is the effort 

required to keep a given tire rolling. 

That is, rolling resistance is the energy 

loss during the continuation of 

rotational movement of the tire. As 

such, it always opposes the vehicle’s 

longitudinal, or forward/backward, 

movement. Since this rolling resistance 

force (RRF) opposes the direction of 

travel of the rotating tire, it directly 

reduces the efficiency of a vehicle in 

converting the chemical energy in the 

fuel to motion of the vehicle. Therefore, 

tire rolling resistance is the most 

effective metric for rating the ‘‘fuel 

efficiency’’ of a tire. 

In general, vehicle efficiency affects 

the conversion of chemical energy in 

motor fuel into mechanical energy and 

the transmission of energy to the axles 

to drive the wheels. Figure 2 illustrates 

the energy uses and losses for a midsize 

passenger car. Part of the energy 

supplied to the wheels of the vehicle is 

lost due to energy converted to heat 

within the structure of the tire as well 

as friction between the tire and the road, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
29548 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

17See http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml; 

2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 29. 18Rolling resistance is, thus, defined as energy 

per unit distance, which is the same units as force 

(Joules/meter = Newtons). However, unlike force, 

rolling resistance is a scalar quantity with no 

direction associated with it. National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, The Pneumatic Tire, 

DOT HS 810 561, at 477 (February 2006). 19 Id. 

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

21 Id. at 1. 

22H.R. Rep. No. 109–537, at 3 (June 28, 2006); 

2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 1. 

23Most passenger tires are replaced every 3 to 5 

years because of wear. Id. 

24See 73 FR 24352, 24360 (May 2, 2008). 

25Notice of Upcoming Joint Rulemaking To 

Establish Vehicle GHG Emissions and CAFE 

Standards; Notice of Intent to Conduct a Joint 

Rulemaking, 74 FR 24007 (May 22, 2009). 

26 Id. at 24356. 

27 IPCC (2007): Climate Change 2007: Mitigation 

of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group 

which creates resistance, decreasing fuel 

efficiency. 

A tire’s rolling resistance is the energy 

consumed by a rolling tire, or the 

mechanical energy converted into heat 

by a tire, moving a unit distance on the 

roadway.18 The magnitude of rolling 

resistance depends on the tire used, the 

nature of the surface on which it rolls, 

and the operating conditions—inflation 

pressure, load, and speed.19

2. Relationship Between Tire 

Maintenance and Tire Fuel Efficiency 

and Vehicle Fuel Economy 

Tires with reduced inflation pressure 

exhibit more sidewall bending and tread 

shearing. This increased deformation 

causes increased energy loss by the 

flexing of the rubber. Further, tires with 

less than optimal inflation pressure 

have a larger footprint of the tire on the 

road, creating more contact between the 

tire and the road, thereby increasing 

rolling resistance. Therefore, properly 

inflated tires achieve less rolling 

resistance and higher fuel efficiency 

than under-inflated tires. Moreover, all 

tires require proper inflation and proper 

maintenance to achieve their intended 

levels of efficiency, safety, wear, and 

operating performance. Thus, a strong 

message urging vigilant maintenance of 

inflation must be a central part of 

communicating information on the fuel 

efficiency performance of tires to 

motorists.20

In addition to proper tire inflation 

pressure, combinations of differences in 

tire dimensions, design, materials, and 

construction features will cause tires to 

differ in rolling resistance as well as in 

many other attributes such as traction, 

handling, noise, wear resistance, and 

appearance.21 Thus, when choosing 

among replacement tires, consumers 

choose among tires varying in price, 

style, and many aspects of performance, 

including rolling resistance, treadwear 

life, and traction. Every year Americans 

spend approximately $20 billion 

replacing about 200 million passenger 

car tires.22 Thus, the tires consumers 

purchase will not only affect the 

handling, traction, ride comfort, and 

appearance of their cars, but also the 

fuel economy.23

Fuel economy improvements are a 

large part of ensuring a secure energy 

future.24 EISA will help reduce 

America’s dependence on oil by 

reducing U.S. demand for oil by setting 

a national fuel economy standard of at 

least 35 miles per gallon by 2020— 

which will increase fuel economy 

standards by 40 percent and save 

billions of gallons of fuel. In the near 

future, per the President’s 

announcement, NHTSA and EPA intend 

to initiate a joint rulemaking, with 

NHTSA proposing CAFE standards 

under EPCA, as amended by EISA, and 

EPA proposing greenhouse gas 

emissions standards under the Clean Air 

Act.25 This notice proposes a tire fuel 

efficiency rating system and consumer 

education program that will contribute 

to increases in actual on-road fuel 

economy achieved, even for vehicles 

currently in service. 

Further, improving fuel economy 

reduces the amount of tailpipe 

emissions of CO2. CO2 emissions are 

directly linked to fuel consumption 

because CO2 is an ultimate end product 

of burning gasoline. The more fuel a 

vehicle burns, the more CO2 it emits. 

Since the CO2 emissions are essentially 

constant per gallon of fuel combusted, 

the amount of fuel consumption per 

mile is directly related to the amount of 

CO2 emissions per mile. Thus, 

improvements in fuel economy 

necessarily reduce tailpipe emissions of 

CO2.26 The need to take action to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions, e.g., motor 

vehicle tailpipe emissions of CO2, in 

order to forestall and even mitigate 

climate change is well recognized.27


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2EP22JN09.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 29549 

III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. 

Metz, O. Davidson, P. Bosch, R. Dave, and L. Meyer 

(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 

28H.R. Rep. No. 108–401, at 971 (Nov. 25, 2003) 

(Conf. Rep.). 

29Ultimately the task was given to the Committee 

for the National Tire Efficiency Study of the 

Transportation Research Board, a division of the 

National Research Council that is jointly 

administered by the National Academy of Sciences, 

the National Academy of Engineering, and the 

Institute of Medicine. 

30Transportation Research Board Special Report 

286, Tires and Passenger Vehicle Fuel Economy, 

National Research Council of the National 

Academies (2006). A copy of this report will be 

placed in the docket. 

31 Id. at 2–3. 

32 Id. at 3. 

33 Id. 

34 Id. at 2, 4. 

35 Id. 

36See Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 25000.5, 25722– 

25723 (2009); 2001 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 912 (S.B. 

1170) (West). 

37See Cal. Pub Res. Code §§ 25770–25773; 2003 

Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 645 (A.B. 844) (West). 

38Specifically, AB 844 required the State Energy 

Resources Conservation Board ‘‘to adopt, on or 

before July 1, 2007, and implement, no later than 

July 1, 2008, a replacement tire fuel efficiency 

program of statewide applicability for replacement 

tires for passenger cars and light-duty trucks, that 

is designed to ensure that replacement tires sold in 

the State are at least as energy efficient, on average, 

as the tires sold in the State as original equipment 

on those vehicles.’’ Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 25772. 

39See id. at § 25771. 

40See id. at § 25772. EISA does not provide 

NHTSA with the authority to directly regulate the 

fuel efficiency of tires. EISA’s mandates to NHTSA 

regarding replacement tire fuel efficiency relate 

only to developing ratings and disseminating 

information to consumers. 

41See id. at § 25773. 

42 Id. 

43See http://www.energy.ca.gov/transportation/ 

tire_efficiency/documents/index.html#061009 (last 

accessed June 15, 2009). 

3. 2006 National Academy of Sciences 

Report 

In the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act of 2004,28 Congress provided 

funding through the USDOT/NHTSA to 

the National Academy of Sciences 

(NAS) to develop and perform a 

national tire fuel efficiency study and 

literature review.29 The NAS was to 

assess the feasibility of reducing rolling 

resistance in replacement tires and the 

effects of doing so on vehicle fuel 

consumption, tire wear life and scrap 

tire generation, and tire operating 

performance as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. Congress asked that the 

assessment include estimates of the 

effects of reductions in rolling resistance 

on consumer spending on fuel and tire 

replacement. 

In April 2006, the Transportation 

Research Board and the Board on 

Energy and Environmental Systems, 

part of the National Academies’ 

Division on Engineering and Physical 

Sciences, released Special Report 286, 

Tires and Passenger Vehicle Fuel 

Economy: Informing Consumers and 

Improving Performance (2006 NAS 

Report).30 The 2006 NAS Report 

concluded that reduction of average 

rolling resistance of replacement tires by 

10 percent was technically and 

economically feasible, and that such a 

reduction would increase the fuel 

economy of passenger vehicles by 1 to 

2 percent, saving about 1 to 2 billion 

gallons of fuel per year nationwide.31

A reduction in the average rolling 

resistance of replacement tires in the 

vehicle fleet can occur through various 

means. Consumers could purchase more 

tires that are now available with lower 

rolling resistance, tire designs could be 

modified, and new tire technologies that 

offer reduced rolling resistance could be 

introduced. More vigilant maintenance 

of tire inflation pressure may further 

this outcome as well.32 The 2006 NAS 

Report concluded that consumers, if 

sufficiently informed and interested, 

could bring about a reduction in average 

rolling resistance by adjusting their tire 

purchases and by taking proper care of 

their tires once in service, especially by 

maintaining recommended inflation 

pressure.33

The 2006 NAS Report observed that 

consumers currently have little, if any, 

practical way of assessing how tire 

choices can affect vehicle fuel economy. 

Recognizing this market failure, the 

Report recommended that Congress 

authorize and make sufficient resources 

available for NHTSA to prompt and 

work with the tire industry in gathering 

and reporting information on the 

influence of passenger tires on vehicle 

fuel consumption.34 The 2006 NAS 

Report recognized the challenge of 

changing consumer preference and 

behavior, but recommended 

Congressional action nonetheless 

because of the potential societal benefits 

associated with increasing effective onroad fuel economy by even 1 to 2 

percent.35 This ambitious undertaking 

must begin with information concerning 

the tire’s influence on fuel efficiency 

being made widely and readily available 

to tire buyers and sellers. The consumer 

tire information program mandated by 

EISA and proposed in today’s notice 

begins this undertaking. 

Other countries have also begun 

working towards increasing on-road fuel 

economy by reducing average rolling 

resistance. These countries include 

those of the European Union and Japan. 

In addition, the State of California has 

also initiated a program to increase 

vehicle fuel economy using tire 

efficiency ratings. 

4. California 

In 2001, California Senate Bill 1170 

authorized the California Energy 

Commission (CEC) to conduct a study to 

investigate opportunities for increasing 

usage of low rolling resistance tires in 

California.36 The study concluded that 

there was a potential for substantial 

vehicle fuel savings from an increase in 

the use of properly inflated, low rolling 

resistance tires. As a result of this study, 

in October 2003, the California State 

legislature adopted Assembly Bill No. 

844 (AB 844),37 which required the CEC 

to develop a comprehensive fuel 

efficient tire program.38

The program would consist of three 

phases. In the first phase, the CEC will 

develop a database with information on 

the fuel efficiency of replacement tires 

sold in California, develop a rating 

system for the energy efficiency of 

replacement tires, and develop a 

manufacturer reporting requirement for 

the energy efficiency of replacement 

tires.39 In the second phase, the CEC 

will consider whether to adopt 

standards for replacement tires to 

ensure that replacement tires sold in the 

State are at least as energy efficient, on 

average, as original equipment tires.40 In 

deciding whether to adopt standards, 

the CEC must ensure that a standard: 

• Is technically feasible and cost 

effective; 

• Does not adversely affect tire safety; 

• Does not adversely affect the 

average life of replacement tires; and 

• Does not adversely affect the State 

effort to manage scrap tires.41

If standards are adopted, the CEC will 

also develop consumer information 

requirements for replacement tires for 

which standards apply. In the third 

phase, the CEC must review and revise 

the program at least every three years.42

On June 10, 2009, the Transportation 

Policy Committee of the CEC conducted 

a workshop regarding the Energy 

Commission Fuel Efficient Tire 

Program. As part of that workshop, the 

CEC staff draft regulation was made 

public.43 The draft regulation specifies 

testing and reporting requirements for 

manufacturers, and describes the 

database the CEC will maintain. The 

draft regulation defines a ‘‘fuel efficient 

tire’’ as a tire with ‘‘a declared fuel 

efficiency rating value no higher than 

1.15 times the lowest declared fuel 

efficiency rating value for all tires in its 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
29550 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

44Publication #CEC–600–2009–010–SD (posted 

May 29, 2009), available at http:// 

www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-600- 

2009-010/CEC-600-2009-010-SD.PDF (last accessed 

June 15, 2009). 

45See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/ 

getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2009- 

0092+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN#top 

(last accessed Mar. 11, 2009). 

46See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/ 

FindByProcnum.do?lang=2&procnum=COD/2008/ 

0221 (last accessed Mar. 4, 2009). Mandatory 

requirements are also proposed to begin in October 

2010 for wet grip and external rolling noise. 

47See Council Directive 1992/75/EEC, 1992 O.J. 

(L 297) 16–19 (on the indication by labeling and 

standard product information of the consumption of 

energy and other resources by household 

appliances). 

48See http://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/data/ 

20081226_01.html (last accessed Mar. 10, 2009). 

49H.R. 5632, 109th Cong. (2d Sess. 2006). 

50Previous attempts to establish a national tire 

fuel efficiency program can be found in proposed 

amendments to various energy bills in prior years. 

See e.g., S. Amdt. 3083, 108th Cong., 150 Cong. Rec. 

S4710 (2004) (proposing to amend S. 150); S. Amdt. 

1470, 108th Cong., 149 Cong. Rep. S10707 (2003) 

(proposing to amend S. 14). These amendments 

proposed regulating the fuel efficiency of tires in 

addition to a tire fuel efficiency grading system and 

consumer information program, and were not 

adopted. 

51See H.R. Rep. No. 109–537 (2006). 

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

53 49 CFR 575.104(c)(1). 

combined tire size designation and load 

index.’’ 44

5. European Union 

Europe is approaching the issue of tire 

fuel efficiency from two directions. On 

March 10, 2009, the European 

Parliament and the Council of the 

European Union adopted the European 

Commission Proposal for a regulation 

concerning new type-approval 

requirements for the general safety of 

motor vehicles.45 One of the new 

requirements in this regulation will 

gradually prohibit original equipment 

and replacement tires with a rolling 

resistance coefficient (RRC) above 

certain levels beginning November 1, 

2012. 

On April 22, 2009, the European 

Parliament adopted another 

Commission proposal, ‘‘Fuel Efficiency: 

Labeling of Tyres.’’ The new regulation 

will require original equipment and 

replacement tires to be rated for rolling 

resistance, wet grip and noise.46 The 

rolling resistance rating is determined 

using the same test procedure as in ISO 

28580: Tyre Rolling Resistance 

measurement method—Single point test 

and measurement result correlation— 

Designed to facilitate international 

cooperation and, possibly, regulation 

building. The ratings must be provided 

to consumers in a label on the tire, and 

also in technical promotional literature, 

while the measured value for RRC as 

determined for the type-approval 

regulation must be molded onto the tire 

sidewall. 

The label design is the same A to G 

scale as that used to rate the energy 

efficiency of household appliances in 

Europe.47 It will apply to tires fitted to 

passenger cars as well as light and 

heavy duty vehicles. Tire manufacturers 

are required to have a ‘‘fuel savings 

calculator’’ on their Web sites, while the 

European Commission is required to 

establish a ‘‘EU tyre labeling Web site’’ 

by September 2010. The new regulation 

will go into effect in 2012, but tire 

manufacturers are encouraged to 

comply earlier. 

6. Japan 

In late 2008 the Ministry of Economy, 

Trade and Industry (METI) and the 

Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, 

Transport and Tourism (MLIT) 

announced a decision to establish a fuel 

efficient tire program.48 The stated 

objectives are to include standards for 

measuring rolling resistance, providing 

information to consumers, and 

consideration of ways to ensure proper 

tire pressure management (either 

through tire pressure monitoring 

systems or consumer education). Japan 

has been participating in the 

development of ISO 28580. 

B. Energy Independence and Security 

Act of 2007 Mandated Consumer Tire 

Information Program 

The legislation that eventually 

became section 111 of EISA mandating 

the tire fuel efficiency consumer 

education program was originally 

introduced by itself in the U.S. House of 

Representatives as H.R. 5632 49

following the recommendations in the 

2006 NAS Report.50 The bill was 

introduced on June 16, 2006, and on 

June 28, 2006, the House Committee on 

Energy and Commerce reported on a 

slightly amended version of the bill.51 It 

was never acted upon by the 109th 

Congress, but it was inserted into a 

comprehensive energy bill as the 110th 

Congress began to develop it in May 

2007. 

The Motor Vehicle Information and 

Cost Savings Act, which was enacted in 

1972, mandated a Federal program to 

provide consumers with accurate 

information about the comparative 

safety and damageability of passenger 

cars. These requirements were codified 

in Chapter 323 of title 49 of the United 

States Code (U.S.C.). EISA added 

section 32304A to title 49 U.S.C., 

Chapter 323, which gives authority to 

the Department of Transportation (DOT) 

to establish a new consumer tire 

information program to educate 

consumers about the effect of tires on 

automobile fuel efficiency, safety, and 

durability. The DOT has delegated 

authority to NHTSA at 49 CFR 1.50. 

We have summarized below the 

requirements of title 49 U.S.C. 32304A, 

the consumer tire information program 

provision enacted by EISA. We request 

comment on how effectively our 

proposal is likely to be in achieving the 

goals of EISA. For example, what 

methodologies and assumptions should 

be used in establishing and 

implementing the new rating system? 

What is the most effective way to engage 

and educate consumers regarding the 

proposed rating system? 

1. Tires Subject to the Consumer 

Information Program 

The national tire fuel efficiency 

consumer information program 

mandated by EISA and proposed in this 

notice is applicable ‘‘only to 

replacement tires covered under section 

575.104(c) of title 49, Code of Federal 

Regulations’’ (CFR), as that regulation 

existed on the date of EISA’s 

enactment.52 Section 575.104 of title 49 

CFR is the Federal regulation that 

requires motor vehicle and tire 

manufacturers and tire brand name 

owners to provide information 

indicating the relative performance of 

passenger car tires in the areas of 

treadwear, traction, and temperature 

resistance. This section of NHTSA’s 

regulations specifies the test procedures 

to determine uniform tire quality 

grading standards (UTQGS), and 

mandates that these standards be 

molded onto tire sidewalls. 

Title 49 CFR, section 575.104 applies 

only to ‘‘new pneumatic tires for use on 

passenger cars * * * [but] * * * does 

not apply to deep tread, winter-type 

snow tires, space-saver or temporary use 

spare tires, tires with nominal rim 

diameters of 12 inches or less, or to 

limited production tires as defined in 

[49 CFR 575.104(c)(2)].’’ 53 Accordingly, 

today’s proposed tire fuel efficiency 

consumer information program applies 

only to replacement passenger car tires 

with the same exclusions as the UTQGS 

regulation. 

2. Mandate To Create a National Tire 

Fuel Efficiency Rating System 

EISA requires NHTSA to ‘‘promulgate 

rules establishing a national tire fuel 

efficiency consumer information 

program for replacement tires designed 

for use on motor vehicles to educate 

consumers about the effect of tires on 

automobile fuel efficiency, safety, and 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 29551 

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

55EISA was signed into law on December 19, 

2007. EISA specifies that ‘‘[n]ot later than 24 

months after the date of enactment * * * [NHTSA] 

shall, after notice and opportunity for comment, 

promulgate rules establishing a national tire fuel 

efficiency consumer information program for 

replacement tires designed for use on motor 

vehicles to educate consumers about the effect of 

tires on automobile fuel efficiency, safety, and 

durability.’’ 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(1). 

56 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(2)(A). 

57 Id. at § 32304A(d). 

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

59 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 4. The 2006 

NAS Report specifically noted that ‘‘[i]deally, 

consumers would have access to information that 

reflects a tire’s effect on fuel economy averaged over 

its anticipated lifetime of use, as opposed to a 

measurement taken during a single point in the 

tire’s lifetime, usually when it is new.’’ Id. 

However, ‘‘[n]o standard measure of lifetime tire 

energy consumption is currently available, and the 

development of one deserves consideration. Until 

such a practical measure is developed, rolling 

resistance measurements of new tires can be 

informative to consumers * * *’’ Id. 

60 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 4. 

61 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(2)(B). 

62See H.R. 5632, 109th Cong. (2d Sess. 2006). 

63See H.R. Rep. No. 109–537, at 5 (2006). 

64See 49 U.S.C. 32101(5) (defining manufacturer 

as ‘‘a person (A) manufacturing or assembling 

passenger motor vehicles or passenger motor 

vehicle equipment; or (B) importing motor vehicles 

or motor vehicle equipment for resale.’’). For 

purposes of the statute, the importer of any tire is 

a manufacturer. An importer is responsible for 

every tire it imports and is subject to civil penalties 

in the event of any violations. The U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection may deny entry at the port 

to items that do not conform to applicable 

requirements. 

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

66 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 4. 

67See NHTSA Tire Rolling Resistance Rating 

System Test Development Project: Phase 1— 

Evaluation of Laboratory Test Protocols (October 

2008). The research reports from this Phase 1 

research will be placed in the docket. 

68 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(2)(D). 

69See generally http://www.safercar.gov/portal/

site/safercar/menuitem.13dd5c887c7e1358

fefe0a2f35a67789/?vgnextoid=0e0aaa8c16e35

110VgnVCM1000002fd17898RCRD. 

70 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 96. 

71 Id. 

durability.’’ 54 EISA specifies that the 

regulations establishing the program are 

to be promulgated not later than 

December 19, 2009.55

Section 111 of EISA specifically 

mandates ‘‘a national tire fuel efficiency 

rating system for motor vehicle 

replacement tires to assist consumers in 

making more educated tire purchasing 

decisions.’’ 56 However, NHTSA may 

‘‘not require permanent labeling of any 

kind on a tire for the purpose of tire fuel 

efficiency information.’’ 57

The only Committee Report 

commenting on the legislation that 

eventually became section 111 of EISA 

explained that need for this program 

was established by the 2006 NAS 

Report, which concluded that if 

consumers were sufficiently informed 

and interested, they could bring about a 

reduction in average rolling resistance 

(and thus an increase in average on-road 

fuel economy) by adjusting their tire 

purchases and by taking proper care of 

their tires once in service.58 Thus, 

NHTSA reviewed conclusions and 

recommendations in the 2006 NAS 

Report regarding how best to inform 

consumers using a tire fuel efficiency 

rating system. 

Specifically, the 2006 NAS Report 

concluded that rolling resistance 

measurement of new tires can be 

informative to consumers, especially if 

they are accompanied by reliable 

information on other tire characteristics 

such as treadwear rate and traction.59

The 2006 NAS Report further stated that 

consumers benefit from the ready 

availability of easy-to-understand 

information on all major attributes of 

their purchases, and that tires are no 

exception. A tire’s influence on vehicle 

fuel is an attribute that is likely to be of 

interest to many tire buyers.60 NHTSA 

has attempted to keep these key 

observations in mind in the 

development of this proposal. 

3. Communicating Information to 

Consumers 

EISA specifies that this rulemaking to 

establish a national tire fuel efficiency 

consumer information program must 

include ‘‘requirements for providing 

information to consumers, including 

information at the point of sale and 

other potential information 

dissemination methods, including the 

Internet.’’ 61 While there is little to no 

legislative history of EISA itself, the 

legislation that eventually became 

section 111 of EISA was originally 

introduced in June 2006 with this 

identical requirement.62

On June 28, 2006, the House 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

reported on a slightly amended version 

of the bill and noted that ‘‘[t]he bill [ ] 

would require tire retailers to provide 

consumers with information on the tire 

fuel efficiency rating of motor vehicle 

tires at the point of sale.’’ 63 Thus, 

NHTSA believes that the suggestion of 

point of sale requirements indicates that 

Congress intended NHTSA’s authority 

to establish information dissemination 

requirements to be broad enough to 

include requirements for both tire 

manufacturers, which by statute 

includes importers,64 and tire dealers/ 

retailers and distributors. 

4. Specification of Test Methods 

Section 111 of EISA also mandates 

that this rulemaking to establish a 

national tire fuel efficiency consumer 

information program include 

‘‘specifications for test methods for 

manufacturers to use in assessing and 

rating tires to avoid variation among test 

equipment and manufacturers.’’ 65 See 

section IV of this notice for a discussion 

of NHTSA’s research and rationale 

regarding today’s proposal of ISO 28580. 

We note that the 2006 NAS Report, 

the recommendations from which 

formed the basis for the legislation that 

became section 111 of EISA, indicated 

that ‘‘[a]dvice on specific procedures for 

measuring and rating the influence of 

individual passenger tires on fuel 

economy and methods of conveying this 

information to consumers [was] outside 

the scope of this study.’’ 66 Accordingly, 

after publication of the 2006 NAS 

Report and in anticipation of 

Congressional legislation based off its 

recommendations, NHTSA embarked on 

a large-scale research project in July 

2006 to evaluate existing tire rolling 

resistance test methods.67

5. Creating a National Consumer 

Education Program on Tire Maintenance 

Section 111 of EISA further directs 

NHTSA to establish in this rulemaking 

‘‘a national tire maintenance consumer 

education program including, 

information on tire inflation pressure, 

alignment, rotation, and treadwear to 

maximize fuel efficiency, safety, and 

durability.’’ 68 NHTSA already has some 

information regarding tire maintenance 

on its http://safercar.gov Web site.69

The 2006 NAS Report, the 

recommendations from which formed 

the basis for the legislation that became 

section 111 of EISA, noted that 

consumers benefit from the ready 

availability of easy-to-understand 

information on all major attributes of 

their purchases, and that replacement 

tires’ influence on vehicle fuel economy 

is an attribute that is likely to be of 

interest to many tire buyers.70 NHTSA 

has focused on these principles in 

developing today’s proposal and seeks 

comment on the best way to make the 

information in this program both of 

interest to consumers and easy to 

understand. The 2006 NAS Report 

further noted that ‘‘industry cooperation 

is essential in gathering and conveying 

tire performance information that 

consumers can use in making tire 

purchases.’’ 71 NHTSA agrees that 

cooperation with the tire manufacturer 

and tire retailer industries, as well as 

other interested parties will be vital to 

the success of this program. The agency 

has held initial consultations with 

various groups of industry and the 

environmental community, as well at 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
29552 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

72 49 U.S.C. 32304A(b). In addition, Executive 

Order No. 13432 provides that a Federal agency 

undertaking a regulatory action that can reasonably 

be expected to directly regulate emissions, or to 

substantially and predictably affect emissions, of 

greenhouse gasses from motor vehicles, shall act 

jointly and consistently with other agencies to the 

extent possible and to consider the views of other 

agencies regarding such action. 

73 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 4. 

74The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 

developed the EnergyGuide label to enable 

consumers to compare the energy use of different 

models as consumers shop for an appliance. See 

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/homes/ 

rea14.shtm (last accessed June 3, 2009). Section 

321(b) of EISA directs the FTC to consider the 

effectiveness of current lamp disclosures and to 

consider whether alternative labeling disclosures 

would be more effective in helping consumers make 

purchasing decisions. 

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

76 49 U.S.C. 32304A(c). 

77 Id. 

78 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(3). 

79The term pneumatic tires is a broad one that 

essentially means air-filled tires. Section 571.139 of 

title 49 CFR (or FMVSS No. 109, New Pneumatic 

Radial Tires for Light Vehicles) defines pneumatic 

tire broadly as ‘‘a mechanical device made of 

rubber, chemicals, fabric and steel or other 

materials, which, when mounted on an automotive 

wheel, provides the traction and contains the gas 

or fluid that sustains the load.’’ By contrast, a nonpneumatic tire is a ‘‘mechanical device which 

transmits * * * the vertical load and tractive forces 

from the roadway to the vehicle, generates the 

tractive forces that provide the directional control 

of the vehicle and does not rely on the containment 

of any gas or fluid for providing those functions.’’ 

49 CFR 571.129, New Non-pneumatic Tires for 

Passenger Cars. 

80 49 CFR 575.104(c)(1). 

81 49 CFR 575.2, Definitions. 

82 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 14. 

83 Id. 

84 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(3). 

85Specifically, of the 25 different models of tires 

tested in NHTSA’s Phase 1 research, 16 tire models 

were passenger, 9 were light truck tire models; one 

of the passenger car tires was the ASTM F2493–06 

P225/60R16 97S Standard Reference Test Tire 

(SRTT). 

other Government agencies, to seek their 

views. 

6. Consultation in Setting Standards 

Section 111 of EISA provides that 

NHTSA is to consult with the 

Department of Energy (DOE) and 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

‘‘on the means of conveying tire fuel 

efficiency consumer information.’’ 72

One of the recommendations of the 2006 

NAS Report, which formed the basis for 

the legislation that became section 111 

of EISA, stated that NHTSA should 

consult with the EPA ‘‘on means of 

conveying the information and ensure 

that the information is made widely 

available in a timely manner and is 

easily understood by both buyers and 

sellers.’’ 73 NHTSA and EPA will fulfill 

the statutory consultation requirement 

in a way that best serves the goals of 

EISA. 

NHTSA consulted with 

representatives of DOE, EPA, and the 

Federal Trade Commission 74 who work 

in consumer information and rating 

programs. These agencies provided 

feedback on NHTSA’s draft proposal 

which included valuable comments and 

insight based on their experiences 

communicating information on the 

energy efficiency of consumer products. 

7. Application With State and Local 

Laws and Regulations 

Section 111 of EISA contains both an 

express preemption provision and a 

savings provision that address the 

relationship of the national tire fuel 

efficiency consumer information 

program to be established under that 

section with State and local tire fuel 

efficiency consumer information 

programs. Section 111 provides: 

Nothing in this section prohibits a State or 

political subdivision thereof from enforcing a 

law or regulation on tire fuel efficiency 

consumer information that was in effect on 

January 1, 2006. After a requirement 

promulgated under this section is in effect, 

a State or political subdivision thereof may 

adopt or enforce a law or regulation on tire 

fuel efficiency consumer information enacted 

or promulgated after January 1, 2006, if the 

requirements of that law or regulation are 

identical to the requirement promulgated 

under this section. Nothing in this section 

shall be construed to preempt a State or 

political subdivision thereof from regulating 

the fuel efficiency of tires (including 

establishing testing methods for determining 

compliance with such standards) not 

otherwise preempted under this chapter.75

NHTSA seeks public comment on the 

scope of Section 111 generally, and in 

particular on whether, and to what 

extent, Section 111 would or would not 

preempt tire fuel consumer information 

regulations that the administrative 

agencies of the State of California may 

promulgate in the future pursuant to 

California’s Assembly Bill 844. 

8. Compliance and Enforcement 

Section 111 of EISA added a new subprovision to 49 U.S.C. 32308 (General 

prohibitions, civil penalty, and 

enforcement) which reads as follows: 

Any person who fails to comply with the 

national tire fuel efficiency information 

program under section 32304A is liable to the 

United States Government for a civil penalty 

of not more than $50,000 for each violation. 

9. Reporting to Congress 

EISA also requires that NHTSA 

conduct periodic assessments of the 

rules promulgated under this program 

‘‘to determine the utility of such rules 

to consumers, the level of cooperation 

by industry, and the contribution to 

national goals pertaining to energy 

consumption.’’ 76 NHTSA must 

‘‘transmit periodic reports detailing the 

findings of such assessments to the 

Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation and the 

House of Representatives Committee on 

Energy and Commerce.’’ 77

III. Which Tires Must Be Rated? 

A. Passenger Car Tires 

As explained above in section II.B.1 of 

this notice, EISA specifies that the tire 

fuel efficiency requirements are to 

‘‘apply only to replacement tires 

covered under [NHTSA’s UTQGS 

regulation].’’ 78 Title 49 CFR, section 

575.104 applies only to ‘‘new pneumatic 

tires 79 for use on passenger cars’’ with 

some exclusions of particular types of 

tires.80 All terms in 49 CFR part 575 are 

as defined by statute or in 49 CFR part 

571, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards (FMVSS).81 Section 571.139 

of title 49 CFR (or FMVSS No. 139, New 

Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light 

Vehicles) defines ‘‘passenger car tire’’ as 

‘‘a tire intended for use on passenger 

cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, 

and trucks, that have a gross vehicle 

weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds 

or less.’’ 

Accordingly, today’s proposed tire 

fuel efficiency consumer information 

program applies only to replacement 

passenger car tires, or tires intended for 

use on passenger cars, multipurpose 

passenger vehicles, and trucks, that 

have a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. 

These tires often have a tire size 

designation beginning with a ‘‘P,’’ 

indicating that they are for use on 

passenger cars. However, they may be 

designated without the P, sometimes 

referred to as ‘‘hard metric’’ sizes. Note 

that even though they are classified as 

light trucks by NHTSA, many smaller 

sport utility vehicles (SUVs), pickups, 

and vans are equipped with passenger 

car tires.82 The kinds of light- and 

medium-duty trucks used in 

commercial service, including full-size 

pickups and vans, have a GVWR of 

more than 6,000 pounds. These vehicles 

are usually equipped with tires having 

the letters ‘‘LT’’ molded into the 

sidewall.83 EISA excludes replacement 

LT tires from the tire fuel efficiency 

consumer information program.84

NHTSA’s research included testing of 

LT tires even though we are not 

authorized to regulate them through this 

tire fuel efficiency consumer 

information program because NHTSA’s 

Phase 1 research was initiated in July 

2006, subsequent to the release of the 

2006 NAS Report.85 LT tires represented 

approximately 16.7 percent of the U.S. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 29553 

86Rubber Manufacturers Association, Preliminary 

2008 Factbook, see https://www.rma.org/ 

publications/market_information/ 

index.cfm?CFID=23483353&CFTOKEN=70640000. 87See NHTSA Rolling Resistance Rating System 

Test Development Project: Phase 1—Evaluation of 

Laboratory Test Protocols (October 2008). A copy of 

this report and other research reports relied on in 

this proposal will be placed in the docket. 

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

89For purposes of the tire fuel efficiency 

consumer information program, the phrase ‘‘tire 

line’’ and ‘‘tire model’’ can be used interchangeably. 

The agency will generally use the word ‘‘model’’ to 

refer to a particular line of tires. 

replacement tire market in 2007,86 and 

the LT tires studied had nearly twice the 

rolling resistance as the group of 

passenger car tires studied.87 NHTSA 

notes that it expects test data to be 

available for many LT tires, as these 

tires are covered by the Europe and 

California programs. Nothing in this 

regulation would prohibit 

manufacturers from voluntarily rating or 

reporting data for LT or other excluded 

tires, as required for covered tires. 

B. Replacement Tires 

Another issue is how to define 

‘‘replacement tire’’ for purposes of this 

program. While most UTQGS 

requirements apply to all passenger car 

tires, whether sold as original 

equipment with a new automobile (OE 

tires) or as a replacement tire, some 

apply only to replacement tires. For 

example, the requirement for a paper 

label on the tire tread excludes tires 

‘‘sold as original equipment on a new 

vehicle.’’ 88 NHTSA is proposing a 

definition of replacement tires for the 

purposes of the tire fuel efficiency 

consumer information program using 

this language. The agency believes the 

definition needs to be in terms of the 

actual sale of the tire, not the intention 

when manufactured. NHTSA 

understands that some tires that are 

manufactured for the OE tire market 

could be sold as replacement tires, 

either because the vehicle manufacturer 

does not purchase all that are 

manufactured for that purpose, or 

because the vehicle manufacturer sells 

excess stock. 

C. Tires Within a Tire Model 

Tire manufacturers may have different 

brands, and within each brand different 

tire models (or tire lines),89 and tire 

models are often available in different 

sizes. For example, Michelin is the 

manufacturer for the Michelin, 

BFGoodrich and Uniroyal brands. A 

popular Michelin brand model is the 

Pilot, but other models include the 

Energy or the HydroEdge. And each of 

these brands is available in different tire 

sizes, for example a 185/65R14 or a 215/ 

70R15. See Figure 3. The model of tire 

(Pilot) then may be available in several 

performance levels. In the case in Figure 

3 there are 3 different speed ratings for 

the Pilot model. Performance ratings 

may also include All-Season, 

Competition, Touring, Grand Touring, 

etc. Each of these tires may also have 

different treadwear, traction, 

temperature and warranty ratings. These 

models are then available in different 

tire sizes, for example an Exalto A/S is 

available in 185/60R14 to 235/40R17. 

Whereas a Pilot Sport A/S Plus is 

available in sizes 205/55R16 to 245/ 

45R20, and the Pilot Sport PS2 is 

available in sizes 225/55R16 to 295/ 

25R22. 

In passenger car tire sizes (e.g., 185/ 

65R14), the first three numbers indicate 

the nominal width of the tire, i.e., width 

in millimeters from sidewall edge to 

sidewall edge (185). In general, the 

larger the nominal width, the wider the 

tire. The second two numbers in the size 

designation indicate the ratio of tire 

height to tire width, or the aspect ratio 

(65). For aspect ratio, numbers of 70 or 

lower indicate a short sidewall for 

improved steering response and better 

overall handling on dry pavement. The 

‘‘R’’ indicates that this particular tire is 

a radial tire, as opposed to bias ply 

construction, which is indicated by a 

‘‘D’’ in the size specification. Radial ply 

construction of tires has been the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2EP22JN09.002</GPH>
29554 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

90An SKU, or stock keeping unit, is a specific 

market brand and tire design and size combination. 

A different SKU can also be indicated by a different 

specified load rating or speed rating for a particular 

tire. Specifically, NHTSA is proposing to define 

stock keeping unit as ‘‘the alpha-numeric 

designation assigned by a manufacturer to uniquely 

identify a tire product. This term is sometimes 

referred to as a product code, a product ID, or a part 

number.’’ See section XIII (Regulatory Text) of this 

notice. 

91The CEC research estimated 20,708 different 

replacement passenger car tire SKUs and 3,296 

replacement LT tire SKUs. This research was done 

by Smithers Scientific Services, Inc. (Smithers) and 

was presented at a CEC staff workshop on February 

5, 2009. This presentation is available through the 

CEC’s Web site and also will be available in this 

docket. See http://www.energy.ca.gov/ 

transportation/tire_efficiency/documents/ 

index.html (last accessed Feb. 11, 2009). 

92The Smithers’ research conducted for CEC was 

estimating various scenarios for testing three of 

each different replacement passenger and LT tire 

SKU (because California’s tire fuel efficiency 

program covers passenger car and LT replacement 

tires). The eight different scenarios varied workdays 

per year, percent capacity available, and hours per 

day of test operation. Based on estimates of test 

capacities, the CEC research estimated average test 

years required to test three tires of each SKU to be 

between 0.7 and 8.2 years. Thus, for the purposes 

of testing one of each different replacement 

passenger car tire SKU, we estimate this would take 

a maximum of 8.2/3 years, or 2.7 years. 

93See NHTSA Rolling Resistance Rating System 

Test Development Project: Phase 1—Evaluation of 

Laboratory Test Protocols (October 2008). A copy of 

this report and other research reports relied on in 

this proposal will be placed in the docket. 

94To examine California’s rolling resistance test 

data, please contact Ray Tuvell of the California 

Energy Commission. See http://www.energy.ca.gov/ 

transportation/tire_efficiency/index.html (last 

accessed Feb. 13, 2009). 

95For UTQGS, a limited production tire is 

defined as ‘‘a tire meeting all of the following 

criteria, as applicable: 

(i) The annual domestic production or 

importation into the United States by the tire’s 

manufacturer of tires of the same design and size 

as the tire does not exceed 15,000 tires; 

(ii) In the case of a tire marketed under a brand 

name, the annual domestic purchase or importation 

into the United States by a brand name owner of 

tires of the same design and size as the tire does 

not exceed 15,000 tires; 

(iii) The tire’s size was not listed as a vehicle 

manufacturer’s recommended tire size designation 

for a new motor vehicle produced in or imported 

into the United States in quantities greater than 

10,000 during the calendar year preceding the year 

of the tire’s manufacture; and 

(iv) The total annual domestic production or 

importation into the United States by the tire’s 

manufacturer, and in the case of a tire marketed 

under a brand name, the total annual domestic 

purchase or purchase for importation into the 

United States by the tire’s brand name owner, of 

tires meeting the criteria of paragraphs (c)(2)(i), (ii), 

and (iii) of this section, does not exceed 35,000 

tires.’’ 49 CFR § 575.104(c)(2). 

96 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(3). 

97See NHTSA Rolling Resistance Rating System 

Test Development Project: Phase 1—Evaluation of 

Laboratory Test Protocols (October 2008). A copy of 

this report and other research reports relied on in 

this proposal will be placed in the docket. 

98Rubber Manufacturers Association, Preliminary 

2008 Factbook, see https://www.rma.org/ 

publications/market_information/ 

index.cfm?CFID=23483353&CFTOKEN=70640000. 

industry standard for the past 20 years. 

The last two numbers in the size 

designation indicate the rim diameter 

code (14), or the wheel or rim diameter 

in inches. A change in any of these three 

numbers indicates a different size 

specification for a replacement tire. 

Research done for the California 

Energy Commission (CEC) to evaluate 

test facility capacity to conduct rolling 

resistance testing indicated that there 

are well over 20,000 different brand/ 

model/size combinations (or SKUs) 90 of 

replacement passenger car tires sold in 

the United States.91 The CEC research 

also indicated that it could take up to 

2.7 years to test one tire of each SKU 

once.92 Additionally, a tire 

manufacturer has the ability to estimate 

with relative accuracy the rolling 

resistance test value of a tire with a 

given size specification if it knows the 

rolling resistance test value of a tire in 

the same model line (i.e., the ability to 

extrapolate test values for certain SKUs 

from knowing the actual test values of 

other SKUs). Tire manufacturers have 

this same ability to extrapolate for 

UTQGS traction test values and UTQGS 

treadwear test values by having actually 

traction and treadwear test values of 

other, similar tires of different SKUs. 

For these reasons, NHTSA tentatively 

concludes that it is not reasonable or 

necessary to require a physically-tested 

value of rolling resistance, traction, or 

treadwear test value for every 

combination of tire model, construction, 

and size (SKU). 

However, consumers researching tires 

should be able to compare tire models 

and sizes with some reliability. In 

NHTSA’s testing, tires of a size 225/ 

60R16, but manufactured by different 

companies, and having various 

performance ratings (e.g., speed rating, 

all-season specification) had rolling 

resistance values ranging from 9.8 to 

15.2 pounds.93 Rolling resistance can 

also vary widely across different sized 

tires in a brand. In data reported by the 

CEC, passenger car tires of the same 

brand and model with different sizes 

ranged in rolling resistance from 7.5 to 

22.8 pounds.94

For these reasons, NHTSA is 

proposing to require each SKU, or each 

size within each model of each brand, 

to be rated separately for fuel efficiency 

(using a rolling resistance test value), 

safety (using a UTQGS traction test 

value), and durability (using a UTQGS 

treadwear test value). Tire 

manufacturers may use their judgment 

to determine how many and which tires 

they must test to be able to accurately 

report rolling resistance ratings. A tire 

manufacturer will be responsible for the 

accuracy of the ratings they place upon 

the tire label and otherwise 

communicate to consumers. That is, for 

compliance purposes, NHTSA will test 

any rated tire according to the test 

procedures specified in the regulation 

(regardless of whether or not the tire 

manufacturer has tested this tire), and if 

the rolling resistance, traction, or 

treadwear test value falls outside of 

NHTSA’s specified tolerance range, the 

agency will consider that rating a 

noncompliance. See discussion of 

tolerances in section XI of this notice. 

For data reporting purposes, a 

manufacturer must calculate a test 

procedure value for rolling resistance, 

traction, and treadwear, although it is 

not required to conduct the specific test 

in the regulation. The proposed 

specified test procedures merely 

indicate the procedures NHTSA will use 

to test and rate a replacement tire for 

compliance purposes. A tire 

manufacturer is free to reasonably 

estimate the test values it reports. 

NHTSA requests comment on the 

appropriateness of using interpolated 

values (for instance a rating for a P215/ 

60R16 value calculated from tested 

values for a P205/60R16 and a 225/ 

60R16) and extrapolated values (for 

instance the effect of changes in tread 

pattern for a specific tire construction of 

known rating) to provide tire ratings. 

D. Tires Excluded 

NHTSA’s UTQGS regulation excludes 

‘‘deep tread, winter-type snow tires, 

space-saver or temporary use spare tires, 

tires with a nominal rim diameter of 12 

inches or less, [and] limited production 

tires.’’ 95 49 CFR 575.104(c)(1). Since 

EISA specifies that the tire fuel 

efficiency requirements are to ‘‘apply 

only to replacement tires covered under 

[NHTSA’s UTQGS regulation],’’ these 

exclusions are included in today’s 

proposed regulation.96

NHTSA’s research included testing of 

two different snow tire models.97 The 

two snow tire models tested were 

within the range of rolling resistance 

force values of all-season and summeronly passenger tires of the same size. 

Therefore the specific exclusion of 

winter-type tires, which represented 4.5 

percent of the U.S. replacement tire 

market in 2007 98 should not impede the 

effectiveness of the rating system in 

reducing U.S. passenger vehicle fuel 

consumption. 

NHTSA requests comments on 

whether it should include in the 

manufacturer reporting requirement (see 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 29555 

99National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, The Pneumatic Tire, DOT HS 810 

561, at 483 (February 2006). 

100See NHTSA Rolling Resistance Rating System 

Test Development Project: Phase 1—Evaluation of 

Laboratory Test Protocols (October 2008). A copy of 

this report and other research reports relied on in 

this proposal will be placed in the docket. 

101SAE International, 400 Commonwealth Drive, 

Warrendale, PA 15096–0001, Tel (877) 606–7323, 

http://www.sae.org. 

102 ISO Central Secretariat, 1, ch. de la VoieCreuse, Case postale 56, CH–1211 Geneva 20, 

Switzerland, Telephone +41 22 749 01 11, Fax +41 

22 733 34 30, http://www.iso.org. 

103This study looked at both Passenger car (P) 

tires and Light Truck (LT) tires. However, EISA 

limits the applicability of this rulemaking to P tires 

only. 

104National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, The Pneumatic Tire, DOT HS 810 

561, at 514–515 (February 2006). 

105Rolling resistance is, thus, defined as energy 

per unit distance, which is the same units as force 

(Joules/meter = Newtons). However, unlike force, 

rolling resistance is a scalar quantity with no 

direction associated with it. National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, The Pneumatic Tire, 

DOT HS 810 561, at 477 (February 2006). 

106 Id. 

section VII.D.1) a requirement that each 

manufacturer include with its reports a 

list of all tire models and sizes that it 

is claiming are excluded from today’s 

proposed requirements (49 CFR 

575.106). In particular, the limited 

production exclusion is not obvious just 

by examining the tire, and this would 

allow NHTSA to quickly verify whether 

or not the lack of a label was an 

enforcement concern. The agency may 

include such a reporting requirement in 

the final regulation. 

IV. Rolling Resistance Test Procedure 

A. Rolling Resistance 

As explained above, rolling resistance 

is simply the manifestation of all of the 

energy losses associated with the rolling 

of a tire under load.99 Accordingly, in a 

laboratory, rolling resistance is 

measured by running a tire under load 

on a test wheel (referred to as 

‘‘roadwheel’’). The energy consumed in 

driving the tire is measured and the 

energy recovered from the tire is 

measured by the test equipment. The 

difference is the heat energy lost which 

is the measure of rolling resistance. The 

smaller the difference, the more fuel 

efficient the tire. NHTSA is only 

interested in the force required to 

maintain a steady state of movement, 

i.e., speed. Therefore the steady state, or 

constant, speed test methods are the 

only ones considered by NHTSA. 

B. Possible Test Procedures Available 

To Measure Rolling Resistance 

As mentioned previously, subsequent 

to the recommendations for 

Congressional action issued in the 2006 

NAS Report, NHTSA began a research 

program to evaluate five existing or 

proposed test methods to measure the 

rolling resistance of light vehicle tires, 

and to examine correlations between 

tire rolling resistance levels and tire 

safety performance (Phase 1 

Research).100 The five test methods 

examined in NHTSA’s Phase 1 Research 

included four established and one draft 

tire rolling resistance test procedure. 

The five test methods were as follows: 

• Society of Automotive Engineers 

(SAE) J1269—Sep 2006–09; Rolling 

Resistance Measurement Procedure for 

Passenger Car, Light Truck and Highway 

Truck and Bus Tires (Multi Point). 

• SAE J1269—Sep 2006–09; Rolling 

Resistance Measurement Procedure for 

Passenger Car, Light Truck and Highway 

Truck and Bus Tires (Single Point). 

• SAE J2452—Jun 1999; Stepwise 

Coastdown Methodology for Measuring 

Tire Rolling Resistance (Multi Point). 

• ISO 18164:2005(E); Passenger car, 

truck, bus and motorcycle tyres— 

Methods of measuring rolling resistance 

(Multi Point). 

• ISO 28580; Tyre Rolling Resistance 

measurement method—Single point test 

and measurement result correlation— 

Designed to facilitate international 

cooperation and, possibly, regulation 

building (Single Point). 

The SAE is an international standards 

organization providing voluntary 

industry standards.101 The ISO is a 

worldwide federation of national 

standards bodies that prepares 

standards through technical committees 

comprised of international 

organizations, governmental and nongovernmental, in liaison with ISO.102

The standards and test methods 

published by these bodies are 

proprietary and protected under U.S. 

copyright law. Parties who need to or 

wish to conduct the actual tests 

themselves may obtain a copy of the 

standards by contacting either SAE or 

ISO. 

NHTSA’s Phase 1 Research used 600 

tires of 25 different model/size 

combinations to evaluate the five rolling 

resistance test methods at two different 

laboratories.103 Tires of each model 

were purchased with identical or 

similar build dates and were tested 

multiple times in each test method, and 

multiple times at each laboratory. 

Figure 4 shows a typical laboratory 

test machine (used for all five test 

methods evaluated) for measuring 

rolling resistance. In this test a tire and 

rim are mounted on the machine. The 

tire is held against the roadwheel by an 

actuating cylinder aligned with the 

center of the roadwheel. A drive motor 

coupled to the roadwheel rotates the 

roadwheel. Consequently, the 

roadwheel drives the tire through 

friction at the contact patch. The tire’s 

rolling resistance retards the 

roadwheel’s rotation speed. This effect 

is then measured using any combination 

of the forces, torques, speeds, or 

acceleration of the roadwheel. Then the 

rolling resistance is calculated from the 

measured quantities.104

A tire’s rolling resistance is the energy 

consumed by a rolling tire, or the 

mechanical energy converted into heat 

by a tire, moving a unit distance on the 

roadway.105 The magnitude of rolling 

resistance depends on the tire used, the 

nature of the surface on which it rolls, 

and the operating conditions—inflation 

pressure, load, and speed.106


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
29556 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

107The proposed test procedure, ISO 28580, has 

provisions to use all four methods to measure the 

energy loss. 

108National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, The Pneumatic Tire, DOT HS 810 

561, at 515 (February 2006). 

109Lightly loaded is not a specific number of 

pounds, but just enough load to keep the tire in 

contact with the roadwheel, so that the speed of the 

tire is equal to the speed of the roadwheel surface 

so there is no slippage. 

110As the machinery ramps up the tire speed to 

the specified test speed, the force values measured 

bounce around at first. An accurate measurement 

can only be taken when the tire is moving at a 

constant speed and is a constant temperature. Thus, 

there is a slight delay from ramping up to the 

specified test speed, and the measurement of an 

accurate and steady force reading. 

Four measurement methods of energy 

loss are in common use and prescribed 

in test procedures, although not all of 

the methods are included in every 

standard.107 The methods described in 

the test standards include the following: 

measurement of the resistive force at the 

tire spindle while rolling at constant 

speed (force method), measurement of 

the resistive torque on the roadwheel 

hub at constant speed (torque method), 

measurement of the electrical power 

used by the motor to keep the 

roadwheel rotating at a constant speed 

(power method), and measurement of 

deceleration when the driving force at 

the roadwheel is discontinued 

(deceleration method).108 The two 

methods evaluated in NHTSA research 

were the force and torque methods. 

Therefore deceleration and power 

methods are not discussed further in 

this notice. 

Force Method 

The force method measures the force 

at the tire spindle. See Figure 5. The 

roadwheel is brought up to the specified 

test speed and the tire is warmed up 

(warm-up) to an equilibrium 

temperature. The tire is then lightly 

loaded 109 to measure the losses caused 

by the spindle holding the tire and 

aerodynamic losses from the tire 

spinning. This force measurement is 

referred to as the skim load value. The 

tire is then loaded to the test load and 

successive readings of the resistive force 

at the tire spindle while rolling at 

constant speed are taken until 

consistent force values are obtained.110


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2EP22JN09.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 29557 

111A color version of Figure 6 will be placed in 

the docket. 

The reported force value is equal to 

the measured force at the spindle minus 

the skim load value, thereby 

determining the actual Rolling 

Resistance Force (RRF) value of the tire. 

This force is trying to slow down the 

rotation or travel of the roadwheel due 

to the energy loss. 

Torque Method 

The torque method measures the 

energy, or torque, required to maintain 

the rotation of the roadwheel. The 

roadwheel is connected to the motor 

through a ‘‘torque cell.’’ See Figure 6.111

The roadwheel is brought up to speed 

and the tire is warmed up (warm-up) to 

an equilibrium temperature. The tire is 

then lightly loaded to measure the 

losses caused by the spindle holding the 

tire and aerodynamic losses from the 

tire spinning (skim load value). The tire 

is then loaded to the test load and 

successive readings of the resistive 

torque on the roadwheel hub at constant 

speed are taken until consistent force 

values are obtained. 

The values measured for skim and 

loaded torque must be processed to 

determine the force (RRF). The skim 

must be subtracted from the loaded 

torque value divided by the radius of 

the roadwheel to determine the tire’s 

contribution to the total loss. The result 

is Rolling Resistance Force (RRF). 

C. NHTSA Research Results 

Some of the technical challenges 

involved in selection of a test procedure 

to measure rolling resistance include 

specifying a test method that avoids 

variation among laboratories/machines. 

NHTSA also sought to examine possible 

tradeoffs between improved rolling 

resistance and tire safety. The purposes 

of the NHTSA Phase 1 Research was to: 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2EP22JN09.004</GPH> EP22JN09.005</GPH>
29558 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

112 Internationally some laboratories use a 2 meter 

(78.34 inch) roadwheel, often with a bare steel 

surface. 

113The term analysis of variance refers to the 

method of determining if an independent variable, 

such as tire type, has a significant effect on the 

dependent variable (rolling resistance) by 

comparing the magnitude of the variation between 

the means for different groups of independent 

variables to the variation estimated for random 

error. 

114For this program, each manufacturer will 

‘‘self-certify’’ the ratings for its tires. The test 

procedure specified in this proposal is what 

NHTSA will use for compliance testing, using the 

proposed tolerance bands as discussed later in this 

notice (section XI). Even if rolling resistance test 

data were gathered using other test methods, 

NHTSA’s research shows that equations can 

translate the data to the test procedure specified in 

this rule. 

115Capped inflation is achieved by inflating the 

tire to the required pressure prior to testing, while 

the tire is at ambient temperature of the test area, 

and then sealing the air in the tire during testing 

with a valve, cap or some other seal. 

116Regulated inflation pressure is achieved by 

inflating the tire to the required pressure 

independent of its temperature, and maintaining 

this inflation pressure during testing. This is 

usually performed by using a regulated air (gas) 

supply external to the spindle, or axle, and 

connected with a low friction rotary union. 

117See NHTSA Rolling Resistance Rating System 

Test Development Project: Phase 1—Evaluation of 

Laboratory Test Protocols (October 2008). A copy of 

this report and other research reports relied on in 

this proposal will be placed in the docket. 

118See National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, Tire Rolling Resistance for Light 

Vehicles, I: Selection of Tires and Tests for Rating 

• Benchmark the current rolling 

resistance levels in modern passenger 

vehicle tires in terms of actual rolling 

force, rolling resistance coefficient, as 

well as indexed against the ASTM 

F1493–06 Standard Reference Test Tire 

(SRTT). 

• Analyze the effect of the input 

variables on the testing conditions for 

non-linear response. 

• Select a test procedure that would 

be best for a regulation. 

• Examine the variability of the 

rolling resistance results from lab to lab, 

machine to machine. 

• Evaluate the effects of first test on 

a tire versus second test on the same 

tire. 

As discussed above, there can be up 

to four methods specified for 

measurement of tire rolling resistance: 

force method, torque method, power 

method, and deceleration method. Of 

these, the force and torque methods are 

the most commonly used. One test 

laboratory used in NHTSA’s Phase 1 

Research evaluated all five rolling 

resistance procedures on one ‘‘force 

measurement method’’ test machine. 

The second test laboratory evaluated 

SAE J2452 on one ‘‘torque measurement 

method’’ test machine and the other 

four methods on a second ‘‘force 

measurement method’’ test machine. In 

NHTSA’s Phase 1 Research, all work 

was done using machines with 1.707 

meter (67.23 inch) roadwheels with grit 

surface, which is typical for the United 

States.112

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) 113

was carried out on the data using the 

General Linear Models procedure of 

SAS software to evaluate the effects on 

measured rolling resistance of tire type, 

lab-to-lab variability, inflation 

maintenance, and repeat testing on the 

same tire. For all of the variables 

analyzed, individual tire type had the 

most significant effect on the statistical 

model. 

NHTSA’s evaluation indicated that all 

five of the rolling resistance test 

methods had very low variability and 

could be cross-correlated to provide the 

same information about individual tire 

types.114 The rank ordering of tire types 

was essentially the same for each of the 

test methods evaluated. There was a 

significant and consistent difference in 

the data generated by the two 

laboratories/machines used in this 

study. Therefore, development of a 

method to account for lab-to-lab 

variability is required, either by (1) the 

use of lab-to-lab correlation equation, 

based on a reference laboratory, or (2) 

the use of a Standard Reference Test 

Tire (SRTT), to normalize data across 

labs. 

NHTSA also examined differences 

resulting from the method of inflation 

maintenance, specifically whether 

inflation pressure was capped 115 or 

regulated.116 The pressure rise in the 

tire during testing using a capped 

inflation procedure reduced the rolling 

resistance compared to maintaining the 

pressure at a constant pressure during 

the test. Therefore, the choice of a test 

that uses capped inflation pressure for 

some or all of the test points should 

provide a more accurate representation 

of in-service behavior. 

Finally, NHTSA analyzed the effect of 

repeating tests on the same tire and 

found that this had little to no effect on 

test results. Therefore, repeat testing of 

the same SRTT for lab-to-lab data 

alignment appears to be viable. 

To minimize variability when 

evaluating the five test methods, tires of 

each model were purchased with 

identical or similar build dates. 

Therefore, the variability of an 

individual tire model’s rolling 

resistance over a long duration of build 

dates, or for a single model built at 

different plants, has not been evaluated 

by NHTSA. 

D. Why Select a Single-Point Test 

Instead of Multi-Point? 

The term ‘‘multi-point’’ refers to a 

method that uses more than one set of 

conditions to test a tire, usually varying 

speed, pressure, and/or load. Passenger 

car and light truck tires generally have 

different test conditions and can have 

even a different number of test points in 

the set of conditions. The goal of multipoint testing is to allow the use of 

statistical techniques to reduce rolling 

resistance force measurement variability 

and to allow prediction of the effect of 

changes in inflation pressure, tire load 

and speed on rolling resistance force. 

The term ‘‘single-point’’ refers to a 

method that uses a single set of test 

conditions. These conditions are 

designed to be near the average 

conditions that a tire would see in its 

intended service. 

NHTSA’s evaluation showed that all 

of the rolling resistance test methods 

have very low variability and all 

methods can be cross-correlated to 

provide the same information about 

individual tire types. The rank ordering 

of tire types was essentially the same for 

each of the rolling resistance test 

methods evaluated. Equations were 

derived to accurately convert data from 

any one test to the expected data from 

any other test. NHTSA’s research has 

shown that both types of tests 

essentially produce the same rating if 

results are normalized as a percentage of 

RRF measured at each lab for the 16- 

inch SRTT.117 Single-point tests are less 

expensive and shorter than multi-point 

test methods. Additionally, with singlepoint tests, data from any method can be 

correlated to data from any other 

method. Accordingly, NHTSA 

tentatively concludes that a singlepoint, rather than a multi-point, test will 

better serve the purposes of this 

program. The agency seeks comments, 

however on the benefits or drawbacks of 

using single-point versus multi-point 

test methods. 

E. Why Select ISO 28580 Instead of 

Other Tests? 

Between the two single-point tests, 

NHTSA is proposing to specify the ISO 

28580 test procedure. The ISO 28580 is 

a draft test method that is now at the 

final draft international standard (FDIS) 

stage, and is expected to be balloted and 

finalized by late April or early May 

2009. Since the ISO test is currently 

being balloted for a final standard, we 

anticipate only editorial changes at this 

stage. The differences between the 

single-point ISO 28580 draft test 

procedure and the SAE 1269 singlepoint test procedure are detailed in 

documents available in the docket.118 If 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 29559 

System Development, presented to California 

Energy Commission (Feb. 5, 2009) (also available at 

http://www.energy.ca.gov/transportation/ 

tire_efficiency/documents/2009-02-05_workshop/ 

presentations/index.php). 

119We note that these wheels did not have the 

micro-texture required by ISO 28580 for steelsurfaced roadwheels. 

120Most test procedures specify test load as a 

percentage of the maximum load rating of the tire 

being tested. For example, the ISO 28580 test 

procedure specifies a load of 80% of the maximum 

sidewall load. 

121What we will be talking about is the majority 

of purchases, which are for the same size tire that 

is currently on the vehicle. This discussion does not 

address the situation where a consumer has decided 

to change the size of their tires and/or change from 

P metric tires to LT tires for other purposes. 

the ISO 28580 test procedure is not a 

finalized ISO standard by the time of 

publication of this notice, interested 

parties may obtain a copy of the draft by 

contacting Mr. Joe Pacuit, U.S. TAG 

Secretariat to TC 31, Tyres, rims and 

valves. Mr. Pacuit can be reached by 

telephone at (303) 666–8121. 

One significant difference between 

the ISO and SAE single-point tests is 

that ISO 28580 includes a procedure 

which uses two reference tires to 

correlate any laboratory/machine to a 

master laboratory. NHTSA’s research 

showed significant difference between 

the two laboratories used, and therefore 

addressing this variation is a significant 

advantage for the draft ISO standard. 

Use of the SAE J1269 single-point test 

would require NHTSA to develop its 

own procedure to address lab-to-lab 

variation, and there is insufficient time 

to complete that work before December 

2009, the Congressionally-mandated 

deadline for this program. 

While there are larger numbers of tires 

tested using the SAE J1269 procedure in 

the databases NHTSA had access to, 

NHTSA does not see this as an 

impediment to adopting the ISO test. 

NHTSA’s research shows that the 

results from either method can be crosscorrelated to provide the same 

information. Specification of the ISO 

28580 single-point test may also allow 

manufacturers to do one test to comply 

with both European and U.S. 

regulations. 

Additionally, the ISO 28580 singlepoint test uses capped inflation 

pressure, which NHTSA believes will 

provide a more accurate representation 

of in-service behavior. NHTSA seeks 

comment on the specification of the ISO 

28580 single-point test, as opposed to 

the SAE single-point test and all other 

rolling resistance test methods. 

Two optional parameters must be 

specified for the ISO 28580 single-point 

test: the method(s) of measurement, and 

the type of surface on the roadwheel 

(i.e., textured or bare steel). NHTSA is 

proposing to allow only the force or 

torque method during the test 

procedure, as they are the only two 

types of machines available to NHTSA 

in the U.S. 

The agency is proposing to specify the 

use of an 80-grit surface on the 

roadwheel, instead of a bare steel 

roadwheel, to avoid potential problems 

with slippage. The grit surface is the 

most common surface used in the 

laboratories available to NHTSA. 

NHTSA in its research found that the 

use of the 80-grit surface produced a 

slightly higher test measurement than 

using the bare steel surface. The lab 

correlation (alignment) procedure may 

account for this difference and correlate 

results from the two different test 

conditions. However, there was some 

evidence of potential problems for 

smooth steel-surfaced roadwheels in 

NHTSA Phase 1 testing.119 In that 

testing, the rolling resistance of deep-lug 

tires exhibited a relatively linear 

behavior on grit surfaces over a range of 

test loads but dropped off consistently 

at high loads on smooth steel 

roadwheels. This was attributed to 

slippage of the deep lug tires on the 

smooth surface. Since the discrepancy 

in results between a smooth and steel 

roadwheel could lead to rating 

compliance disputes, we are proposing 

the grit surface since it is more 

repeatable. 

NHTSA seeks comment as to whether 

the lab correlation (alignment) 

procedure will, in fact, account for 

differences between measurements 

made using an 80-grit surface on the 

roadwheel and a properly microtextured steel-surfaced roadwheel. 

V. Proposed Rolling Resistance Rating 

Metric 

The output of the rolling resistance 

test machines is used to calculate the 

rolling resistance force (RRF) in pounds 

of force (lbf) or Newtons (N) at the 

interface of the tire and drum, or the 

force at the axle in the direction of 

travel required to make a loaded tire 

roll. Rolling resistance is often 

expressed and reported in terms of 

Rolling Resistance Coefficient (RRC) 

(N/kN, kg/tonne, lbf/kip), which is the 

rolling resistance force divided by the 

test load on the tire.120 Since rolling 

resistance changes with the load on the 

tire, this makes direct comparisons 

between the tires tested at different 

loads difficult. The pending European 

rating system uses RRC as the metric for 

a rolling resistance rating/score. 

However, NHTSA is proposing to base 

the U.S. tire fuel efficiency rating on the 

RRF metric. NHTSA has tentatively 

concluded that a rating based on RRF is 

more descriptive and would provide 

more information to consumers, than a 

rating based on RRC. We request 

comment on the differences between 

basing a rolling resistance rating system 

on RRF versus on RRC, and which is 

more appropriate for the purposes of our 

statutory mandate under EISA. 

One application of rolling resistance 

information is a vehicle manufacturer 

selecting which tires to use for original 

equipment (OE) fitment. This has been 

the primary application to date, in large 

part because information on rolling 

resistance has been less available to 

consumers. RRC is appropriate to this 

application, as a specific vehicle model 

will be operated with a nominal vertical 

load on a tire, but a range of tire sizes 

with varying load capacities are 

available for OE fitment. Another 

application, and the one under 

consideration in this proposed rule, is a 

consumer looking to replace the tires on 

their vehicle.121 NHTSA is concerned 

about the use of RRC for consumers who 

are looking to replace tires on their 

vehicle. 

A rating system based on either RRC 

or RRF would allow a consumer to rank 

order tires for their vehicles based on 

their fuel efficiency, and the relative 

ranking stays the same under either RRF 

or RRC. Since RRF is a measure of the 

energy consumed by the tire near the 

normal operating conditions of the tire 

in its intended use, numerical 

differences in RRF correlate well to 

amount of fuel used. By contrast, 

because conversion to RRC compresses 

the range of data, numerical differences 

in RRC do not correlate as well to the 

amount of fuel used. Since reducing fuel 

use is the purpose of this program, we 

are proposing to use the metric that best 

correlates to fuel use. 

Specifically, when NHTSA compared 

some possible tire choices for three 

different vehicles (a Chevrolet Impala, a 

Chevrolet Silverado, and a Toyota 

Corolla), we found that a 10 point 

improvement in a 0 to 100 rating system 

based on RRF corresponds to a similar 

amount of fuel saved, no matter what 

tire size is being selected. By contrast, 

a 10 point improvement in a 0 to 100 

rating system based on RRC results in a 

small amount of fuel savings for a small 

car and a larger amount of fuel savings 

for a large car. Thus, a consumer would 

not be able to place the same value on 

a specific level of improvement when 

purchasing tires for different vehicles in 

a rating system based on RRC. The 

details of the agency’s examination of 

low, high, and midrange rolling 

resistance tires for these three vehicles 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
29560 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

122See NHTSA Tire Rolling Resistance Rating 

System Test Development Project: Phase 2—Effects 

of Tire Rolling Resistance Levels on Traction, 

Treadwear, and Vehicle Fuel Economy (February 

2009). The research reports from this Phase 2 

research will be placed in the docket. 

is provided in Appendix A of this 

notice. 

The goals of the tire fuel efficiency 

rating system may fail to be met if the 

overall system is not intuitive to 

consumers. Consumers would 

presumably use the system to purchase 

tires for their current and subsequent 

vehicles, and consumers may have 

multiple vehicles in their family for 

which they purchase tires. Consumers 

may be confused by a tire fuel efficiency 

rating system where differences between 

ratings for different tire sizes represent 

different quantities of fuel saved, as they 

would in a rating system based on RRC. 

NHTSA is concerned that, under a 

rating system based on RRC, a consumer 

who purchases tires for different 

vehicles would notice these differences 

in fuel savings for the same difference 

in ratings, and as a result, question the 

validity of the ratings. 

In contrast a rating system based on 

RRF preserves the concept that 

differences in ratings correspond to the 

same amount of fuel savings across tire 

sizes. Thus, consumers would find a 

rating system based on RRF more 

intuitive since a given change in rating 

will consistently relate more closely to 

an amount of fuel saved. For a rating 

system based on RRF, the agency would 

be able to state a general rule of thumb 

that, e.g., for every 10,000 miles you 

drive a difference of 20 on the rating 

scale equates to X gallons of fuel saved, 

which could easily be converted into 

dollars saved by a better rated tire. 

NHTSA believes that such direct 

expressions of money saved are likely to 

be more effective in informing consumer 

purchasing decisions. A rating system 

based on RRC would not be able to have 

such an understandable and useful rule 

of thumb because it would differ 

depending on the test load of the tire. 

For the foregoing reasons, the agency is 

proposing that the tire fuel efficiency 

rating be based on RRF. 

VI. Proposed Rating System 

A. What Should We Convey to 

Consumers in a Rating System? 

1. Fuel Efficiency 

As explained above in section II.A.1, 

NHTSA is proposing to communicate 

tire fuel efficiency information in the 

form of a rolling resistance rating, 

because rolling resistance corresponds 

to the amount of fuel used in the form 

of mechanical energy dissipated to 

move the tire. Tire rolling resistance is 

the most effective metric for rating the 

‘‘fuel efficiency’’ of a tire because rolling 

resistance force (RRF) measures the 

energy loss that opposes the direction of 

travel of the rotating tire and, thus, it 

directly reduces the efficiency of a 

vehicle in converting the chemical 

energy in the fuel to motion of the 

vehicle. 

Based on the rolling resistance force 

test value measured using the ISO 28580 

test procedure, the fuel efficiency rating 

of a given replacement passenger car tire 

is calculated using the formula specified 

by NHTSA, which is discussed in 

section VI.B.1 below. 

2. Safety 

i. Potential Safety Consequences 

There is a growing appreciation but 

still a limited understanding of how tire 

traction, wear resistance, and rolling 

resistance relate to the practical 

outcomes of vehicle fuel consumption, 

crash incidence, and tire service life. 

One of the past concerns about rolling 

resistance is that traction and/or 

treadwear are negatively impacted by 

changes made to improve rolling 

resistance. 

As part of the research in support of 

this rulemaking, NHTSA performed and 

analyzed additional testing with the 

tires that were used to evaluate the 

rolling resistance test methods. This 

testing included UTQGS traction and 

treadwear testing, additional wet and 

dry traction testing on an outdoor track, 

indoor dry traction and treadwear 

testing, and EPA dynamometer fuel 

economy testing.122 This research, with 

one exception discussed below, did not 

show that this tradeoff is a given and 

must occur. However, it may cost more 

to maintain traction or treadwear with 

an improvement in rolling resistance. 

By putting information on all three 

parameters on a label, a consumer 

would factor any possible tradeoffs 

between rolling resistance, traction, and 

treadwear, and/or cost differences 

between tires. That is, with all three 

ratings on one label, a consumer could 

see whether they were opting for a 

decrease in traction and treadwear to 

gain improved rolling resistance. 

Technical literature extensively 

indicates that the tradeoff between fuel 

economy and safety performance can be 

significantly reduced or eliminated with 

advanced compounding technologies, 

which are usually more expensive and 

proprietary. However, many aspects of 

the tire’s construction and manufacture 

affect how much tradeoff remains, and 

the results of implementing silica tread 

technology will vary between 

manufacturers (which ranges from 

manufacturers who have decades of 

experience with the technology to 

manufacturers who have none). It is 

hoped that increased consumer 

awareness may help to spur 

technological innovation to promote 

simultaneous improvements along 

several dimensions. At least for the near 

future, however, the agency cannot 

guarantee that there will not be a 

tradeoff between fuel efficiency and 

safety. 

Therefore, NHTSA is concerned about 

the potential negative safety 

consequences that may occur if 

consumers, motivated by potential fuel 

savings, begin to purchase tires with 

better rolling resistance ratings but are 

unwilling to spend additional money to 

also maintain wet traction levels. 

Despite having the wet traction rating 

on the same sticker, some manufacturers 

may defer the use of the more expensive 

silica tread technologies and instead 

optimize tires to lower rolling resistance 

and treadwear (another important 

purchase motivator) at the expense of 

wet traction in order to gain a price 

advantage. This may be especially 

prevalent in the lower-cost segments of 

the market. 

A survey of the current marketplace 

was undertaken to estimate what 

information consumers currently have 

for choices in wet traction, price, and, 

where available, rolling resistance 

performance of tires. From the NHTSA 

ratings in http://safercar.gov and tires 

available at TireRack.com, 

approximately 20 percent of tires 

currently have traction ratings of AA, 70 

percent have ratings of A, and 10 

percent have ratings of B. There were no 

C-rated tires for on-road passenger 

vehicle use. From the NHTSA data and 

the data from the California Energy 

Commission and Consumer Reports 

magazine, it appears that tire makers 

design most tires with AA wet traction 

rating for flag-brand and highperformance tires with correspondingly 

high average selling prices. Data for 

rolling resistance, wet traction, and list 

price performance indicate that tires 

with both A-traction rating and low 

rolling resistance performance are 

available at all list price levels. 

ii. Test Procedure 

Whereas rolling resistance is a 

standard measurement for 

characterizing and comparing tire 

energy performance, less comprehensive 

data exist in the public domain for 

accurate characterizations of tire 

traction. There are different methods of 

evaluating traction. For example, the 

UTQGS rating and the European wet 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 29561 

123The phase-in electronic stability control (ESC) 

requires 100 percent of the fleet to be equipped 

with ESC by model year 2011, i.e., by September 

2010. 72 FR 17236, 17291. Since an anti-lock 

braking system (ABS) provides many of the 

components necessary for ESC, NHTSA believes 

that most manufacturers will likely equip vehicles 

with ABS as they equip them with ESC. See id. at 

17256, n. 49. 

124See http://usa.polk.com/News/LatestNews/ 

News_20080215_scrappage.htm (last accessed Mar. 

10, 2009). 

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

126The UTQGS is discussed in more detail later 

in this notice. 

grip rating use different test procedures 

which do not evaluate the same 

elements. 

The test procedure specified in the 

UTQGS rating systems for traction is the 

only metric for which consistent data 

are widely available for a range of tires. 

Accordingly, NHTSA is currently 

proposing to use the traction test 

procedure specified in the agency’s 

UTQGS regulation to rate tires for safety 

on the same scale and label as fuel 

efficiency via rolling resistance rating. 

See 49 CFR 575.104(f). The UTQGS 

traction test procedure measures a tire’s 

coefficient of friction when it is tested 

on wet asphalt and concrete surfaces. 

The subject tire is placed on an 

instrumented axle of a skid trailer, 

which is pulled behind a truck at 40 

miles per hour (mph) on wet asphalt 

and concrete surfaces. The trailer’s 

brakes are momentarily locked, and 

sensors on the axle measure the 

longitudinal braking forces as it slides 

in a straight line. The coefficient of 

friction is then determined as the ratio 

of this sliding force to the tire load. 

The UTQGS traction rating procedure 

specifies that the traction coefficients 

for asphalt and for concrete are to be 

calculated using the locked-wheel 

traction coefficient on the tire, or sliding 

coefficient of friction. Because it uses 

the sliding coefficient of friction, this 

test procedure indicates the traction or 

wet pavement behavior for a vehicle 

that is not equipped with anti-lock 

brakes (ABS) or electronic stability 

control (ESC). A vehicle equipped with 

ABS or ESC reacts to braking and 

sliding in a more sophisticated way. 

ABS prevents wheel lock-up by 

pumping the vehicle’s brakes repeatedly 

during braking events. ESC may 

automatically perform activation of the 

brakes on individual wheels in an 

attempt to slow down a vehicle and 

point it in a different direction if the 

system senses a directional loss of 

control. NHTSA’s tire testing research 

showed that for a tire with a given 

rolling resistance, vehicles equipped 

with ABS or ESC will exhibit safer 

behavior on wet pavement (i.e., better 

traction) than the sliding coefficient of 

friction traction measurement would 

indicate in the UTQGS traction test 

procedure. 

The peak coefficient of friction is a 

metric that would better indicate 

traction performance for vehicles 

equipped with these advanced braking 

and handling systems. This is because 

as soon as ABS causes the vehicle to 

reapply the brakes (and also during ESC 

system activation), the tires are 

constantly operating at or near peak 

coefficient of friction. Thus, since most 

new cars offer ABS as either standard or 

optional equipment, and ESC is being 

mandated on new light vehicles via a 

phase-in, NHTSA is proposing to base 

the traction rating for purposes of the 

tire fuel efficiency consumer 

information program on the peak 

coefficients of friction as measured on 

the asphalt and concrete surfaces 

specified in the UTQGS traction test 

procedure.123 The machinery that 

conducts this test already measures 

peak coefficient of friction, so there is 

no new measurement that needs to be 

taken. 

However, recognizing that the median 

age for the U.S. passenger car fleet is 9.4 

years,124 NHTSA requests comments on 

whether it is premature to suggest 

moving to an ABS–ESC focused rating 

based on new vehicles. Within the 

agency’s Phase 2 data, tires of the same 

size had as much as 30 percent 

difference in wet slide numbers over the 

range of rolling resistance values. From 

the 40 mph wet slide friction numbers, 

a 30 percent difference in wet slide 

number translates into an increase of 27 

feet (13 percent) in calculated wet 

stopping distance for a non-ABS 

equipped vehicle. Therefore, it may be 

necessary to address both peak and slide 

friction numbers, at least for the near 

term. The agency has considered a 

safety rating taken from the average of 

the four friction numbers (peak & slide 

on asphalt & concrete), all of which can 

be collected during the same test. The 

agency requests comments on whether it 

should instead consider a composite 

test, and if the four friction numbers 

should be weighted equally or 

differently. 

The tire label mandated by Europe in 

ECE Regulation 117 includes the wet 

grip test. However, NHTSA would need 

to do its own evaluation of that test 

before specifying it in our regulation. 

NHTSA seeks comments on other ways 

to rate replacement tires for safety. 

3. Durability 

The rolling resistance, traction, and 

wear characteristics of tires are not 

independent of one another. The tread 

has a major influence on rolling 

resistance because it contains much of 

the rubber in the tire that causes energy 

loss. The same tread deformation 

contributes to the tire’s traction 

capabilities. A loss in traction capability 

because of treadwear is the main reason 

for tire replacement.125

NHTSA tentatively concludes that the 

durability of a tire refers to how long a 

tire is going to last, that is, how long it 

is going to maintain sufficient tread 

depth for the safe operation and 

maintain the strength the tire had when 

it was initially purchased. A treadwear 

rating measures a tire’s wear rate 

compared with that of control tires. 

Treadwear life, therefore, corresponds to 

treadwear durability of a tire. NHTSA 

seeks comments, however, on other 

potential ways to communicate 

durability. 

The UTQGS rating systems for 

treadwear is the only metric for which 

consistent data are widely available for 

a range of passenger car tires. 

Accordingly, NHTSA is proposing to 

specify the UTQGS treadwear procedure 

to rate tires for durability on the same 

scale and label as fuel efficiency via 

rolling resistance rating. See 49 CFR 

575.104(e). Based on the UTQGS rating 

for treadwear as calculated under 49 

CFR 575.104(d)(2)(i), the durability 

rating of a given replacement passenger 

car tire on a scale of 0 to 100 is 

calculated by dividing the UTQGS 

treadwear rating by ten, as explained in 

further detail below. 

NHTSA acknowledges the limits of 

the existing UTQGS system.126 Very few 

participants in the focus groups were 

aware of these ratings. In a roundtable 

discussion sponsored by the California 

Energy Commission dealers uniformly 

dismissed the system as not providing 

valuable or reliable information. In fact, 

those dealers expressed skepticism 

about tire fuel efficiency ratings if they 

were ‘‘just another UTQGS rating.’’ 

However, given the statutory deadline 

for NHTSA to establish this program, 

NHTSA believes that modified UTQGS 

ratings for traction and treadwear are 

the only viable options at this time to 

fulfill the statutory requirement that this 

consumer information program educate 

consumers about tires’ relationships to 

fuel efficiency, safety, and durability. 

NHTSA seeks comment, however, on 

other test methods that could be easily 

used to establish metrics for safety or 

durability ratings. As noted above, as 

part of the research in support of this 

rulemaking, NHTSA performed and 

analyzed additional testing with the 

tires that were used to evaluate the 

rolling resistance test methods. NHTSA 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
29562 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

127See NHTSA Rolling Resistance Focus Group 

Report (January 2008). A copy of this report and 

other research reports relied on in this proposal will 

be placed in the docket. In reviewing these findings, 

it is important to remember that qualitative 

research, by design, is not meant to be projectable 

within accurate statistical ranges. Focus groups 

allow for the understanding and investigation of 

group consensus, not individual reactions. 

Qualitative research offers insight into the thematic 

and directional information of the participants. 

128See Council Directive 1992/75/EC, 1992 O.J. (L 

297). 

129See http://www.safercar.gov/; 73 FR 40016 

(July 11, 2003). 

130NHTSA Rolling Resistance Focus Group 

Report, at 7–8 (January 2008). 

did some indoor treadwear testing in 

our research program, but merely to 

provide some comparative information, 

not to substitute a different test 

protocol. NHTSA will, however, 

consider future revisions if information 

suggests those revisions would enhance 

the program. 

4. Overall Rating 

For the purposes of the final rule, the 

agency is also considering the concept 

of a combined rating of some sort, 

which would convert all three benefit 

metrics into one overall rating. NHTSA 

notes that in considering how to revise 

and improve its New Car Assessment 

Program (NCAP), it sought public 

comment on the roughly parallel notion 

of simplifying inter-vehicle comparisons 

and purchase decision making by 

consumers by combining the individual 

safety ratings for different crash modes 

into a single overall rating. Ultimately, 

the agency adopted plans to develop 

and implement such a summary rating. 

The advantage of such a system for 

tire performance ratings would be that 

it would simplify the ratings, potentially 

relieving consumers of the task of 

weighing the ratings for three different 

metrics for one tire against the three 

ratings for another tire. At the same 

time, if the single combined rating were 

presented to the exclusion of individual 

ratings for each metric, it would obscure 

the relative performance of individual 

components that might carry different 

priorities with different consumers. 

Ideally, the goal would be to express 

the combined rating in terms that are 

readily understandable and of practical 

value to the average consumer. The 

following example attempts to do this 

by combining the three ratings into a 

single absolute (as opposed to relative) 

cost per mile figure reflecting the full 

cost of buying and using a tire. The inuse costs of a tire would be based on 

each of the ratings and the useful life of 

the tire, reflecting the real-world 

significance of each of the ratings. 

• The in-use cost of the fuel 

efficiency rating would reflect money 

spent on fuel consumed. 

• The in-use cost of the durability 

rating would reflect money spent on 

purchasing replacement tires more or 

less frequently. 

• The in-use cost of the safety rating 

would reflect money spent on tractionrelated crashes. 

Implementing such a combined rating 

would face several hurdles, especially 

regarding the safety rating. For example, 

how would the safety of any particular 

tire be measured and what baseline 

would it be measured against? Further, 

in order to attempt to convert the safety 

(traction) rating into stopping distance, 

potentially costly and time consuming 

testing for the wide variety of tires 

would be necessary. An example of 

such a combined rating for tires might 

be one expressed in terms of average 

overall cost/mile. 

The agency seeks comments as to 

whether such a combined rating could 

be developed and, if so, should be 

adopted in the final rule and 

implemented. The agency seeks 

comments on the relative advantages 

and disadvantages of a single combined 

rating, the three rating system in our 

proposal, and a third approach 

combining the first two approaches. 

B. How Should We Convey Ratings 

Information to Consumers? 

In support of this rulemaking, NHTSA 

contracted with a strategic 

communications firm to conduct 

consumer focus groups to review 

possible labels and other informational 

materials. Two focus groups were 

conducted in three locations, with a 

total of 54 participants. During the focus 

groups the participants discussed 

vehicle safety and fuel economy in 

general, their tire purchase process, 

their interest in information about tire 

fuel efficiency and how they might use 

it in the tire purchase decision process, 

and their reaction to five possible label 

designs.127 NHTSA anticipates 

conducting additional consumer testing. 

The agency seeks comment on our focus 

group consumer testing and the scope, 

content, and methodology of future 

consumer testing. 

The tested label designs consisted of 

different combinations of elements of 

existing vehicle and/or energy rating 

schemes. Specifically the designs were 

developed as different combinations of 

a red-to-green shaded color scheme as in 

the European energy labels, stars, 

numbers, and/or letter grades. One 

design had a vertical orientation of the 

rating scale similar to the European 

label. One design used a 3-axis radar 

chart. Based on the feedback in the 

focus groups, NHTSA is proposing to 

express ratings for tire fuel efficiency 

(i.e., rolling resistance), safety (i.e., 

traction), and durability (i.e., treadwear) 

on a scale of 0 to 100, with 100 being 

the best rating, and zero being the worst 

rating. 

NHTSA’s proposal differs from the 

European tire fuel efficiency rating 

system. The European tire label divides 

the fuel efficiency rating into seven 

bins, or seven ranges of rolling 

resistance scores, each range (or bin) 

represented by a letter, A through G. 

This is the same letter rating the system 

used in Europe for rating the energy 

efficiency of household appliances,128

and is already well known by 

consumers in Europe. In contrast, U.S. 

consumers do not have a preexisting 

association between letter grades and 

energy efficiency ratings. Thus, NHTSA 

is proposing the ratings scales that 

tested best in the agency’s consumer 

research. 

NHTSA’s proposal also differs from 

manufacturer suggestions that NHTSA 

develop a rating based on five bins, 

similar to NHTSA’s New Car 

Assessment Program (NCAP).129 In the 

focus groups, most of the label designs 

showed ratings based in bins. The 

reason for NHTSA’s proposal is that 

participants overwhelmingly preferred 

the design that showed a numerical 

rating on a scale of 0 to 100. 

Last, NHTSA’s proposal differs from 

the EPA’s Energy Star program. In large 

part this is because of participants’ 

preference for greater discrimination in 

the rating. In addition, NHTSA’s 

proposal to require manufacturers to 

report actual test data will allow for the 

use of such test data to provide 

additional useful comparative 

information as discussed later in this 

notice when NHTSA discusses its 

planned consumer education program. 

See section VIII. 

In consumer testing, NHTSA used 

both stars (as in the NCAP program) and 

letter grades (as in the European 

proposal) representing fuel efficiency 

grades given based on which range of 

rolling resistance values, or bin, the tire 

fell within. While both of these were 

understood by the participants, the 

numerical scale giving an individual 

score for a tire in each category of rating 

was preferred. Most consumers 

indicated that they preferred the greater 

precision of the 0 to 100 rating scale 

than a 5-point grading scale.130 A 

specific score gives consumers a greater 

ability to discriminate between tires. 

In NHTSA’s research, consumer focus 

groups also expressed a clear preference 

to have fuel efficiency, traction, and 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 29563 

131Note that higher rolling resistance force 

measurements indicate a greater amount of energy 

lost through the tires and converted to heat. This 

indicates a lower fuel efficiency of a tire. 

132 If future technology made improvements 

possible that would allow tires to exceed the range 

of this or the other two scales, NHTSA would 

consider future rulemaking to adjust the scales. 

treadwear ratings appear on identical 

scales, i.e., they expressed distaste for 

the sample ratings graphic that 

displayed fuel efficiency on a 0 to 100 

scale, traction using letter grades, and 

treadwear on a different scale. It is true 

that consumer preferences are not 

necessarily conclusive on appropriate 

design. What matters is what design is 

most helpful in facilitating choice, and 

judgments in focus groups may not be 

conclusive on that question. But with 

reference to the goal of ensuring both 

simplicity and transparency, NHTSA is 

proposing to require all three ratings be 

expressed on a scale of 0 to 100. As 

noted, NHTSA invites comments on 

how to ensure that these ratings are as 

meaningful as possible to consumers. 

One of the labels tested included an 

overall rating, which was generally 

well-received. Some participants raised 

their concern that the overall rating was 

an average of the three factors (fuel 

efficiency, traction and tread wear), 

treating them as if they were equally 

important when in fact few consumers 

consider them equally important in 

their own purchase decision. In the end, 

most felt the overall rating was still 

useful, as long as each dimension on the 

label had a rating, as then consumers 

could separately weigh the factors that 

were important to them, if necessary. 

As noted above, NHTSA is not 

proposing any regulatory text for an 

overall rating in today’s notice; however 

we are considering how we might do 

this for the final rule. NHTSA shares the 

focus group participants’ concern that 

an overall rating not just be an average, 

but instead somehow reflect the relative 

value on some common scale of the 

three ratings. As discussed above in 

section VI.A.4, an example of such a 

system might be expressed as average 

overall cost per mile. The advantage of 

such a system would be that it would 

simplify the ratings. However, at the 

same time, it would obscure the relative 

performance of individual components 

which might carry different priorities 

with different consumers. 

In addition, the agency is uncertain as 

to whether such a combined rating 

would be practicable. Developing a costper-mile estimate would require 

addressing the myriad of complications 

expressed in the Fuel Economy, Safety, 

and Durability sections above. For 

example, how would the safety of any 

particular tire be measured and against 

which baseline would it be measured? 

The agency cannot identify poor tire 

traction as the cause of a crash, but may 

be able to estimate potential benefits or 

disbenefits from modified stopping 

distances that result with different 

traction ratings. How would potential 

safety impacts be valued? Should values 

include estimates of the value of life and 

degradation in quality of life, or just the 

economic impacts that result from death 

and injury and property damage? Since 

these estimates would represent average 

impacts spread across society, would 

they be meaningful to individual tire 

purchasers? 

As noted above, the agency requests 

comments as to whether such a 

combined rating could be developed 

and, if so, should be adopted in the final 

rule and implemented. The agency 

seeks comments on the relative 

advantages and disadvantages of a 

single combined rating, the three rating 

system in our proposal, and a third 

approach combining the first two 

approaches. NHTSA requests comments 

on the concept of an overall rating, 

including the more detailed discussion 

of how to value these ratings later in 

this notice or other ideas of how to 

combine ratings for an overall rating. 

1. Proposed Rating Formulas 

i. Fuel Efficiency 

As explained above, based on the 

feedback in the focus groups, NHTSA is 

proposing to express a tire fuel 

efficiency rating on a scale of 0 to 100, 

with 100 being the lowest rolling 

resistance or best rating, and zero being 

the highest rolling resistance or worst 

rating. This integer fuel efficiency rating 

from 0 to 100 (RFE) can be calculated 

from an ISO 28580 test value of rolling 

resistance force (RRF) as follows: 

RFE = (RRFmax ¥ RRF) * 100/(RRFmax ¥ 

RRFmin) 

where RRFmax is the highest rolling 

resistance the agency believes should be 

represented on the fuel efficiency rating 

scale and where RRFmin is the lowest 

rolling resistance the agency believes 

should be represented on the fuel 

efficiency rating scale. 

Regarding these minimum and 

maximum RRF values that define the 

bounds of the fuel efficiency scale, 

NHTSA’s testing research combined 

with a RRF dataset that California 

shared with the agency showed RRF test 

values of replacement passenger car 

tires ranging from 7.5 to 22.8 poundsforce (lbf). We are, therefore, proposing 

a rolling resistance force scale ranging 

from 5 lbf to 25 lbf, where 25 is the 

highest rolling resistance and thus, the 

replacement tire with the worst fuel 

efficiency,131 representing a zero on the 

fuel efficiency rating scale. The agency 

is proposing this range because the high 

end of the rolling resistance scale range 

should be set at close to the level of the 

current worst performing tires, since we 

should not expect tires developed 

subsequent to this program to get worse 

fuel efficiency. Allowing for the 

existence of some tires with higher 

rolling resistance test values than the 

selection of replacement tires tested by 

NHTSA and California, we moved up 

the estimate of highest rolling resistance 

force to 25 (from 22.8). 

Regarding the low rolling resistance 

end of the rating scale, even though the 

combined dataset had tires with an RRF 

as low as 7.5 lbf, NHTSA is proposing 

to set this 100 end of the scale based on 

an RRF of 5.0 lbf, because we believe it 

is possible to construct tires with 

improved rolling resistance and the 

rolling resistance scale should allow 

sufficient room to express that 

improvement. NHTSA’s research has 

found that while tire construction need 

not sacrifice traction or treadwear for 

improved rolling resistance, 

maintaining the same traction and 

treadwear while increasing the fuel 

efficiency of a given tire typically 

entails higher costs. See safety 

discussion above in section VI.A.2 of 

this notice. The agency wants to allow 

for such future technological innovation 

in the fuel efficiency rating scale.132

Based on NHTSA’s proposed rolling 

resistance force scale of all replacement 

passenger car tires, a tire fuel efficiency 

rating would be calculated by the 

following formula: 

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

¥ RRF) * 5 

Using this fuel efficiency rating formula, 

the tires tested by NHTSA and 

California would fall between 11 and 88 

on the 0 to 100 fuel efficiency rating 

scale. NHTSA seeks comments on this 

and other possible constructions of the 

fuel efficiency rating. 

As mentioned above, one of the 

reasons the agency is basing the fuel 

efficiency rating on RRF rather than 

RRC is because it allows the program to 

readily provide consumers with a 

statement such as ‘‘a difference of X on 

the fuel efficiency rating scale equates to 

Y gallons of fuel saved.’’ We have 

calculated that for the proposed fuel 

efficiency rating scale, a general rule of 

thumb is that for every 10,000 miles you 

drive, a difference of five on the scale 

equates to three gallons of fuel saved 

when you purchase four tires and a 

difference of ten on the scale equates to 

six gallons of fuel saved. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
29564 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

133This formula is an adaptation of the 

Fahrenheit to Centigrade (also a 0 to 100 scale) 

conversion formula. 

134The agency notes that the formula for RTC

reduces to a simpler form than that which is 

specified above. For the NPRM we have not 

reduced the formula so that the public can see 

where maximum and minimum peak coefficients 

are used in the equation and to make it clear that 

it includes a ‘‘rating penalty’’ for tires with different 

coefficients for asphalt and concrete. We believe 

this is important since these values may change 

based on additional data and on retesting after our 

test track has been repaved. 

ii. Safety 

As explained above, NHTSA is 

proposing to specify that the safety (i.e., 

traction) rating, for purposes of the tire 

fuel efficiency consumer information 

program, be calculated using the peak 

coefficients of friction, which are 

friction coefficient numbers that are also 

recorded by the test equipment used in 

UTQGS traction rating procedure. The 

agency is proposing to specify the 

measurement of the peak coefficients of 

friction on both asphalt and on concrete, 

as opposed to the sliding coefficients of 

friction, as specified in the UTQGS 

traction test procedure. These 

measurements of peak coefficient of 

friction on asphalt and peak coefficient 

of friction on concrete must be 

‘‘adjusted,’’ or correlated to a standard 

reference test tire, because asphalt and 

concrete surfaces can vary from day to 

day. Thus, there must be some 

standardized tire to which the test can 

calibrate. This is true for the sliding 

coefficients of friction measured as well. 

For the safety (i.e., traction) rating, the 

agency is proposing to require tire 

manufacturers to report the Adjusted 

Peak Coefficient of Friction for Asphalt 

(μAPA) and the Adjusted Peak Coefficient 

of Friction for Concrete (μAPC) by testing 

in accordance with 49 CFR 575.104(f) 

and recording the average peak 

coefficients of friction and then 

adjusting the measured average peak 

coefficients of friction for asphalt and 

concrete, respectively, using the 

following formulae: 

μAPA = (Measured Candidate Tire 

Average Peak Coefficient of Friction 

for Asphalt + 0.75) ¥ (Measured 

Standard Tire Average Peak 

Coefficient of Friction for Asphalt) 

μAPC = (Measured Candidate Tire 

Average Peak Coefficient of Friction 

for Concrete + 0.60) ¥ (Measured 

Standard Tire Average Peak 

Coefficient of Friction for Concrete) 

The two constants, 0.75 and 0.60, are 

based on agency test data for the 

adjustment of the average peak 

coefficients of friction for asphalt and 

concrete pavements, respectively. The 

agency might change these two numbers 

if the repaving of the skid pad surfaces 

at the agency’s San Angelo Test Facility 

results in a shift of these numbers on 

each surface. NHTSA is seeking 

comments and proposals on this 

approach, including the use or change 

of these constants. 

In addition to the adjusted peak 

coefficients of friction, the agency is 

also proposing to require tire 

manufacturers to report the traction 

rating using the following formula: 

RTC = Adjusted Peak Traction Rating = 

{(μAPA + μAPC) {1 ¥ [(μAPA ¥ μAPC)/ 

(μAPA + μAPC)]2} ¥ 0.6} * (100/2.0) 

The agency proposes this formula as a 

convenient way to obtain a single rating 

for both asphalt and concrete, and 

normalizing the expected range to a 

scale of 0 to 100.133

The ‘‘(μAPA + μAPC) {1¥ [(μAPA ¥ 

μAPC)/(μAPA + μAPC)]2}’’ portion of the 

RTC formula has been developed with 

the intention of encouraging tire 

manufacturers to design tires with little 

disparity between μAPA and μAPC. That 

is, if μAPA= μAPC, ‘‘(μAPA + μAPC) {1 ¥ 

[(μAPA ¥ μAPC)/(μAPA + μAPC)]2}’’ would 

be equal to (μAPA + μAPC) and thus the 

highest rating possible is achieved for a 

given set of coefficients of friction since 

no deduction to the rating is assessed 

due to the disparity of the coefficients 

of friction between asphalt and 

concrete. This approach is consistent 

with the current traction rating 

philosophy of UTQGS which penalizes 

a tire’s rating if either the asphalt or 

concrete coefficients are in a lower 

relative category than the other adjusted 

coefficient. 

Based on data available to date at the 

agency’s San Angelo Test Facility, 

NHTSA estimates the minimum 

Adjusted Peak Coefficient of Friction for 

Asphalt is 0.4, the maximum Adjusted 

Peak Coefficient of Friction for Asphalt 

is 1.2, the minimum Adjusted Peak 

Coefficient of Friction for Concrete is 

0.3, and the maximum Adjusted Peak 

Coefficient of Friction for Concrete is 

1.1, for an additive range spanning from 

0.7 (i.e., 0.4 + 0.3) to 2.3 (i.e., 1.2 + 1.1). 

For the purpose of allowing future tire 

traction improvement, the agency is 

proposing to expand the estimated 

Adjusted Peak Coefficient of Friction 

range of 0.7 to 2.3 to a range of 0.6 to 

2.6, where 0.6 would represent a zero on 

the traction rating scale and 2.6 would 

represent a 100 on the traction rating 

scale. The agency proposes this range 

because we believe it is technically 

possible to construct tires with 

improved traction and the traction 

rating scale should allow sufficient 

room to express that improvement. 

The agency then shifts and normalizes 

‘‘(μAPA + μAPC) {1¥[(μAPA¥μAPC)/(μAPA

+ μAPC)]2}’’ from the range of 0.6 to 2.6 

to a 0 to 100 rating scale and arrives at 

the aforementioned RTC formula.134

Using the RTC traction rating formula, 

NHTSA’s estimated range of additive 

Adjusted Peak Coefficient from 0.7 to 

2.3 would fall between 5 and 85 on the 

0 to 100 safety (wet traction) rating 

scale. NHTSA is seeking comments and 

proposals on this approach. 

As mentioned above, our safety 

(traction) rating formula and supporting 

equations were developed based on 

limited test data and in advance of 

traction test resurfacing at our San 

Angelo Test Facility. Consequently, it is 

difficult to precisely predict the 

probable range of adjusted peak 

coefficients across all replacement tires 

and, therefore, to calculate the resultant 

expected safety (wet traction) rating 

range for existing tires. We plan to 

update the formula and supporting 

equations in the final rule with 

additional data and with test data 

gathered after the track is resurfaced in 

order to bring the rating scale to a range 

that can be expected for state of the art 

tires. We also request comments on how 

much to amend the rating formula for 

the final rule to expand the rating scale 

at the minimum and/or maximum ends 

of the scale to allow for future potential 

wet traction improvements. 

In terms of what this scale would 

mean to consumers, a traction rating is 

difficult to quantify. That is, it is not as 

straight forward as it is for a fuel 

efficiency rating to develop a rule of 

thumb for the safety rating scale such as 

‘‘each difference of X on the safety 

rating scale equates to Y percent fewer 

crashes and Z dollars less in resultant 

economic damages.’’ NHTSA would 

have to try and correlate a rating with 

a set stopping distance, and then that 

distance with crashes. These 

calculations are complicated by the fact 

that they depend on other factors (in 

addition to the traction rating of the 

tires) such as the handling 

characteristics of the vehicle on which 

they are mounted, the force with which 

the brakes are applied, and the loading 

of the vehicle. To put a tire’s safety 

rating information on an economic 

scale, all of these characteristics would 

have to be assumed for all tires. But in 

reality, there is not a single vehicle that 

all replacement tires can be mounted 

on. Therefore, we are concerned that the 

difference between two such tire safety 

ratings would not reflect the same 

economic difference in terms of safety, 

where the tires were mounted on two 

different types of vehicles. What we can 

communicate with the proposed rating 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 29565 

135Manufacturers are required to print UTQGS 

information on a paper label pursuant to 49 CFR 

575.104(d)(1)(B). Many manufacturers include other 

information on this paper label as well. Note that 

NHTSA uses the term ‘‘paper label’’ in the 

colloquial sense; many labels on tires are actually 

made of plastic. 

136Color versions of Figures 8–12 will be placed 

in the docket and on NHTSA’s Web site, http:// 

www.nhtsa.gov. 

is that tires with better traction ratings 

stop in less distance than tires with 

worse ratings. 

iii. Durability 

Existing treadwear grades in UTQGS 

range up to 800. Therefore, NHTSA is 

requiring that the UTQGS treadwear 

grade be divided by 10 and that number 

placed on the 1 to 100 scale. This 

treadwear rating scale will allow for the 

possible technological development of 

replacement tires with higher treadwear 

ratings in the future. Accordingly, if 

TWUTQGS is the UTQGS rating for 

treadwear as calculated under 49 CFR 

575.104(d)(2)(i), then NHTSA is 

proposing the treadwear rating for 

purposes of the tire fuel efficiency rating 

program (RTW) be calculated according 

to the following formula: 

RTW = TWUTQGS/10 

In terms of what this scale would 

mean to consumers, the treadwear 

conversion is straightforward, as the 

treadwear rating is a relative rating 

compared to a control tire, which would 

be rated 10 on our scale. A tire rated 20 

should last twice as long as a tire rated 

a 10. Similarly, a tire rated a 75 on the 

proposed traction scale would last three 

times longer than a tire rated 25 on the 

proposed traction rating scale. 

2. Proposed Label Style 

NHTSA is proposing to require tire 

manufacturers to affix a paper label with 

the fuel efficiency, safety, and durability 

ratings in the form illustrated in Figure 

7.135 This label is based upon the ratings 

presentation that tested best with 

consumers in focus groups conducted 

by the agency. In NHTSA’s consumer 

focus group research the agency 

considered and presented consumers 

with five different ratings graphics 

containing ratings for fuel efficiency, 

traction, and treadwear. The ratings 

graphics were presented in various 

colors, with various picture icons, and 

experimented with horizontal rating 

scales as well as vertical rating scales. 

See Figure 8 through Figure 12.136


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2EP22JN09.006</GPH>
29566 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2EP22JN09.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 29567 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2EP22JN09.008</GPH>
29568 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2EP22JN09.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 29569 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2EP22JN09.010</GPH>
29570 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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

NHTSA is proposing that the rating 

scales be oriented horizontally, that the 

scales be shaded red (0) to green (100), 

and that each scale be marked by an 

icon in addition to the title, similar to 

Label B shown to the focus groups 

(Figure 9). This label design was the 

clearly preferred concept. Participants 

intuitively understood that red was poor 

and green was good and liked this color 

scheme. The vertically-oriented label 

(Label C, illustrated in Figure 10) was 

difficult to understand for many 

participants in the focus groups. 

NHTSA is proposing to modify the 

Label B as shown to consumers (Figure 

9) as described here. See Figure 7. First, 

NHTSA is proposing to add a heading 

that reads, ‘‘Government Tire Ratings,’’ 

similar to the heading on the vehicle 

label that shows the new car assessment 

program (NCAP) ratings. The focus 

group participants indicated that they 

would prefer to know that it was a 

government program. 

We are also proposing to have the fuel 

efficiency rating appear topmost on the 

label, followed by safety and durability. 

The ratings appeared in different order 

in the designs shown and participants 

did not express a preference. NHTSA 

has chosen to place fuel efficiency on 

top as that is the emphasis of EISA, 

however we request comment on the 

order of ratings. Participants did 

indicate that safety would be a more 

important consideration in their 

purchase decision, so the agency seeks 

comment on this rating appearing at the 

top. 

Further, we are proposing to change 

the labels on the rating scales to read as 

follows: ‘‘Fuel Efficiency and 

Greenhouse Gas Rating,’’ ‘‘Safety (Wet 

Traction),’’ and ‘‘Durability 

(Treadwear).’’ This language more 

closely mirrors the language in EISA. 

The agency is proposing that 

‘‘Greenhouse Gas Rating’’ appear on the 

fuel efficiency rating scale because 

section 105 of EISA mandates a 

consumer information program that will 

establish a rating system reflecting the 

fuel economy and greenhouse gas 

emissions over the life of 

automobiles.137 For consistency across 

fuel economy-related consumer 

information programs, we are proposing 

that the fuel efficiency rating in the tire 

fuel efficiency consumer information 

program indicate that fuel efficiency 

ratings also signify relative performance 

in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. 

As for the safety and durability rating 

scale labels, NHTSA is aware that safety 

and durability can refer to more 

characteristics than those rated in the 

program we are proposing today, and 

therefore has included ‘‘wet traction’’ 

and ‘‘treadwear’’ to clarify what is being 

rated on the safety and durability scales. 

The agency is also proposing to 

change the language at the bottom of the 

label by replacing the word ‘‘highest’’ 

with the word ‘‘best.’’ This is to because 

the data behind the rating is not 

uniformly ‘‘higher’’ when the rating 

improves. While this would not be 

apparent to all consumers, some may 

wish to research the data behind the 

rating and this language would more 

accurately reflect the data. 

NHTSA is proposing to include an 

additional sentence at the bottom of the 

label indicating where consumers 

should go to learn more about the 

information: ‘‘For more information 

visit http://www.nhtsa.gov.’’ This 

sentence appears more prominent than 

the other reference sentences at the 

bottom of the label because the agency 

seeks to encourage consumers to learn 

about the ratings, which they can do 

most completely on NHTSA’s Web site. 

The Web address could be replaced if 

the new tire information Web site 

NHTSA intends to develop has a simple 

domain name. 

NHTSA is proposing to place the 

rating on each scale in a white box, as 

opposed to within one of the colored 

shaded boxes comprising the scale. This 

allows the rating score to be printed in 

slightly larger text than if it were limited 

to inside each box. Placing each rating 

in a white box also allows the rating to 

appear in a more accurate location on 

the scale, as opposed to being limited to 

appearing within a shaded box. NHTSA 

is further proposing to move the arrows 

pointing to the score to the bottom of 

each rating scale, as opposed to the top. 

This is to avoid potentially obscuring 

the rating scale titles with the arrow on 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2EP22JN09.011</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 29571 

138See http://www.energystar.gov/. 139 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 21. 

140 Id. 

141 Id. 

the top of the scale pointing to a lower 

rated tire. 

NHTSA is also proposing a minimum 

font size of 14 point for the heading on 

the label, and 12 point for the labels on 

each of the rating scales. NHTSA is also 

proposing to require the label to be at 

least 4.5 inches high by 5.5 inches wide. 

The agency tentatively concludes that 

this is approximately the smallest size 

the label could be and still be legible. 

This is slightly larger than the Stars on 

Cars label required on vehicles. NHTSA 

requests comments on these size 

requirements for the label. 

Finally, NHTSA is proposing to delete 

the indication of ‘‘average rating.’’ 

Without having a complete database of 

all tires, NHTSA is not sure where the 

‘‘average rating’’ would be located on 

each scale. In addition, it is likely that 

these would not be in the same location 

on each of the three scales, and focus 

group participants expressed some 

confusion with designs like this. 

Participants in the focus groups 

generally liked the icons used on the 

sample labels, however the icon used 

for the traction rating was found 

confusing by many. The cloud in the 

symbol for traction (representing the 

source of the rain drops) was confusing 

for some consumers who could not 

make out what it was or thought it was 

a cowboy hat. NHTSA considered other 

ideas, such as those shown in Figure 13. 

NHTSA is not currently proposing a 

different icon than that which was 

tested. However, NHTSA plans to 

conduct further consumer testing prior 

to the final rule and is seeking comment 

on these and any other ideas regarding 

possible changes to the traction icon, 

which indicates ‘‘wet’’ traction. 

NHTSA is further seeking comment 

on using some icon or mark on the 

labels to help consumers at a glance 

identify the most fuel efficient tire. 

NHTSA has designed the scales so that 

the highest rating for tires in the 

databases we have examined for each 

category would be in the 80s. A mark 

indicating, for example, the top 25% of 

ratings could let consumers know that 

they are already looking at a best-rated 

tire. The mark could be associated with 

just the fuel efficiency rating or the tire 

might only receive the mark if it also 

has a minimum certain safety and 

durability rating. This is similar to the 

idea behind the Energy Star program. 

The Energy Star program is a voluntary 

joint EPA and DOE program to rate the 

energy-efficiency of household 

products.138 For each product included 

in the program, there are performance 

standards to determine whether or not 

the product qualifies for an Energy Star 

designation. As an initial matter, 

NHTSA is concerned that such a mark 

might be inaccurately perceived by the 

consumer as indicating an overall tire 

rating, which might indicate 

government approval of the safety of 

that replacement tire. We request 

comment on this idea. 

NHTSA is also requesting comment 

on whether or not the ratings label 

should include a caution that the ratings 

apply only to properly inflated and/or 

new tires. Both of these messages would 

be part of the consumer education 

program to promote this program. 

Last, NHTSA is requesting comment 

on including a statement like ‘‘made in 

week xx of year yy,’’ where the ‘‘xx’’ 

and ‘‘yy’’ would be the numerals from 

the tire identification number (TIN). 

NHTSA receives a lot of complaints 

about the TIN and consumer difficulty 

in understanding how to read it. Focus 

group participants also indicated that 

date of manufacture was additional 

information they would like to have. 

NHTSA requests comments on the effect 

of requiring this information on the 

paper label. 

VII. Proposed Information 

Dissemination and Reporting 

Requirements for Tire Manufacturers 

and Tire Retailers 

A. The Replacement Passenger Car Tire 

Market 

Most replacement tires are designed 

to perform on the wide range of vehicles 

in the fleet, including vehicle models 

dating back many years. Thus, suppliers 

competing in the replacement market 

must offer a wide variety of tire types 

and sizes.139 In addition, the spectrum 

of replacement tire sizes and types is 

continually expanding. At any one time, 

replacement tires from hundreds of 

brands and lines are for sale in the 

marketplace, which consists of tens of 

thousands of individual products, or 

stock-keeping units (SKUs), when size 

variability is taken into account. 

Consumers may choose among a 

handful to several dozen tire lines for 

their replacement needs.140

Consumers may choose from national 

Internet and mail order companies to 

tire dealers, manufacturer outlets, and 

retail department stores. Typically, the 

tires bought in the replacement market 

are balanced and mounted by the tire 

dealer or retailer.141 NHTSA is 

proposing a definition of ‘‘tire retailer’’ 

to be ‘‘a person or business with whom 

a replacement passenger car tire 

manufacturer or brand name owner has 

a contractual, proprietary, or other legal 

relationship, or a person or business 

who has such a relationship with a 

distributor of the replacement passenger 

car tire manufacturer or brand name 

owner concerning the tire in question.’’ 

See section XIII (Regulatory Text) of this 

notice. NHTSA seeks comment on the 

appropriateness and inclusiveness of 

this definition. 

B. Assumptions About the Average Tire 

Purchaser and the Average Tire 

Purchasing Process 

NHTSA’s consumer research focus 

groups revealed some common themes 

in consumers’ tire purchasing processes, 

which are discussed in detail below. 

Additionally, on November 17, 2008 

NHTSA participated in a roundtable 

discussion convened by the Energy 

Efficiency Center at the University of 

California, Davis (‘‘UC Davis 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2EP22JN09.012</GPH>
29572 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

142The agenda and presentations from the 

roundtable can be seen at http://eec1.ucdavis.edu/ 

programs/transportation/tire-roundtable-nov-2008/ 

tiresroundtable (last accessed Mar. 6, 2009). 

143Note that NHTSA uses the term ‘‘paper label’’ 

in the colloquial sense; many labels on tires are 

actually made of plastic. 

workshop’’) 142 to discuss the tire 

purchase process. Participants included 

State and Federal government agencies, 

tire manufacturers, tire retailers and 

universities. Both these sources of 

information have enabled the agency to 

make some assumptions regarding the 

average tire purchaser and the average 

tire purchasing process. These 

assumptions have led the agency to 

draw tentative conclusions regarding 

the most effective ways to ensure 

consumers have access to easy-tounderstand information. These 

assumptions form the basis of our 

proposals regarding requirements for 

information dissemination and 

reporting requirements for tire 

manufacturers and for tire retailers. 

NHTSA requests comment on how to 

best communicate information to 

consumers before or during the tire 

purchasing process. 

NHTSA’s consumer research and the 

discussions at the UC Davis workshop 

revealed that many consumers make 

their choice of tire at the location of 

purchase with guidance from a sales 

associate. NHTSA’s consumer research 

indicated, however, that many tire 

consumers do conduct research to 

determine specifications for their 

vehicle, and then visit a store or go 

online to compare tires of different 

specifications. Participants in the UC 

Davis workshop noted that many tire 

purchases are unplanned, where 

consumers needed to take immediate 

action to restore their vehicle. 

Consumers in NHTSA’s focus group 

research made a distinction between 

buying replacement tires and buying 

tires because of an urgent need, e.g., a 

flat tire. These consumers agreed that in 

the latter scenario, many steps that they 

may have undertaken before a planned 

purchase, e.g., doing comprehensive 

research, were bypassed with the goal of 

getting a new tire in their price range 

immediately. UC Davis workshop 

participants, among them many tire 

retailers and tire manufacturers, further 

agreed that while some consumers do 

‘‘defensive’’ research prior to scheduled 

or planned tire purchases in an attempt 

to avoid getting taken advantage of by 

sales associates, very few do ‘‘offensive’’ 

research such that they know precisely 

what tires they want. 

NHTSA’s consumer research found 

that the connection between fuel 

efficiency and tire selection was not 

brought up unaided. Even when 

prompted, many participants in the 

research did not feel there was a strong 

connection between the two. A few 

participants understood that inflated 

tires are safe, making the causal 

relationship between tire inflation and 

vehicle safety, which is understood by 

most. But after discussion and probing, 

more participants began to understand 

the connection and agreed tires impact 

fuel efficiency. While NHTSA’s 

consumer research indicated that 

consumers are interested in the prospect 

of a rating system that would enable 

them to compare fuel efficiency of 

different tires, participants in the UC 

Davis workshop, which included tire 

retailers, tire manufacturers, and 

government organizations, generally 

agreed that price is the largest factor in 

most consumers’ final tire purchasing 

decision. 

C. What Are We Proposing To Require 

of Tire Retailers? 

Based on NHTSA’s understanding of 

the average tire purchaser and on the 

tire purchasing process generally, we 

believe that the most successful method 

of encouraging consumers to consider 

the new ratings at the point of sale is to 

have a poster in each tire retailer/dealer 

location that would be visible to 

consumers, to make consumers aware 

that there are comparative government 

tire ratings available for the passenger 

car tires they are considering. The 

poster would communicate the 

importance of comparing replacement 

tire ratings as well as the importance of 

proper tire maintenance. 

Therefore, in today’s notice we are 

proposing to require that tire retailers 

who have a display room, i.e., those that 

present sample tires offered for sale to 

consumers, display a tire fuel efficiency 

consumer information program poster 

that NHTSA will print and provide to 

retailers. Some of the principles NHTSA 

is proposing be conveyed by the poster 

are: 

• Your choice of tires you buy to put 

on your vehicle affects: 

Æ The gas mileage your vehicle will 

get, 

Æ The traction and other safety 

characteristics your vehicle can achieve, 

and 

Æ How long you can reasonably 

expect it will be before you’ll have to 

buy another new set of tires. 

• There is a new government program 

that requires new tires for cars, vans, 

and SUVs to have a paper label on the 

tire tread to show you the tire’s rating 

for fuel efficiency, safety, and 

durability. 

• Ask your dealer for the ratings for 

the tires you are considering for your 

vehicle. 

• More information about this ratings 

program and a complete listing of the 

ratings for all these tires is available at 

http://www.nhtsa.gov. 

• Whatever tire you choose, you need 

to keep it properly inflated to get the 

best fuel efficiency, safety, and tire life 

that the tire can deliver. 

NHTSA seeks comment on these 

messages and solicits suggestions for 

poster design and the best means to 

convey information about the rating 

system and elicit interest in the ratings, 

keeping in mind the ultimate goal of 

assisting consumers in making more 

educated tire purchasing decisions. 

The agency is proposing to make this 

poster available within 12 months of the 

issuance of a final regulation. At that 

time NHTSA will publish a Federal 

Register notice announcing the 

availability of the poster. We are 

proposing that a tire retailer will be able 

to comply with the requirement of 

displaying the poster either by 

downloading and printing it, in color 

and with the specifications from 

NHTSA’s Web site, or by contacting the 

agency and requesting that we send the 

retailer a copy of the poster. 

We are also proposing to require that 

tire retailers leave the paper label which 

displays the tire fuel efficiency rating 

graphic on the tire until the tire is 

sold.143 This requirement would 

maximize the chance that consumers 

would see the label for the tire they are 

purchasing. NHTSA recognizes that at 

many tire retailers, the tires are 

mounted by the retailer itself and the 

consumer may never actually see the 

tires they purchase before they are on 

their vehicle. We are not proposing to 

require that tire retailers must show 

consumers the label for the tire they are 

going to purchase, but merely that the 

label is kept on the tire until sale. The 

agency would not hold a tire retailer 

responsible for accidental damage or 

delamination of a label, or for a 

manufacturer’s failure to provide a 

label. 

NHTSA is aware of the small business 

nature of many tire retailers and is 

sensitive to any burdens being placed 

upon tire retailers and dealers. The 

agency considered requirements that 

tire retailers show consumers the ratings 

for each tire that is available and being 

compared for potential purchase. 

However, the agency has tentatively 

concluded that the burdens associated 

with such requirements are not needed 

to implement an effective program. The 

agency seeks comments on any other 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 29573 

144While pounds-force (lbf) have been used 

throughout this NPRM since they are more familiar 

to the average U.S. consumer, the SI units of 

Newtons will be the official reporting unit. All 

proposed limits and values will be converted 

accordingly. 145See 49 CFR 575.104(d)(i)(B). 146See 49 CFR 575.104 (2008). 

information dissemination requirements 

that would ensure that easy-tounderstand information is conveyed in 

a way that is most likely to impact 

consumers’ decisions and, thus, affect 

their behavior and save them and our 

nation fuel and money. 

D. What Are We Proposing To Require 

of Tire Manufacturers? 

1. Data Reporting 

We are proposing to require 

manufacturers to report to NHTSA for 

each tire that is individually rated under 

this tire fuel efficiency consumer 

information program the following data: 

• Rolling resistance force (RRF), as 

computed from the ISO 28580 test (in 

Newtons) and followed in parenthesis 

by the equivalent pounds-force, e.g., 5 

Newtons (1.12 lbf).144

• Test load, as specified in the ISO 

28580 test procedure (in Newtons) and 

followed in parenthesis by the 

equivalent pounds-force, e.g., 5 

Newtons (1.12 lbf). 

• Rolling resistance rating (0–100), 

based on the formula in section VI.B.1 

above. 

• Traction 0–100 rating, based on the 

formula in section VI.B.1 above. 

• Average peak coefficient of friction 

for asphalt, as measured during the 

UTQGS traction test procedure (49 CFR 

575.104(f)). 

• Average peak coefficient of friction 

for concrete, as measured during the 

UTQGS traction test procedure (49 CFR 

575.104(f)). 

• Adjusted peak coefficient of friction 

for asphalt (μAPA), based on the formula 

in section VI.B.1 above. 

• Adjusted peak coefficient of friction 

for concrete (μAPC), based on the formula 

in section VI.B.1 above. 

• Treadwear 0–100 rating, based on 

the formula in section VI.B.1 above. 

• Wear rate of tested tire, as measured 

during the UTQGS treadwear procedure 

(49 CFR 575.104(e)). 

There are several reasons NHTSA is 

proposing that the tire manufacturer 

submit these various measurements to 

the agency. First, this makes it 

straightforward for the agency to ensure 

compliance with the rating systems 

developed in this tire fuel efficiency 

consumer information program. These 

reporting requirements also permit the 

agency to assess the adequacy and 

appropriateness of the tolerance bands, 

as described in section XI of this notice. 

Additionally, NHTSA can use the force 

measurements to develop an accurate 

rolling resistance database that can be 

used for development of a calculator 

that consumers can use to estimate 

dollars of fuel saved either annually or 

over the average life of the tire, as 

explained in section VIII of this notice. 

Finally, the test load can be used to 

calculate rolling resistance coefficient if 

necessary or desirable. 

We are proposing to require 

manufacturers to report to NHTSA the 

treadwear rating and the traction rating 

for each tire, on a 0 to 100 scale as 

discussed above in sections VI.A.2 and 

VI.A.3 because these ratings represent 

durability and safety for purposes of the 

national tire fuel efficiency consumer 

information program required by EISA. 

The agency is proposing that these 

ratings be based on the UTQGS test 

procedures for traction and treadwear. 

However, the agency remains open to 

considering other tests that may better 

represent and communicate information 

about safety and durability. As 

mentioned above, NHTSA requests 

comments on other test methods and 

metrics on which to base ratings of 

safety and durability. 

We request comment on what format 

to require tire manufacturers to submit 

data. NHTSA intends to require 

submission of data in a uniform format 

to ensure that all information is 

provided, and for ease of database entry. 

NHTSA is proposing that the agency 

will design a Microsoft Excel template 

for data submission and will make this 

template available for download from 

the agency Web site. However, the 

agency is also looking into using an 

online data submission system and the 

possibility of creating one centralized 

location where tire manufacturers will 

submit all required data submissions, 

including tire fuel economy data 

submissions. The agency seeks 

comment on the feasibility of using both 

a spreadsheet template and an online 

data reporting system for having tire 

manufactures submit data for the fuel 

efficiency consumer information 

program ratings. 

2. Tire Labels 

We are also proposing two 

alternatives for tire manufacturers to 

present the required rating information 

on a paper label affixed to each subject 

replacement tire. First, a tire 

manufacturer may place the required 

rating graphic somewhere on the paper 

labels already required to be affixed to 

each individual tire by UTQGS 

requirements.145 Second, a tire 

manufacturer could fulfill the tire fuel 

efficiency labeling requirements by 

affixing a separate paper label with just 

the tire fuel efficiency label graphic on 

it. 

Regardless of which alternative is 

chosen by the tire manufacturer, we are 

proposing to specify a minimum size for 

the tire fuel efficiency rating system 

graphic (4.5 inches high and 5.5 inches 

wide) and that the graphic must be in 

color on the label. 

The minimum size specification is 

proposed to ensure that the rating 

graphic will be legible on the label. The 

reason that we are proposing the graphic 

appear in color is because consumers 

reacted positively to the red shading on 

the lower/left side of the scale to 

indicate lower ratings, and to the green 

shading on the higher/right side of the 

scale to indicate higher ratings. 

NHTSA requests comments on 

whether the label requirement should be 

more specific regarding precisely when 

tire manufacturers must affix the label. 

E. Requirements for Tire Retailers and 

Tire Manufacturers With an Internet 

Presence 

There are tire retailers with virtual 

storefronts, as well as retailers and 

manufacturers that maintain Web sites 

that consumers can use to research tires. 

Because NHTSA believes that many 

consumers use the Internet to do at least 

a minimal amount of research in some 

situations before they need to purchase 

tires, we are proposing to require that 

tire retailers and tire manufacturers that 

maintain Web sites must include a link 

to the comprehensive tire Web site that 

NHTSA plans to develop (see section 

VIII.B.4 below). 

NHTSA requests comments on what 

additional requirements, if any, should 

apply to such Web sites. For example, 

should NHTSA require the Web site to 

include an electronic version of the 

poster NHTSA is proposing to require 

retailers with a display room to display? 

The poster would be provided in an 

electronic format by NHTSA when 

printed copies are provided as 

discussed above. 

F. Uniform Tire Quality Grading 

Standards 

As mentioned above, NHTSA has a 

tire rating system that has been in place 

since 1975, the uniform tire quality 

grading standards (UTQGS).146 NHTSA 

established the UTQGS to fulfill a 

statutory requirement established by the 

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
29574 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

147See National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 

Act of 1966, Public Law 89–563, § 203, 80 Stat. 718 

(1966) (codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. 30123(b)). 

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

149UTQGS requires tires to be rated a C if they 

perform at the lowest level in the UTQGS test. If 

a tire performs at a higher level the manufacturer 

may rate the tire a B. Therefore, while there may 

still be grade C tires on the market, NHTSA expects 

that the tires could be rated a B, based on the 

requirements of FMVSS 139. 

150 60 FR 27472 (May 24, 1995). 

151See Request for Comments, 59 FR 19686 (Apr. 

25, 1994). 

152 Id. at 19689. 

153See 61 FR 47437 (Sept. 9, 1996). 

154 Department of Transportation and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996, 

Public Law 104–50, 109 Stat. 436 (1995). 155See 60 FR 27472, 27478–27481. 

Safety Act of 1966.147 This statutory 

requirement has been codified and 

amended to read as follows: 

The Secretary shall prescribe through 

standards a uniform quality grading system 

for motor vehicle tires to help consumers 

make an informed choice when purchasing 

tires. The Secretary also shall cooperate with 

industry and the Federal Trade Commission 

to the greatest extent practicable to eliminate 

deceptive and confusing tire nomenclature 

and marketing practices. A tire standard or 

regulation prescribed under this chapter 

supersedes an order or administrative 

interpretation of the Commission.148

The UTQGS, applicable to passenger 

car tires, require motor vehicle and tire 

manufacturers to provide consumers 

with information about their tires’ 

relative performance regarding 

treadwear, traction, and temperature 

resistance. Manufacturers are required 

to rate their tires based on performance 

in specified test procedures, to report 

those ratings to NHTSA, to permanently 

mold those ratings onto sidewalls, to 

attach a label containing those ratings 

on replacement tires, and to provide 

information about the UTQGS with tires 

and new motor vehicles. The treadwear, 

traction, and temperature resistance 

characteristics were chosen by NHTSA 

for rating under the UTQGS because the 

agency believed they provided the best 

balance of tire properties for meaningful 

evaluation by consumers. As previously 

discussed for the characteristics affected 

by today’s proposals, those 

characteristics interact with each other 

such that improvement of one of them 

could reduce performance of one of the 

others. 

As NHTSA is proposing to base 

today’s proposed safety and durability 

ratings on them, traction and treadwear 

were discussed above. The UTQGS 

temperature rating indicates the tire’s 

resistance to the generation of heat and 

its ability to dissipate heat. Sustained 

high temperature can cause the material 

of the tire to degrade and reduce tire 

life, and excessive temperature can lead 

to sudden tire failure. Tires are tested 

under controlled conditions on a highspeed laboratory test wheel. Tires are 

graded A, B, or C, with A indicating an 

ability to dissipate heat at higher 

speeds. While grade C originally 

corresponded to a level of performance 

required for passenger car tires by 

FMVSS No. 109, new requirements in 

FMVSS No. 139 mean that few, if any, 

new tires perform below the level of 

grade B.149

In 1995, NHTSA proposed 

amendments to the UTQGS.150 At that 

time, NHTSA proposed, based on 

comments from the public,151 to remove 

the temperature resistance rating and to 

add a fuel efficiency rating. It was 

believed that the temperature resistance 

rating was not as well understood by 

consumers as the treadwear and traction 

ratings.152 The rulemaking was 

terminated 153 because Congress placed 

a condition in NHTSA’s 1996 

appropriations Act that stated ‘‘none of 

the funds appropriated by this Act may 

be obligated or expended to plan, 

finalize, or implement any rulemaking 

to add to [the UTQGS] any requirement 

pertaining to a grading standard that is 

different from the three grading 

standards (treadwear, traction, and 

temperature resistance) already in 

effect.’’ 154 This language has been 

included in every DOT Appropriations 

Act since 1996. 

In developing today’s proposal under 

EISA, the agency considered the need 

and appropriateness of continuing the 

current UTQGS requirements. For the 

reasons discussed below, we have 

tentatively concluded that the current 

UTQGS requirements should either be 

removed, once tires meet the new EISA 

requirements, or amended to conform to 

the approach in today’s EISA proposal. 

For two of the three UTQGS ratings, 

today’s proposal would establish 

parallel but different ratings. Thus, 

consumers would be receiving the same 

basic information, but in two different 

ways. For the treadwear rating, the 

durability rating proposed in this notice 

is simply a different way of expressing 

the same rating. For the traction rating, 

the safety rating proposed in this notice 

is based on the same test procedure; 

however, the ratings are based on 

different measurements, both of which 

are recorded by the equipment used in 

the UTQGS test procedure. 

If the agency maintained the current 

UTQGS ratings in these areas, there 

would be concerns about consumer 

confusion as well as unnecessary 

duplication. For example, with both 

systems in place, a consumer would see 

one scale (e.g., letter grades for traction) 

on the UTQGS label and on the tire 

sidewall, but on the tire fuel efficiency 

label the consumer would see a safety 

(i.e., traction) rating on a different scale 

(0 to 100). Similarly, the consumer 

would get a treadwear grade on the 

UTQGS label and on the tire sidewall, 

but would get the same grade expressed 

on a different scale (0 to 100) on the tire 

fuel efficiency label. 

As to the third UTQGS rating, i.e., 

temperature resistance, NHTSA notes 

that 80 percent of current tires are 

graded either A or B. As discussed 

previously, the new performance 

standards for passenger car tires will 

result in only grade A or B tires in the 

market. Therefore, the rating does not 

provide much comparative information. 

Moreover, for reasons discussed in the 

1995 NPRM,155 we believe this rating 

has limited relevance to consumers. 

Given the above discussion, we are 

requesting comments on two 

alternatives. Under the first alternative, 

the current UTQGS requirements would 

be removed once tires meet the new 

EISA requirements. While the new 

requirements we are proposing today 

would be issued under the authority of 

EISA, we believe the ratings system 

proposed in this document for 

durability (treadwear) and safety (wet 

traction) serve the same purposes as the 

corresponding existing UTQGS ratings. 

We note that, unlike the current 

UTQGS requirements, manufacturers 

would not be required to permanently 

mold the EISA ratings onto tire 

sidewalls or provide information for 

tires on new motor vehicles. However, 

we have tentatively concluded that, 

given the purposes of both UTQGS and 

the EISA ratings, i.e., helping consumers 

make informed choices in purchasing 

tires, and the ways that the relevant 

information would be available 

(including the paper label on 

replacement tires and a government 

Web site), these differences would not 

be a reason to maintain the current 

UTQGS requirements. 

Under the second alternative, the 

current UTQGS requirements would be 

amended to conform to the approach in 

today’s EISA proposal. We would 

replace the existing UTQGS treadwear 

and traction ratings with the ratings 

proposed in today’s notice for durability 

(treadwear) and safety (wet traction), 

and the rating for temperature resistance 

would be removed. The requirement for 

UTQGS information to be provided on 

a tire tread surface label would be 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 29575 

156NHTSA Rolling Resistance Focus Group 

Report (January 2008). This report will be posted to 

the docket. 

157See http://www.safercar.gov/portal/site/ 

safercar/menuitem.13dd5c887c7e

1358fefe0a2f35a67789/

?vgnextoid=9f4baa8c16e35110Vgn

VCM1000002fd17898RCRD. 

158See http://www.safercar.gov/portal/site/ 

safercar/menuitem.13dd5c887c7e

1358fefe0a2f35a67789/

?vgnextoid=eac9aa8c16e35110Vgn

VCM1000002fd17898RCRD. 

159See http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/ 

tiresafety/ridesonit/tires_index.html. 

160 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 5. 

161See 70 FR 18136 (April 8, 2005). 

written broadly enough that if the 

ratings were provided on the EISA label 

they need not be provided on a separate 

UTQGS label. Under this alternative, we 

would also remove the requirement for 

the UTQGS ratings to be molded on the 

tire sidewalls. We believe this 

requirement is duplicative and results 

in unnecessary costs. For replacement 

tires, the ratings would be provided on 

the paper label. While we question 

whether there is a need to provide this 

information for the tires on new 

vehicles, we request comments on this 

issue. We also request comments on the 

most appropriate way to require the 

information to be provided, should we 

decide to continue to do so. Finally, as 

part of this alternative, we would make 

any necessary conforming changes to 

the other UTQGS requirements. 

We note that our proposed regulatory 

text does not include changes with 

respect to removing or revising the 

current UTQGS requirements. If this 

part of the proposal is adopted as a final 

rule, we would make the necessary 

changes in the final rule’s regulatory 

text. 

In developing this aspect of our 

proposal, we have specifically 

considered 49 U.S.C. 30123(b) (the 

statutory requirements concerning 

UTQGS), 49 U.S.C. 32304A (Consumer 

Tire Information, i.e., the relevant part 

of EISA), and the current DOT 

Appropriations Act. As to the language 

of the DOT Appropriations Act, 

discussed earlier, we construe that 

language to prohibit us from adding to 

the UTQGS program any new grading 

standards beyond those currently in 

effect (treadwear, traction, and 

temperature resistance), but not from 

removing current standards or making 

minor modifications in the current 

standards, such as those discussed 

above under the second alternative. We 

note that the fuel efficiency rating 

proposed by today’s document would be 

issued solely under the authority of 

EISA, i.e., it would not be part of the 

UTQGS program under any of the 

alternatives we are considering. 

VIII. NHTSA’s Consumer Education 

Program 

As noted elsewhere in the notice, 

section 111 of EISA requires that the tire 

fuel efficiency consumer information 

program for replacement tires include 

‘‘a national tire maintenance consumer 

education program including, 

information on tire inflation pressure, 

alignment, rotation, and treadwear to 

maximize fuel efficiency, safety, and 

durability of replacement tires.’’ 49 

U.S.C. 32304A(a)(2)(D). In order to 

develop the most effective 

communication materials to comply 

with this requirement, the agency 

conducted consumer testing in January 

2009 on informational materials and 

potential tire labeling.156 The goals of 

this research were to (1) explore 

reactions to consumer expectations for a 

tire fuel efficiency rating program; (2) 

measure feedback related to the 

effectiveness of the communication 

materials used to convey the tire 

labeling information; and (3) gauge 

consumer preferences of tire label 

designs presented to determine how 

best to design a consumer friendly label 

for the program. Consumers have 

expressed interest in ways this new 

information should be conveyed. 

NHTSA is using consumer testing 

research to help maximize consumer 

understanding of the program and to 

develop communication materials to 

assist consumers in making more 

educated tire purchasing decisions. 

NHTSA requests comments on the most 

effective way to establish and 

implement a consumer education 

program to fulfill the statutory 

requirements and purposes behind 

today’s proposed tire fuel efficiency 

consumer information program. 

A. Previous Tire Consumer Education 

Efforts 

NHTSA has long recognized the 

importance of consumer education in 

the area of tire maintenance. The 

Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards 

(UTQGS) ratings, which are molded 

onto passenger car tire sidewalls, allow 

consumers to compare tire treadwear, 

traction performance, and temperature 

resistance. UTQGS consumer 

information includes a booklet 

published annually with comparative 

UTGQS ratings for all passenger car 

tires. NHTSA’s consumer based Web 

site, Safercar.gov, features a tire lookup 

database with these comparative ratings 

to assist consumers in purchasing new 

or replacement vehicle tires.157

The What’s Your PSI? campaign 

launched in 2005 challenged consumers 

to learn the correct pressure for their 

vehicle’s tires and to help them 

maintain proper pressure. Campaign 

materials included a brochure 

distributed by tire safety partners 

throughout the country and interactive 

online tire quiz. These materials are 

available online through the 

Safercar.gov Web site.158

In 2008, NHTSA revised the Tire 

Safety: Everything Rides On It brochure, 

published in 2001. This brochure was 

published as a consumer information 

tool to inform vehicle owners of tire 

pressure, load limits, and maintenance. 

It is also a guidebook that helps 

consumers make informed decisions on 

tire repair and maintenance 

procedures.159 The agency has 

partnered with industry and retail 

partners to distribute the brochure. 

Additionally in 2008, NHTSA urged 

drivers to check their tires during hot 

weather via a public service 

announcement (PSA). The PSA was 

featured on NHTSA.gov and 

Safercar.gov, warning of potential tire 

failure associated with under-inflation. 

B. Potential Future Consumer Education 

Efforts 

1. What Information Should NHTSA 

Convey? 

In addition to the information 

dissemination requirements for tire 

manufacturers and tire retailers 

discussed above in section VII of this 

notice, NHTSA intends to actively 

communicate the importance of tire 

maintenance generally, including tire 

inflation pressure, alignment, rotation, 

and other tire issues. 

All tires require proper inflation and 

maintenance to achieve their intended 

levels of efficiency, safety, wear, and 

operating performance.160 NHTSA has 

previously addressed the importance of 

proper tire inflation to safety and fuel 

economy through PSAs. Additionally, 

in 2005, NHTSA published a final rule 

mandating tire pressure monitoring 

systems (TPMS) for all new automobiles 

by the 2008 model year.161 TPMS, 

however, is no substitution for proper 

tire maintenance. Despite the fact that 

all new vehicles are equipped with a 

TPMS, NHTSA believes that proper tire 

maintenance is still the most important 

information to convey to consumers. 

Smaller reductions in inflation pressure 

than measured by the TPMS can affect 

not only fuel efficiency, but also tire 

lifespan and vehicle handling. 

While past consumer information 

efforts have been effective in 

communicating the importance of tire 

safety and maintenance, the agency 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
29576 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

plans to improve on these efforts by 

using innovative methods of 

dissemination for a new national tire 

fuel efficiency consumer information 

program. According to the agency’s 

recent research, consumers reacted 

positively to receiving this information 

in the following ways: Point of sale, 

interactive mediums, and via the 

Internet. 

2. Point of Sale 

While NHTSA is partially addressing 

the presentation of consumer education 

information through the requirements 

for manufacturers and tire retailers 

proposed in today’s notice, tire fuel 

efficiency rating information may 

additionally be displayed at kiosks, on 

overhead posters, tire plaques, or in 

advertisements at the point of purchase 

(everywhere tires are sold—tire retailers, 

dealers, online, manufacturer Web 

sites). These displays would highlight 

key information to be aware of and 

useful tips to note when shopping to 

buy replacement tires. NHTSA plans to 

develop informative posters and 

brochures that it will make available on 

its Web site for tire manufacturers and 

tire retailers to download and make 

available to educate consumers. 

Moreover, as noted above, the agency 

plans to provide specific size and design 

requirements for a paper label with fuel 

efficiency, safety, and durability ratings 

to accompany each tire. A template 

would be supplied to tire manufacturers 

for their inclusion of these ratings on 

the label. A similar agency program, 

Stars On Cars, requires manufacturers to 

post vehicle crash test rating 

information on a vehicle’s window 

sticker. 

3. Interactive Mediums 

NHTSA’s consumer research shows 

that a calculator that would show the 

amount of fuel and money a driver 

would save by buying a higher rated 

fuel efficiency tire annually, or over the 

estimated lifetime of the tire, appeals to 

consumers. This calculator might be 

available online, at a dealership, or a 

tire retailer. Using the calculator, a 

consumer could select tires to compare, 

enter the fuel economy of their vehicle 

(mpg) and the average number of miles 

they drive each year and even the dollar 

amount they are paying for fuel and get 

a calculation of differences in fuel usage 

and/or money saved for the tires under 

comparison. In the example shown in 

Figure 14, gallons saved is calculated 

assuming Tire A provides the input gas 

consumption and Tire B provides the 

average gas savings per pound force 

found in the NHTSA study (∼0.085% 

per pound). 

4. Web Site Development 

The agency’s Safercar.gov consumer 

Web site currently provides information 

on tire safety. Due to the amount of 

content available on tires, NHTSA plans 

to consolidate all tire information into a 

dedicated one-stop micro-site focusing 

on tires. The core message of the site 

would be tire maintenance— 

information on its importance in terms 

of safety, fuel efficiency, tire life and 

vehicle handling as well as tips on how 

best to maintain tires. The site would 

then make it easier for a consumer to 

locate various information regarding 

tires. 

The new site would also be the 

location for all of NHTSA’s information 

about tire fuel efficiency. From its new 

comprehensive tire Web site, NHTSA 

also plans to link to other government 

Web sites that discuss energy efficiency 

and consumer products and appliances, 

so that upon visiting the government’s 

comprehensive tire Web site, consumers 

have the opportunity to learn about fuel 

efficient vehicles, energy saving 

practices, and the energy efficiency of 

other consumer products, as well as fuel 

efficient tires. These may include, but 

are not limited to, EPA’s Green Vehicle 

Guide, http://fueleconomy.gov, and the 

government’s Energy Star Web site. 

NHTSA plans to develop a link to 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 

about the tire fuel efficiency rating 

system. Similar to the UTQGS tire 

lookup tool on Safercar.gov, NHTSA 

plans to develop a Web-based tire fuel 

efficiency search database, which would 

be a useful tool for consumers to 

compare tires prior to visiting a retailer. 

The database would also be a site for 

retailers to obtain information to assist 

their customers. A dealer could satisfy 

the proposed requirements to have 

ratings information available when 

presenting comparative tire information 

by providing a computer kiosk linked to 

NHTSA’s Web site for customers to use 

while in their store. 

5. Paper Brochure Materials 

NHTSA intends to publish a brochure 

to inform consumers about the tire fuel 

efficiency ratings program, where to 

obtain the ratings, as well as other 

related information. NHTSA would 

make this brochure available on its Web 

site for tire retailers who wish to print 

it and use it in their stores. The agency 

will also explore other avenues of 

distribution to inform future tire 

purchasers of the availability of this 

new information. Promoting awareness 

of this tire information will allow 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2EP22JN09.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 29577 

162See http://www.epa.gov/smartway/index.htm 

(last accessed June 4, 2009). 

163All costs discussed below are presented in 

2008 economics. 

164This is the cost to reduce rolling resistance by 

10 percent from today’s average replacement tire 

rolling resistance, holding other tire properties 

constant. Using silica is a well known method. 

There are a variety of ways to improve rolling 

resistance and not hold other properties constant, 

with different cost implications. That is one reason 

that the agency feels it is important to have rolling 

resistance, traction, and treadwear on the same 

label. 

165Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation, Tread Act 

Amendments to Early Warning Reporting 

Regulation Part 579 and Defect and Noncompliance 

Part 573, August 2008, (Docket No. 2008–0169– 

0007.1). 

consumers to spend time carrying out 

research prior to visiting a tire retailer. 

6. Partnership Development 

NHTSA will work with existing 

partners and identify new ones to help 

promote tire fuel efficiency campaign 

messages. NHTSA will seek to partner 

with any interested tire retailers, State 

or local governments, as well as 

manufacturers who share NHTSA’s goal 

of promoting the importance of proper 

tire maintenance. NHTSA will also seek 

to partner with any interested 

universities or high schools who may 

wish to educate students regarding tire 

fuel efficiency or proper tire 

maintenance. Many high school and 

college students have used vehicles 

with replacement tires and, thus, they 

are definitely a target audience for 

consumer education regarding proper 

tire maintenance. 

These partners will help to distribute 

those messages to a broader audience 

than the agency can do alone. These 

third-party relationships also build 

credibility and awareness among the 

media, which in turn helps expand 

reach. The agency will develop a toolkit 

that partners can use when packaging 

materials for consumer education 

efforts. 

Further, EPA’s SmartWay program 

has experience in transportation 

marketing and forming partnership 

programs.162 EPA has experience with 

general public outreach and has reached 

out to NHTSA seeking to integrate 

NHTSA’s tire fuel efficiency consumer 

information program with EPA’s similar 

efforts in its SmartWay Transport 

program. NHTSA and EPA believe that 

a more integrated outreach effort from 

the Federal government will best assist 

consumers in educating themselves 

about tire maintenance and fuel 

efficiency, and thus in making more 

informed purchasing decisions. 

7. Exhibits and Conferencing 

NHTSA currently exhibits at a 

number of auto-related shows and 

conferences throughout the year. These 

shows provide an opportunity to 

distribute campaign materials and 

interface with consumers interested in 

vehicle safety information. NHTSA also 

gives consumers a walkthrough of 

agency Web sites to demonstrate how to 

find information. NHTSA will use these 

conference environments to promote the 

tire fuel efficiency consumer education 

program. 

The agency also plans on looking into 

distributing educational flyers 

promoting NHTSA’s tire education Web 

site to highly congested events where 

large amounts of people drive their 

vehicles to attend, such as professional 

sporting events. 

8. Local Education Programs 

NHTSA proposes to establish a line of 

communication with its regional and 

local offices and develop a plan that 

reaches out to the local universities and 

high schools in the States to deliver 

presentations made available by NHTSA 

officials. NHTSA plans to distribute 

educational material such as brochures 

and FAQs to each student body. The 

reason NHTSA wishes to reach out to 

university and high school students, is 

because the agency believes that this 

target audience highly uses replacement 

tires. 

IX. Costs and Benefits 

A. Costs 163

There are three sets of costs involved 

for manufacturer: Costs to test tires to 

obtain rating information, costs of the 

consumer information and, assuming 

the program drives the market to 

demand different tires, costs to improve 

tires. Costs for the first two categories 

are estimated to be around $10.5 million 

annually, with one-time costs of around 

$4 million. 

As discussed more thoroughly below 

under benefits, the costs for the third 

category are difficult to estimate. There 

are many different ways that a 

manufacturer might choose to improve 

the rolling resistance rating of their 

tires. The agency estimates that the 

increased cost at the consumer level of 

such improvements is $2.00 to $4.00 per 

tire for tires subject to this regulation if 

all other tire properties were held 

constant.164 However, total costs for this 

category are dependent on market 

demand for different tires as a result of 

this program. The PRIA estimates that 

between 2 and 10 percent of the targeted 

tire population will be improved as a 

result of the proposal. Under this 

assumption and using a cost of $3 to 

improve the rolling resistance of one 

tire, the costs to improve tires are 

estimated to be between $8.4 and $42 

million. The agency requests comments 

on this cost estimate. 

Based on a report from Smithers 

Scientific Services, Inc. presented at the 

February 5, 2009 Staff Workshop for the 

California Energy Commission’s Fuel 

Efficient Tire Program, there are 20,708 

tires that would need to be tested 

initially to provide information. If each 

one of these were tested once for tire 

rolling resistance, the initial costs to the 

industry would be $3,727,000. Based 

upon the average number of reports the 

agency receives under the UTQGS 

program, the agency estimates that 125 

new/redesigned tires will need to be 

tested annually, for ongoing testing 

costs of $22,500. Since the UTQGS 

already requires testing for treadwear 

and traction, those costs are already in 

the baseline and are not incremental 

costs of this proposal. 

Information program costs include 

manufacturer costs to report information 

to NHTSA and to label tires. Tire 

manufacturers are required to provide 

information to NHTSA on the rating 

system. We are proposing to require 

manufacturers to report to NHTSA for 

each tire that is individually rated under 

this tire fuel efficiency consumer 

information program data on each of the 

three ratings: fuel efficiency, traction, 

and treadwear. In the early warning 

system (EWR) there are 28 tire 

manufacturers that report. Each 

manufacturer will need to set up the 

software in a computer program to 

combine the testing information, 

organize it for NHTSA’s use, etc. We 

estimate this cost to be a one-time 

charge of about $10,000 per company. In 

the EWR analysis, we estimated the 

annual cost per report per tire 

manufacturer to be $287. There are also 

computer maintenance costs of keeping 

the data up to date, etc. as tests come 

in throughout the year. In the EWR 

analysis,165 we estimated costs of $3,755 

per year per company. Thus, the total 

annual cost is estimated to be $4,042 per 

company, and $280,000 + $113,176 = 

$393,176 for the first year and $113,176 

as an annual cost for all 28 tire 

manufacturers. 

The proposal also requires a color 

label to be added to the current label 

that is glued onto a tire. The label will 

have the three scales in color and other 

information. We estimate the 

incremental cost of adding the color 

label to the existing label to be $0.05 per 

tire. We assume it will not change the 

way the label is attached to the tire, so 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
29578 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

166According to Modern Tire Dealer in 2008, 

there were 198 million replacement tires sold. 

http://www.moderntiredealer.com/FAQ/. 

167Final Economic Assessment, Tire Pressure 

Monitoring System FMVSS No. 138, Office of 

Regulatory Analysis and Evaluation, Plans and 

Policy, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Washington, DC. (March, 2002), Docket No. 

NHTSA–2002–8572–0216. 

168Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, FMVSS No. 

121, Air Brake Systems Amending Stopping 

Distance, Office of Regulatory Analysis and 

Evaluation, National Center for Statistics and 

Analysis (Not Yet Published). 

will not result in additional labor at the 

tire manufacturer plant. 

There are roughly 200 million 

replacement tires sold per year.166 We 

estimate that 5 percent (10 million) of 

the replacement tires are LT tires, and 

therefore not covered by this proposal, 

and 4.5 percent (9 million) of the 

replacement tires are snow tires or other 

types of tires that are exempt from the 

consumer information program. Thus, 

the cost to provide consumer 

information on a label is estimated to be 

$9.05 million ($0.05*181 million). 

For tire retailers, the agency estimates 

that this proposal would have no cost. 

The only proposed requirements for 

retailers are to leave the label on the tire 

until it is sold and to display a poster. 

Since manufacturers will supply the 

label, and NHTSA will supply the 

poster, there should be no cost to 

retailers. 

There are three sets of costs to the 

government: Enforcement costs, costs 

for maintaining the Web site, and costs 

to provide the poster to retailers. 

NHTSA anticipates spending $730,000 

annually to do compliance testing for 

this program. Based on costs for the 

existing areas of the NHTSA Web site, 

NHTSA estimates that it will cost 

approximately $550,000 per year to set 

up and update the part of the Web site 

to include information on 20,000 tires. 

For the poster, NHTSA currently 

provides a booklet to tire dealers with 

the UTQGS information. That booklet is 

on 8.5′′ x 11′′ paper and is 141 pages 

long. The printing costs are $3,190 per 

year. NHTSA anticipates that providing 

the posters would be a similar expense. 

Therefore, the combined costs to the 

government are estimated to be $1.28 

million. 

B. Benefits 

There are three categories of potential 

benefits (or disbenefits) from this rule: 

Fuel economy, safety and durability. For 

each of these categories a significant 

unknown is likely consumer behavior in 

response to this program, and as a result 

of that, likely manufacturer reaction. For 

example, if consumers value fuel 

efficiency but are unwilling to increase 

the price they pay for tires, tires with 

improved fuel efficiency but decreased 

safety and/or durability may enter the 

market. If consumers care most about 

safety, and if there is a tradeoff between 

fuel economy and safety, one effect of 

this rule may be to increase safety while 

decreasing fuel economy. NHTSA 

would have to quantify the value of all 

three categories of benefits/disbenefits 

under such a scenario and construct a 

range of likely scenarios to calculate the 

combined potential benefits of this rule. 

Other scenarios can also be imagined. 

NHTSA requests comments on how it 

might more narrowly analyze the 

uncertainty regarding the anticipated 

outcomes of this proposal. 

In addition to the unknown reactions 

of consumers and manufacturers, 

calculating benefits is complicated by 

several additional factors. We explain 

these additional complications for each 

of the three rating systems in the 

remainder of this section. In each of 

these discussions we consider how to 

compute the benefit of a difference of X 

points on the particular rating scale. 

For fuel economy, one of the reasons 

the agency is basing the fuel efficiency 

rating on RRF rather than RRC is that it 

allows the program to readily provide 

consumers with a statement such as ‘‘a 

difference of X on the fuel efficiency 

rating scale equates to Y gallons of fuel 

saved.’’ To calculate benefits for an 

individual tire purchase, if the driver 

knows the baseline fuel economy of the 

vehicle the tires will be mounted on, the 

fuel efficiency rating of the existing 

tires, the fuel efficiency rating of the 

replacement tires, and the number of 

miles driven annually, the driver can 

calculate the reduction (or increase) in 

the number of gallons of fuel the driver 

will need to operate the vehicle for a 

year. By using fuel price forecasts, you 

can estimate the cost of that fuel, and 

make an economic decision about 

whether or not to buy those replacement 

tires. 

To calculate fuel savings benefits for 

this rule, we would need to know how 

many consumers are likely to purchase 

lower (or higher) fuel efficiency rated 

tires as a result of the information in 

this program and the average reduction 

(or increase) in rolling resistance of the 

tires they purchase. The agency is 

planning to do additional consumer 

testing or other means to help it 

estimate the expected consumer 

reaction to this program. The PRIA 

develops hypothetical estimates 

assuming that between 2% and 10% of 

targeted tires are improved and that the 

average reduction in rolling resistance 

among improved tires is between 5% 

and 10%. Under these assumptions, the 

proposal is estimated to save between 

7.9 and 78 million gallons of fuel and 

prevent the emission of 76,000–757,000 

metric tons of CO2 annually. The values 

of the fuel savings are between $22 

million and $220 million at a 3 percent 

discount rate and between $20 million 

and $203 million at a 7 percent discount 

rate. The agency requests any 

information commenters may have 

about how to estimate consumer 

reaction and fuel savings. 

Benefit estimates for the safety rating 

are more difficult to quantify. As noted, 

information is lacking about likely 

consumer responses to the proposed 

label. Even if such information were 

available, it is not as straight forward as 

it is for a fuel efficiency rating to 

develop a rule of thumb for the safety 

rating scale such as ‘‘each difference of 

X on the safety rating scale equates to 

Y percent fewer crashes and Z dollars 

less in resultant economic damages.’’ 

One possible way to do this would be 

to try and correlate a rating with a set 

stopping distance, and then estimate the 

reduction in crash injuries and fatalities 

resulting from a given reduction in 

stopping distance. The latter could be 

done by developing an injury 

probability profile for crashes as a 

function of impact speed (Delta-V) and 

measure the change in Delta-V that 

would occur when braking distance is 

changed. The agency has used this 

method to measure safety impacts in 2 

previous rulemakings, those for Tire 

Pressure Monitoring Systems 

(TPMSs),167 and for truck trailer braking 

improvements.168

However, these calculations are 

complicated by the fact that they 

depend on other factors (in addition to 

the traction rating of the tires) such as 

the handling characteristics of the 

vehicle on which they are mounted, the 

force with which the brakes are applied, 

and the loading of the vehicle. To put 

a tire’s safety rating information on an 

economic scale, all of these 

characteristics would have to be 

assumed for all tires. But in reality, 

there is not a single vehicle that all 

replacement tires can be mounted on. 

We invite comments on these important 

issues, but we are concerned that the 

difference between two such tire safety 

ratings would not reflect the same 

economic difference in terms of safety, 

where the tires were mounted on two 

different types of vehicles. What we can 

communicate with the proposed rating 

is that tires with better traction ratings 

stop in less distance than tires with 

worse ratings. And as noted, the societal 

safety impacts depend on consumer and 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 29579 

169Smithers estimated that there were 62,124 

passenger car tires and 9,888 light truck tires that 

would need to be tested. 

manufacturer reactions to the program. 

We seek comments on all of these 

questions. 

For durability, the rating is a relative 

rating compared to a control tire, which 

would be rated 10 on our scale. A tire 

rated 20 should last twice as long as a 

tire rated a 10 and so forth. Several 

assumptions would need to be made to 

develop a rule of thumb for the 

durability rating scale of the form ‘‘each 

difference of X on the durability rating 

scale equates to equates to a reduction 

of $Y in tire purchases over the lifetime 

of the vehicle.’’ Tire lifetimes are 

complicated by factors such as: The 

vehicle the tire is mounted on, driving 

habits, tire maintenance, weather/ 

environment/temperature, etc. NHTSA 

could however come up with a set 

scenario and come up with mileage 

estimates if the tires are driven as in that 

scenario. Drivers could translate that 

into a reduction in tire purchase costs 

over the lifetime of a vehicle given the 

price of the tires being considered—a 

$50 tire that is expected to last 10,000 

miles would have the same expected 

lifetime cost (over the life of a vehicle) 

as a $100 tire that is expected to last 

20,000 miles. 

X. Lead time 

While manufacturers currently 

calculate the rolling resistance of at least 

some tires for vehicle manufacturers to 

use when selecting which tires to equip 

new vehicles with, NHTSA believes that 

lead time is necessary for tire 

manufacturers to conduct additional 

testing and to prepare rating information 

for all affected tires. In addition, time 

will be necessary for NHTSA to collect 

all reported rating information into a 

database and to prepare consumer 

information materials. 

On February 5, 2009, at a CEC staff 

workshop on their Fuel Efficient Tire 

Program, Smithers Scientific Services, 

Inc. (Smithers) presented the results of 

research done for the CEC to evaluate 

test facility capacity to conduct rolling 

resistance testing. Smithers based their 

analysis on current availability at 

independent laboratories, and also an 

estimate of test machine availability at 

manufacturer-owned laboratories. 

Depending on the scenario evaluated, 

they estimated that testing all affected 

tires would take 0.7 to 8.2 years. 

NHTSA notes that Smithers’ 

evaluation included some factors that 

are different from today’s proposed 

Federal program. First, Smithers 

assumed that three tests would be 

required for each tire, while the program 

we are proposing today would only 

require a single test. Second, the 

proposal was based on estimates of both 

passenger car and light truck tires, while 

today’s proposal only applies to 

passenger car tires.169 Adjusting for 

these two factors, the Smithers data 

would suggest that manufacturers need 

0.2 to 2.4 years to test one replacement 

passenger car tire of each different size 

specification, as proposed in this notice. 

NHTSA believes this number may 

still be an over-estimate of the time 

needed to test and rate all tires affected 

by this proposed program. Based on our 

research, NHTSA estimates it may be 

possible that less than 25 percent of the 

affected tires will have to be tested in 

accordance with the ISO 28580 

procedures in order to rate them for this 

program. It is likely that manufacturers 

will be able to develop equations to 

calculate the effect of differences in 

tread pattern, etc., and use those 

equations to compute the test results 

from ISO 28580 from other tires that 

have been tested. Tire manufacturers 

will be able to extrapolate estimates of 

the test procedure values from knowing 

the test procedure values of similar 

sized tires. In addition, manufacturers 

already have rolling resistance 

information on many, if not all tires, as 

this information is used by vehicle 

manufacturers when choosing which 

tires to install as original equipment. 

Even if these data were gathered using 

other test methods, NHTSA’s research 

shows that equations can translate the 

data to the test procedure specified in 

this rule. Recognizing that the deadlines 

imposed by Congress in EISA indicate a 

desire to have information available to 

consumers as quickly as possible, 

NHTSA is therefore proposing to require 

manufacturers to report on all existing 

tires within 12 months of the issuance 

of a final regulation. 

For new tires introduced after the 

effective date of this rule, NHTSA is 

proposing to require reporting of 

information at least 30 days prior to 

introducing the tire for sale, as is 

required for UTQGS information. 

Regarding the poster NHTSA is 

proposing to require in retailers that 

have a display room, the agency is 

proposing to make this poster available 

within 12 months of the issuance of a 

final regulation. At that time NHTSA 

will publish a Federal Register notice 

announcing the availability of the 

poster. The agency is proposing that a 

tire retailer must have the poster on 

display within 60 days of the issuance 

of the notice of availability in the 

Federal Register. We are proposing that 

a tire retailer will be able to comply 

with the requirement of displaying the 

poster either by downloading and 

printing it, in color and with the 

specifications from NHTSA’s Web site, 

or by contacting the agency and 

requesting that we send the retailer a 

copy of the poster. 

For tire retailers and tire 

manufacturers with an Internet 

presence, NHTSA is proposing that 

those Web sites link to NHTSA’s tire 

Web site within 12 months of the 

issuance of a final regulation. NHTSA 

will provide the direct link to the 

comprehensive tire Web site in that 

final regulation. 

XI. Compliance Tolerances 

The test procedure proposed in this 

notice is the one NHTSA will use for 

compliance testing. Today’s notice also 

proposes tolerances for RRF, traction, 

and treadwear which indicate what 

NHTSA is proposing to consider a 

noncompliance for the reporting and 

rating requirements if there is a 

difference between NHTSA’s test result 

and a reported rating. In establishing 

tolerances, at this state of the 

rulemaking process, the agency has 

considered the repeatability of a tire 

tested as well as the variability of 

machine-to-machine tests, lab-to-lab 

tests, and the potential for different 

results due to different manufacturing 

dates. 

For UTQGS, NHTSA specifies a test 

procedure for each rating. For traction 

and temperature resistance, the 

regulation then sets a performance level 

at which the tire must be rated a C, and 

higher levels at which the manufacturer 

may rate it a B, A, or in the case of 

Traction AA. The regulation was written 

this way as an acknowledgement of 

some level of necessary variability in 

the manufacture of tires. For tires that 

perform near a performance level that 

would allow a higher traction grade, the 

regulation allows the manufacturer to 

‘‘underrate’’ to allow for the possibility 

that NHTSA might select a tire for 

compliance testing that would perform 

at the lower level. 

For a consumer that purchases, for 

example, a B-rated tire and receives a 

tire that actually performs better than 

expected, there is no concern. However, 

there is some concern that a consumer 

may choose to pay extra for a B-rated 

tire when a comparable tire is 

‘‘underrated’’ as a ‘‘C.’’ Thus, for the 

UTQGS definition of compliance, there 

is a risk that ratings information 

communicated will not be accurate. 

Section 111 of EISA added a new subprovision to 49 U.S.C. 32308 (General 

prohibitions, civil penalty, and 

enforcement) which provides for civil 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
29580 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

170See National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, NHTSA Tire Rolling Resistance 

Rating System Test Development Project: Phase 2— 

Effects of Tire Rolling Resistance Levels on 

Traction, Treadwear, and Vehicle Fuel Economy 

(February 2009). This Phase 2 research report will 

be placed in the docket. 

penalties of not more than $50,000 for 

each violation of the tire fuel efficiency 

provisions. 49 U.S.C. 32308(c). Given 

this, in deciding how to define what 

would be considered a noncompliance 

for the tire fuel efficiency program, 

NHTSA tentatively has the concern that 

the program not result in a situation 

where NHTSA would be taking 

enforcement action against a 

manufacturer for the safety and 

durability ratings under this program, 

when enforcement action would not be 

warranted for UTQGS ratings based on 

the same test procedures. For this 

reason, NHTSA is proposing to require 

the ratings reported by a manufacturer 

under this proposed rule must be less 

than or equal to the rating determined 

by the agency using the procedures 

specified in this rule. 

However, as discussed previously, 

NHTSA’s research allows the agency to 

quantify the range of most of the 

variability that can be expected when 

determining the RRF value for a tire. 

Similarly, based on NHTSA experience 

conducting the traction and treadwear 

tests for the UTQGS program, NHTSA 

believes it can determine the range of 

variation for the safety and durability 

ratings proposed in this rule. NHTSA is 

requesting comments on a requirement 

which would require the ratings 

reported by a manufacturer to be within 

a specified tolerance limit as explained 

below for each rating. Because of the 

concern with the accuracy of the 

information being reported in this 

program, NHTSA is also seeking 

comment on whether to consider a noncompliance to exist when NHTSA’s test 

value results in rating that is outside the 

tolerance band, but is higher than the 

rating reported by tire manufacturer. 

A. Fuel Efficiency 

For the fuel efficiency rating, the 

agency is proposing a tolerance for 

compliance purposes of plus and minus 

(±)5.5 percent of the rating set by the 

manufacturer. The agency bases this 

tolerance on an analysis of in-house test 

data to date, while considering the 

machine variability specification under 

ISO 28580, which is 0.05 Newtons per 

kiloNewton (N/kN) for RRC. 

The agency selected a percentage 

tolerance because test data revealed that 

the variability of testing a tire increases 

as the load rating of the tire increases; 

this was found on multiple tests of the 

same tires. It was found that the 

variability for a passenger car tire with 

a mid-range load index had variability 

around the mean of ±0.66 pounds-force 

(lbf) which translated to 95 percent of 

the data being within ±5.5 percent of the 

mean. A similar analysis revealed that 

the same ±5.5 percent was an effective 

tolerance for the tires of lower and of 

higher load ranges, as well. So, a small 

tire tested repeated times would reveal 

small RRF variations, but within ±5.5 

percent of the mean, and a large load 

range tire revealed larger RRF 

variations, but also within ±5.5 percent 

range of its respective mean. 

So for compliance purposes, the 

agency is proposing that the RRF rating 

established by the manufacturer must be 

between ±5.5 percent of the RRF 

revealed from agency testing. The 

agency acknowledges that any RRF will 

be obtained from a tire that is different 

from the tire or tires that the 

manufacturer used to establish the 

reported RRF. In these cases, there will 

be new variability introduced into the 

compliance testing of a production tire 

from such factors as from machine-tomachine tests, lab-to-lab tests, different 

manufacturing dates, different batches 

of material, and possibly at different 

manufacturing plants. The agency does 

not have sufficient data to 

comprehensively establish tolerances 

considering these factors, so the agency 

solicits comments and proposals for a 

tolerance that considers these factors, 

and requests that wherever possible, 

supporting data is provided. The 

manufacturer will be required to submit 

to the agency the RRF and the rating for 

each tire. 

B. Safety 

The calculation of the safety (i.e., 

traction) rating is discussed in detail in 

section VI.B.1 of this notice. For 

compliance purposes, the agency is 

proposing that the adjusted peak 

coefficient of friction for asphalt (μAPA) 

and the adjusted peak coefficient of 

friction for concrete (μAPC) must 

individually be between ±0.06 of the 

respective peak coefficients of friction 

revealed from agency testing. These 

proposed tolerances are based on agency 

test data wherein peak coefficients of 

friction for asphalt and concrete were 

recorded, and the average and standard 

deviation calculated for each.170 The 

standard deviation was doubled and 

assigned a plus/minus tolerance to 

capture 95 percent of the data for the 

tested tires for each surface; the 

tolerance for the concrete was ±0.06, 

and the tolerance for the asphalt was 

also ±0.06. 

The agency acknowledges that any 

adjusted peak coefficient of friction 

result will be obtained from a tire that 

is different from the tire or tires that the 

manufacturer used to establish the 

reported adjusted peak coefficient of 

friction. In these cases, there will be 

new variability introduced into the 

compliance testing of a production tire 

from such factors as from machine-tomachine tests, lab-to-lab tests, different 

manufacturing dates, different batches 

of material, and possibly at different 

manufacturing plants. The agency does 

not have sufficient data to 

comprehensively establish tolerances 

considering these factors, so the agency 

solicits comments and proposals for a 

tolerance that considers these factors, 

and requests that wherever possible, 

supporting data is provided. 

The agency also considered another 

approach to the safety (i.e., traction) 

rating calculation, and the agency 

solicits comment on this approach, as 

well. This approach would require the 

manufacturer to report to the values for 

both the peak and sliding (or lockedwheel) coefficients of friction for both 

concrete and asphalt for each separately 

rated tire. For each testing surface, the 

manufacturer will report the coefficient 

acquired on that surface and a rating 

that is calculated by dividing the 

average peak coefficient from the test 

tire by the average peak coefficients 

from the control tires, times 100. The 

data would be weighted based on the 

sequence of the test (candidate) tires (T) 

and control (standard) tires (C). For 

example if the test order was C1–T1– 

T2–C2, then the value used in obtaining 

the rating for the first test tire would be 

T1/(2⁄3 C1 + 1⁄3C2) and for the other test 

tire T2/(1⁄3 C1 + 2⁄3C2), each multiplied 

by 100. This gives a value based on the 

relationship of the test tire and the 

control tires that ran with it. This rating 

(one for asphalt and one for concrete) 

would be added together and 

normalized on a 1 to 100 scale for the 

final safety rating. 

C. Durability 

As explained above in section VI.B.1, 

NHTSA is proposing calculating a 

durability (i.e., treadwear) rating by 

taking the UTQGS treadwear rating (as 

specified in 49 CFR 575.104), and 

dividing by 10. For compliance testing, 

the agency is proposing a tolerance on 

the UTQGS wear rate of the tire of ±2.5 

mils per 1,000 miles as defined in 49 

CFR 575.104(e). 

The agency proposes this compliance 

tolerance based on the wear rates 

measured on the ASTM E1136 Course 

Monitoring Tire (CMT) from testing as 

specified in 49 CFR 575.104(e). When 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 29581 

171See 49 CFR 553.21. 

172Optical character recognition (OCR) is the 

process of converting an image of text, such as a 

scanned paper document or electronic fax file, into 

computer-editable text. 173See 49 CFR part 512. 

analyzed, the data revealed the standard 

deviation to be 0.84 mils per 1,000 

miles, and normally, the agency would 

consider ±2 standard deviations (1.6 

mils per 1,000 miles) to be a suitable 

tolerance, which would capture 95 

percent of the data around the average 

wear rate. However, the CMT is a 

limited production tire made to 

tightened specifications, and the agency 

believes that this justifies an expansion 

of the tolerance to ±3 standard 

deviations (2.5 mils per 1,000 miles) 

which will capture 99 percent of the 

data around the average wear rate. For 

compliance purposes, the wear rate 

established by the manufacturer must be 

between ±2.5 mils per 1,000 miles of the 

wear rate revealed from agency testing. 

The agency acknowledges that any 

wear rate result will be obtained from a 

tire that is different from the tire or tires 

that the manufacturer used to establish 

the reported wear rate. In these cases, 

there will be new variability introduced 

into the compliance testing of a 

production tire from such factors as 

from machine-to-machine tests, lab-tolab tests, different manufacturing dates, 

different batches of material, and 

possibly at different manufacturing 

plants. The agency does not have 

sufficient data to comprehensively 

establish tolerances considering these 

factors, so the agency solicits comments 

and proposals for a tolerance that 

considers these factors, and requests 

that wherever possible, supporting data 

is provided. The manufacturer will be 

required to submit to the agency the 

wear rate from testing and the durability 

rating it assigned for each tire. 

XII. Regulatory Alternatives 

Throughout sections specific to 

various portions of the tire fuel 

efficiency consumer information 

program for replacement tires, NHTSA 

has discussed other options considered 

by the agency. 

XIII. Public Participation 

How Do I Prepare and Submit 

Comments? 

Your comments must be written and 

in English. To ensure that your 

comments are correctly filed in the 

Docket, please include the docket 

number of this document in your 

comments. Your comments must not be 

more than 15 pages long.171 We 

established this limit to encourage you 

to write your primary comments in a 

concise fashion. However, you may 

attach necessary additional documents 

to your comments. There is no limit on 

the length of the attachments. 

Please submit your comments by any 

of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on the electronic docket site by clicking 

on ‘‘Help’’ or ‘‘FAQ.’’ 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building, Ground 

Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

If you are submitting comments 

electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we 

ask that the documents submitted be 

scanned using Optical Character 

Recognition (OCR) process, thus 

allowing the agency to search and copy 

certain portions of your submissions.172

Please note that pursuant to the Data 

Quality Act, in order for substantive 

data to be relied upon and used by the 

agency, it must meet the information 

quality standards set forth in the OMB 

and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. 

Accordingly, we encourage you to 

consult the guidelines in preparing your 

comments. OMB’s guidelines may be 

accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT’s 

guidelines may be accessed at http:// 

dmses.dot.gov/submit/ 

DataQualityGuidelines.pdf. 

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments 

Were Received? 

If you submit your comments by mail 

and wish Docket Management to notify 

you upon its receipt of your comments, 

enclose a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard in the envelope containing 

your comments. Upon receiving your 

comments, Docket Management will 

return the postcard by mail. 

How Do I Submit Confidential Business 

Information? 

If you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, you 

should submit three copies of your 

complete submission, including the 

information you claim to be confidential 

business information, to the Chief 

Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 

above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. When you send a comment 

containing information claimed to be 

confidential business information, you 

should include a cover letter setting 

forth the information specified in our 

confidential business information 

regulation.173

In addition, you should submit a 

copy, from which you have deleted the 

claimed confidential business 

information, to the Docket by one of the 

methods set forth above. 

Will the Agency Consider Late 

Comments? 

We will consider all comments 

received before the close of business on 

the comment closing date indicated 

above under DATES. To the extent 

possible, we will also consider 

comments received after that date. 

Therefore, if interested persons believe 

that any new information the agency 

places in the docket affects their 

comments, they may submit comments 

after the closing date concerning how 

the agency should consider that 

information for the final rule. 

If a comment is received too late for 

us to consider in developing a final rule 

(assuming that one is issued), we will 

consider that comment as an informal 

suggestion for future rulemaking action. 

How Can I Read the Comments 

Submitted by Other People? 

You may read the materials placed in 

the docket for this document (e.g., the 

comments submitted in response to this 

document by other interested persons) 

at any time by going to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

You may also read the materials at the 

Docket Management Facility by going to 

the street address given above under 

ADDRESSES. The Docket Management 

Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

XIV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

Oct. 4, 1993), provides for making 

determinations whether a regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) review and to the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
29582 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

We have considered the impact of this 

rulemaking action under Executive 

Order 12866 and the Department of 

Transportation’s regulatory policies and 

procedures. The annual effect on the 

economy of this rulemaking depends on 

consumer and manufacturer responses 

to the program. However, this 

rulemaking is significant due to public 

interest in the issues. Therefore, this 

document was reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget under E.O. 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

This document would amend 49 CFR 

part 575 by adding a new section for 

requirements pursuant to the National 

Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer 

Information Program. The agency has 

prepared a Preliminary Regulatory 

Impact Analysis (PRIA) and placed it in 

the docket and on the agency’s Web site. 

There are two sets of costs involved: 

Costs to set up the information program 

and provide consumer information and 

costs to improve the rolling resistance of 

tires. Program costs are estimated to be 

about $9.1 million per year. Costs per 

tire are estimated to range from $2 to $4 

per tire and average around $3 per tire. 

If 10 percent of the target tire population 

(15 million tires) decreased their rolling 

resistance, the annual cost would be $45 

million. Assuming 10 percent of tires 

improve their rolling resistance, the 

combined annual cost of the program 

would be $54.1 million. For a further 

explanation of the estimated costs, see 

the PRIA provided in the docket for this 

proposal. 

B. National Environmental Policy Act 

We have reviewed this proposal for 

the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act and 

determined that it would not have a 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

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

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency is required 

to publish a notice of rulemaking for 

any proposed or final rule, it must 

prepare and make available for public 

comment a regulatory flexibility 

analysis that describes the effect of the 

rule on small entities (i.e., small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions). The 

Small Business Administration’s 

regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a 

small business, in part, as a business 

entity ‘‘which operates primarily within 

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

No regulatory flexibility analysis is 

required if the head of an agency 

certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

In compliance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act NHTSA has evaluated 

the effects of this proposed rule on 

small entities. The head of the agency 

has certified that the proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The following is NHTSA’s 

statement providing the factual basis for 

the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). Tire 

manufacturers are not small entities. 

Out of the 60,000 entities that sell tires, 

there are a substantial number of tire 

dealers/retailers that are small entities. 

However, the only part of the proposal 

with potential cost implications for tire 

dealers/retailers is that those with 

display rooms must display the program 

poster which NHTSA will provide. We 

do not believe that this will result in a 

significant economic impact on tire 

dealers/retailers. 

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has examined today’s 

proposed rule pursuant to Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999). Executive Order 13132 requires 

agencies to determine the federalism 

implications of a proposed rule. 

The agency refers readers to section 

II.B.7 above, ‘‘Application with State 

and local laws and regulations.’’ As 

noted there, given the ambiguity of the 

statutory language regarding 

preemption, the agency is sending a 

copy of this NPRM directly to the State 

of California, the National Governor’s 

Association, the National Conference of 

State Legislatures, the Council of State 

Governments, and the National 

Association of Attorneys General. As 

also noted there, NHTSA has already 

generally consulted with counsel for the 

California Energy Commission regarding 

various aspects of this agency’s analysis 

of that language. 

E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ 174 NHTSA has 

considered whether this rulemaking 

would have any retroactive effect. This 

proposed rule does not have any 

retroactive effect. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 

requires Federal agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of a proposed or final 

rule that includes a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or Tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

more than $100 million in any one year 

(adjusted for inflation with base year of 

1995). Adjusting this amount by the 

implicit gross domestic product price 

deflator for 2007 results in $130 million 

(119.816/92.106 = 1.30). 

Before promulgating a rule for which 

a written statement is needed, section 

205 of the UMRA generally requires 

NHTSA to identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives and adopt the least costly, 

most cost-effective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows NHTSA to 

adopt an alternative other than the least 

costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative if the agency 

publishes with the final rule an 

explanation why that alternative was 

not adopted. 

This proposed rule will not result in 

the expenditure by State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, of more 

than $130 million annually, and will 

not result in the expenditure of that 

magnitude by tire manufacturers and/or 

tire retailers. In promulgating this 

proposal, NHTSA considered a variety 

of alternative tire fuel efficiency rating 

systems and information dissemination 

requirement options. NHTSA is 

statutorily required to establish a 

national tire fuel efficiency rating 

program for the purpose of educating 

consumers about the effect of tires on 

fuel efficiency, safety and durability. 

NHTSA tentatively concludes that the 

proposed requirements are cost-effective 

and the least burdensome way to fulfill 

the statutory requirements of the 

program. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 29583 

175Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation, Tread Act 

Amendments to Early Warning Reporting 

Regulation Part 579 and Defect and Noncompliance 

Part 573, August 2008 (Docket No. 2008–0169– 

0007.1). 176 62 FR 19885 (Apr. 23, 1997). 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the procedures established by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

by a Federal agency unless the 

collection displays a valid OMB control 

number. The proposed rule would 

require manufacturers of tires to provide 

data on tires to NHTSA and to attach 

labels to replacement tires. 

In compliance with the PRA, we 

announce that NHTSA is seeking 

comment on a new information 

collection. 

Agency: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA). 

Title: 49 CFR part 575; Tire Fuel 

Efficiency. 

OMB Control Number: Not assigned. 

Form Number: The collection of this 

information uses no standard form. 

Requested Expiration Date of 

Approval: Three years from the date of 

approval. 

Summary of the Collection of 

Information 

NHTSA is proposing a new 

requirement in Part 575 which would 

require tire manufacturers and tire 

brand name owners to rate all 

replacement passenger car tires for fuel 

efficiency (i.e., rolling resistance), safety 

(i.e., wet traction), and durability (i.e., 

treadwear), and submit reports to 

NHTSA regarding the test values on 

which these ratings are based. The 

ratings for safety and durability are 

based on test procedures specified 

under the UTQGS traction and 

treadwear ratings requirements. This 

information would be used by 

consumers of replacement passenger car 

tires to compare tire fuel efficiency 

across different tires and examine any 

trade offs between fuel efficiency (i.e., 

rolling resistance), safety (i.e., wet 

traction), and durability (i.e., treadwear) 

in making their purchase decisions. 

The information would be provided 

in a couple different ways: (1) A paper 

label of specified format affixed to the 

tread face of the new tire; and (2) tire 

manufacturers would provide data to 

NHTSA under a reporting requirement. 

Tire retailers would inform consumers 

of the fuel efficiency rating system by 

displaying a poster that NHTSA would 

print and distribute. NHTSA would 

make the ratings data available to the 

public both in printed form and via the 

Internet. 

Estimated Annual Burden 

The label that NHTSA is proposing to 

require is already covered by an existing 

information collection (OMB Control 

Number 2127–0519). The agency 

estimates that the incremental cost of 

the additional information required on 

the label manufacturers already affix to 

the tire would be $.05 cents per label. 

Based on an estimate of 191 million 

replacement tires sold annually that are 

affected by this proposal, the cost of the 

label would be $9.55 million. 

The next source of burden to 

manufacturers is the reporting costs. 

NHTSA estimates that there are 28 tire 

manufacturers that will be required to 

report. Each of these will need to set up 

the software in a computer program to 

combine the testing information, 

organize it for NHTSA’s use, etc. We 

estimate this cost to be a one-time 

charge of about $10,000 per company. 

Based on the costs used in the Early 

Warning Reporting Regulation 

analysis,175 we estimate the annual cost 

per report per tire manufacturer to be 

$287. There are also computer 

maintenance costs of keeping the data 

up to date, etc., as tests come in 

throughout the year. In the EWR 

analysis, we estimated costs of $3,755 

per year per company. Thus, the total 

annual cost is estimated to be $4,042 per 

company. Thus the total costs would be 

$280,000 + $113,176 = $393,176 for the 

first year and $113,176 as an annual cost 

for the 28 tire manufacturers. 

The largest portion of the cost burden 

imposed by the tire fuel efficiency 

program arises from the testing 

necessary to determine the ratings that 

should be assigned to the tires. Two of 

the proposed tests are already covered 

by an existing information collection 

(OMB Control Number 2127–0519). The 

agency estimates that, at least initially, 

there are 20,708 tires that would need 

to be tested to provide information for 

the third rating. At a cost of 

approximately $180 per test, if each one 

of these were tested once for tire rolling 

resistance, the costs to the industry 

would be $3,727,000. After the first few 

years of this program, the number of 

tires manufacturers will need to test 

annually will probably decrease. Based 

upon the average number of reports the 

agency receives under the UTQGS 

program, the agency estimates that 125 

new/redesigned tires will need to be 

tested annually, for ongoing testing 

costs of $22,500. 

Estimated Annual Burden to the 

Government 

The estimated annual cost to the 

Federal Government is $1.28 million. 

This cost includes $730,000 for 

enforcement testing, and about $550,000 

annually to set up and keep up to date 

a Web site that includes the information 

reported to NHTSA. 

Number of Respondents 

There are approximately 28 

manufacturers of replacement tires sold 

in the United States. 

Comments Are Invited On 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Department, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

the accuracy of the Department’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

information collection; ways to enhance 

the quality, utility and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on respondents, including 

the use of automated collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. Please submit any 

comments to the NHTSA Docket 

Number referenced in the heading of 

this document, and to Mary Versailles 

as referenced in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. Comments are due by August 

21, 2009. 

H. Executive Order 13045 

Executive Order 13045 176 applies to 

any rule that: (1) Is determined to be 

economically significant as defined 

under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental, health or safety risk that 

NHTSA has reason to believe may have 

a disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

we must evaluate the environmental 

health or safety effects of the proposed 

rule on children, and explain why the 

proposed regulation is preferable to 

other potentially effective and 

reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by us. 

This proposed rule does not pose 

such a risk for children. The primary 

effects of this proposal are to conserve 

energy by educating consumers to make 

better informed tire purchasing 

decisions. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to 

evaluate and use existing voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless doing so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
29584 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

177 ISO Central Secretariat, 1, ch. de la VoieCreuse, Case postale 56, CH–1211 Geneva 20, 

Switzerland, Telephone +41 22 749 01 11, Fax +41 

22 733 34 30, http://www.iso.org. 

178 66 FR 28355 (May 18, 2001). 

the statutory provisions regarding 

NHTSA’s vehicle safety authority) or 

otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. Technical standards 

are defined by the NTTAA as 

‘‘performance-based or design-specific 

technical specification and related 

management systems practices.’’ They 

pertain to ‘‘products and processes, 

such as size, strength, or technical 

performance of a product, process or 

material.’’ 

Examples of organizations generally 

regarded as voluntary consensus 

standards bodies include the American 

Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM), the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE), and the American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI). If 

NHTSA does not use available and 

potentially applicable voluntary 

consensus standards, we are required by 

the Act to provide Congress, through 

OMB, an explanation of the reasons for 

not using such standards. 

The notice proposes a national tire 

fuel efficiency rating system for 

replacement passenger car tires to assist 

consumers in making more educated 

tire purchasing decisions. For purposes 

of the fuel efficiency rating 

determination, NHTSA proposed to base 

the rating determination on a rolling 

resistance test method nearly finalized 

by ISO, ISO 28580: Tyre Rolling 

Resistance measurement method— 

Single point test and measurement 

result correlation—Designed to facilitate 

international cooperation and, possibly, 

regulation building. The ISO is a 

worldwide federation of national 

standards bodies that prepares 

standards through technical committees 

comprised of international 

organizations, governmental and nongovernmental, in liaison with ISO.177

Standards developed by ISO are 

voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211 178 applies to 

any rule that: (1) Is determined to be 

economically significant as defined 

under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy; or 

(2) that is designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

significant energy action. If the 

regulatory action meets either criterion, 

we must evaluate the adverse energy 

effects of the proposed rule and explain 

why the proposed regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by NHTSA. 

The proposed rule seeks to establish 

a national tire fuel efficiency rating 

program for the purpose of educating 

consumers about the effect of tires on 

fuel efficiency, safety and durability, 

which if successful, will likely reduce 

the rolling resistance of replacement 

passenger car tires and, thus, reduce the 

consumption of petroleum. Therefore, 

this proposed rule will not have any 

adverse energy effects. Accordingly, this 

proposed rulemaking action is not 

designated as a significant energy 

action. 

K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

L. Plain Language 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write all rules in plain 

language. Application of the principles 

of plain language includes consideration 

of the following questions: 

• Have we organized the material to 

suit the public’s needs? 

• Are the requirements in the rule 

clearly stated? 

• Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that isn’t clear? 

• Would a different format (grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing) make the rule easier to 

understand? 

• Would more (but shorter) sections 

be better? 

• Could we improve clarity by adding 

tables, lists, or diagrams? 

• What else could we do to make the 

rule easier to understand? 

If you have any responses to these 

questions, please include them in your 

comments on this proposal. 

M. Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an organization, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://www.dot.gov/ 

privacy.html. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 575 

Consumer protection, Motor vehicle 

safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Tires. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR Part 

575 as follows: 

PART 575—CONSUMER 

INFORMATION 

1. Revise the authority citation for 

Part 575 to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32302, 32304A, 

30111, 30115, 30117, 30123, 30166, and 

30168, Pub. L. 104–414, 114 Stat. 1800, Pub. 

L. 109–59, 119 Stat. 1144, Pub. L. 110–140, 

121 Stat. 1492, 15 U.S.C. 1232(g); delegation 

of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 

2. Add § 575.106 to subpart B to read 

as follows: 

§ 575.106 Tire fuel efficiency consumer 

information program. 

(a) Scope. This section requires tire 

manufacturers, tire brand name owners, 

and tire retailers to provide information 

indicating the relative performance of 

replacement passenger car tires in the 

areas of fuel efficiency, safety, and 

durability. 

(b) Purpose. The purpose of this 

section is to aid consumers in making 

better educated choices in the purchase 

of passenger car tires. 

(c) Application. This section applies 

to replacement passenger car tires. 

However, this section does not apply to 

deep tread, winter-type snow tires, 

space-saver or temporary use spare tires, 

tires with nominal rim diameters of 12 

inches or less, or to limited production 

tires as defined in § 575.104(c)(2). 

(d) Definitions. As used in this 

section: 

Passenger car tire means a tire 

intended for use on passenger cars, 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, and 

trucks, that have a gross vehicle weight 

rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less. 

Ratings graphic means a graphical 

depiction of a tire’s fuel efficiency, 

safety, and durability ratings 

information, as reported to NHTSA 

under paragraph (e)(1)(i)(C) of this 

section, that conforms in content, format 

and sequence to the sample label 

depicted in Figure 1 of this section. 

Replacement passenger car tire means 

any passenger car tire other than a 

passenger car tire sold as original 

equipment on a new vehicle. 

Size designation means the alphanumeric designation assigned by a 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 29585 

manufacturer that identifies a tire’s size. 

This can include identifications of tire 

class, nominal width, aspect ratio, tire 

construction, and wheel diameter. 

Tire line or tire model means the 

entire name used by a tire manufacturer 

to designate a tire product including all 

prefixes and suffixes as they appear on 

the sidewall of a tire. 

Tire retailer means a person or 

business that offers a tire for sale and 

with whom a replacement passenger car 

tire manufacturer or brand name owner 

has a contractual, proprietary, or other 

legal relationship, or a person or 

business who has such a relationship 

with a distributor of the replacement 

passenger car tire manufacturer or brand 

name owner concerning the tire in 

question. 

(e) Requirements.—(1) Information. (i) 

Requirements for tire manufacturers. 

Each manufacturer of tires, or in the 

case of tires marketed under a brand 

name, each brand name owner, shall 

provide rating information for each tire 

of which it is the manufacturer or brand 

name owner in the manner set forth in 

paragraphs (e)(1)(i)(A) through (D) of 

this section. The ratings for each tire 

shall be only those specified in 

paragraph (e)(2) of this section. For the 

purposes of this section, each tire of a 

different size designation is to be rated 

separately. Each tire shall be able to 

achieve the level of performance 

represented by each rating with which 

it is labeled. An individual tire need 

not, however, meet further requirements 

after having been subjected to the test 

for any one rating. 

(A) Ratings. Each tire shall be rated 

with the words, letters, symbols, and 

figures specified in paragraph (e)(2) of 

this section. Each shall display this 

rating information using the ratings 

graphic illustrated in Figure 1 on either 

the tire label required by 

§ 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B), or on a separate 

tire label, as set forth in paragraph 

(e)(1)(i)(B) of this section. 

(B) Tire label. Each tire manufactured 

on or after the effective date of these 

amendments shall have affixed to its 

tread surface so as not to be easily 

removable a label containing its ratings 

graphic, as illustrated in Figure 1. The 

label shall be no less than 4.5 inches 

high and 5.5 inches wide. The fuel 

efficiency, safety and durability ratings 

attributed to the tire shall be either 

imprinted or indelibly stamped on the 

ratings graphic on the label in the 

appropriate location along each scale, as 

described in this paragraph (e)(1)(i)(B). 

For purposes of the ratings graphic 

required by this section, the fuel 

efficiency, safety and durability ratings, 

each an integer ranging from 0 to 100, 

shall appear in a white box 

superimposed upon the color shaded 

rating scale, and directly above the 

arrow which shall be located in the 

location that corresponds to where the 

respective rating falls, where each 

shaded box represents an increment of 

5 on each rating scale. Namely, since the 

ratings graphic has 20 boxes for each 

rating scale, the first box would contain 

the arrow pointing to the white box 

containing the score if a tire is rated 1 

through 4. An arrow indicating a rating 

of 5 would appear directly on the 

rightmost edge of the leftmost color 

shaded, i.e., reddest, box. The 20th, or 

rightmost, box would contain the arrow 

pointing to the white box containing the 

rating if a tire is rated 96 through 99. An 

arrow indicating a rating of 95 would 

appear directly on the leftmost edge of 

the rightmost color shaded, i.e., 

greenest, box. An arrow indicating a 

rating of 100 would appear directly on 

the rightmost edge of the rightmost color 

shaded, i.e., greenest, box. 

(1) Ratings graphic text. The text 

‘‘FUEL EFFICIENCY and GREENHOUSE 

GAS RATING,’’ ‘‘SAFETY RATING 

(WET TRACTION),’’ and ‘‘DURABILITY 

RATING (TREADWEAR),’’ and ‘‘For 

more information visit www.nhtsa.gov,’’ 

must have a minimum font size of 12 

point. The remaining text in the header 

area of the ratings graphic (i.e., 

‘‘GOVERNMENT TIRE RATING,’’ tire 

manufacturer or brand name owner 

specification, tire line specification, tire 

size specification), and the 0 to 100 

number rating on each rating scale, must 

have a minimum font size of 14 point. 

All remaining text and numbers on the 

label must have a minimum font size of 

10 point. 

(2) Ratings graphic color. The text and 

numbers of the ratings graphic shall be 

dark in color, with a background that is 

light in color. The three scales on the 

ratings graphic shall be presented in 

color, where the first of 20 squares (i.e., 

the leftmost square on each scale) shall 

be primary red, the 2nd of 20 squares 

shall be a slightly lighter shade of red 

than the leftmost (i.e., 1st) square, the 

3rd square shall be a slightly lighter 

shade of red than the 2nd square, and 

so on until the 10th of 20 squares, 

which should be nearly white. The last 

of 20 squares (i.e., the rightmost square) 

shall be primary green, the 19th square 

shall be a slightly lighter shade of green 

than the 20th square, the 18th square 

shall be a shade of green slightly lighter 

than the 19th square, and so on until the 

10th of 20 squares, which should be 

nearly white. Sample ratings graphics 

that depict the appropriate color 

schemes are available at http:// 

www.nhtsa.gov. 

(3) Ratings graphic orientation. The 

ratings graphic of Figure 1 shall be 

oriented on the tire tread surface with 

lines of type running perpendicular to 

the tread circumference. If a label 

bearing a tire size designation is 

attached to the tire tread surface and the 

tire size designation is oriented with 

lines of type running perpendicular to 

the tread circumference, the ratings 

graphic of Figure 1 shall read in the 

same direction as the tire size 

designation. 

(4) New ratings information. 

Whenever the tire manufacturer, or in 

the case of tires marketed under a brand 

name the brand name owner, 

determines new or different fuel 

efficiency, safety, or durability ratings 

information for a tire, the tire 

manufacturer or brand name owner 

shall include the new ratings 

information on and with tires 

manufactured on or after the date 30 

calendar days after receipt by the 

manufacturer of the new information. 

(C) Reporting requirements. The 

information collection requirements 

contained in this section have been 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.) and have been assigned 

OMB Control Number XXXX–XXXX. 

(1) Manufacturers of tires, or in the 

case of tires marketed under a brand 

name, brand name owners of tires 

subject to this section shall submit to 

NHTSA electronically, either directly or 

through an agent, the following data for 

each rated replacement passenger car 

tire by one year after the effective date 

of these regulations: 

(i) Rolling resistance force, in 

Newtons and must be followed in 

parenthesis by the equivalent poundsforce, e.g., 5 Newtons (1.12 lbf)., as 

measured in paragraph (f) of this 

section. 

(ii) Test load, in Newtons and must be 

followed in parenthesis by the 

equivalent pounds-force, e.g., 5 

Newtons (1.12 lbf), as measured in 

paragraph (f) of this section. 

(iii) Rolling resistance rating (0 to 

100), as determined in paragraph 

(e)(2)(i) of this section. 

(iv) Traction rating (0 to 100), as 

determined in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this 

section. 

(v) Treadwear rating (0 to 100), as 

determined in paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of 

this section. 

(vi) Average peak coefficient of 

friction for asphalt, as measured in 

§ 575.104(f). 

(vii) Average peak coefficient of 

friction for concrete, as measured in 

§ 575.104(f). 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
29586 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(viii) Adjusted peak coefficient of 

friction for asphalt (μAPA), based on the 

formula in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this 

section. 

(ix) Adjusted peak coefficient of 

friction for concrete (μAPC), based on the 

formula in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this 

section. 

(x) Wear rate of tested tire, as 

measured during the UTQGS treadwear 

procedure (49 CFR 575.104(e)). 

(2) Format of data submitted. The 

information required under paragraph 

(e)(1)(i)(C)(1) of this section shall be 

submitted to NHTSA in electronic 

format. 

(3) New ratings information. 

Whenever the tire manufacturer, or in 

the case of tires marketed under a brand 

name, the brand name owner 

determines new or different information 

required under paragraph (e)(1)(i)(C)(1) 

of this section for a tire, the tire 

manufacturer or brand name owner 

shall submit the new ratings 

information to NHTSA on or before the 

date 30 calendar days after receipt by 

the manufacturer of the new 

information. 

(ii) Requirements for tire retailers. 

Each tire retailer shall provide rating 

information for each passenger car tire 

offered for sale in the manner set forth 

in paragraphs (e)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this 

section. 

(A) A tire retailer shall not remove the 

label containing the ratings graphic 

required by paragraph (e)(1)(i)(B) of this 

section, until the tire has been sold. 

(B) A tire retailer that has a display 

room, or that displays sample tires for 

sale to consumers, shall display a tire 

fuel efficiency consumer information 

program poster that NHTSA shall print 

and provide to tire retailers. 

(iii) Linking to NHTSA’s tire Web site. 

Tire manufacturers and tire retailers that 

have or maintain Web sites must link to 

NHTSA’s tire Web site (http:// 

www.nhtsa.gov) from their main (top) 

Web page no later than 12 months after 

this regulation is effective or the day the 

Web site is online and available to the 

public. 

(2) Performance.—(i) Fuel efficiency. 

Each tire shall be rated for fuel 

efficiency performance on a scale of 0 to 

100, as calculated using the following 

formula, where RRF is the NHTSA 

nominal rolling resistance force value 

obtained when the tire is tested in 

accordance with the conditions and 

procedures specified in paragraph (f) of 

this section. A fuel efficiency rating 

(RFE) shall be expressed as an integer 0 

to 100 (for example, 51, 64, 80) by 

rounding RFE to the nearest whole 

number. The maximum rating that may 

be assigned to the candidate tire is RFE, 

as calculated using this formula. 

RFE = (RRFmax¥RRF) * 100/ 

(RRFmax¥RRFmin) 

Where RRFmax is equal to 25 and 

represents the highest rolling resistance 

the agency believes should be 

represented on the fuel efficiency rating 

scale and where RRFmin is equal to 5 and 

represents the lowest rolling resistance 

the agency believes should be 

represented on the fuel efficiency rating 

scale. 

(ii) Traction. Each tire shall be rated 

for traction performance on a scale of 0 

to 100, as calculated using the following 

formula, where μAPA and μAPC are the 

nominal peak coefficient of friction 

values obtained when the tire is tested 

in accordance with the conditions and 

procedures specified in paragraph (g) of 

this section. A traction rating (RTC) shall 

be expressed as an integer between 0 

and 100 (for example, 51, 64, 80) by 

rounding RTC to the nearest whole 

number. The maximum rating that may 

be assigned to the candidate tire is RTC, 

as calculated using this formula. 

RTC = {(μAPA + μAPC) {1¥[(μAPA¥μAPC)/ 

(μAPA + μAPC)]2} ¥0.6} * (100/2.0) 

Where: 

μAPA = adjusted peak coefficient of friction 

for asphalt, and 

μAPC = adjusted peak coefficient of friction 

for concrete 

(iii) Treadwear. Each tire shall be 

rated for treadwear performance on a 

scale of 0 to 100, as calculated using the 

following formula, where TWUTQGS is 

the traction grading as specified in 

§ 575.104(d)(2)(i). A traction rating 

(RTW) shall be expressed as an integer 

between 0 and 100 (for example, 51, 64, 

80) by rounding RTW to the nearest 

whole number. The maximum rating 

that may be assigned to the candidate 

tire is RTW, as calculated using this 

formula. 

RTW = TWUTQGS/10 

(f) Fuel efficiency rating conditions 

and procedures.—(1) Conditions. (i) 

Measurement of rolling resistance force 

under the test procedure specified in 

paragraph (f)(2) of this section shall be 

made using either the force or the torque 

method. 

(ii) The test procedure specified in 

paragraph (f)(2) of this section shall be 

carried out on an 80-grit roadwheel 

surface. 

(2) Procedure. The test procedure 

shall be as specified in International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO), 

ISO 28580: Tyre Rolling Resistance 

measurement method—Single point test 

and measurement result correlation— 

Designed to facilitate international 

cooperation and, possibly, regulation 

building, except that the conditions 

specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this 

section shall be used. 

(g) Traction rating conditions and 

procedures. (1) Conditions. Test 

conditions are as specified in 

§ 575.104(f)(1). 

(2) Procedure. (i) Prepare two 

standard tires as specified in 

§ 575.104(f)(2)(i). 

(ii) Mount the tires on the test 

apparatus described in 

§ 575.104(f)(1)(iv) and load each tire to 

1,085 pounds. 

(iii) Tow the trailer on the asphalt test 

surface specified in § 575.104(f)(1)(i) at 

a speed of 40 mph, lock one trailer 

wheel, and record the peak coefficient 

of friction on the tire associated with 

that wheel. Peak coefficient shall be 

measured between 0.35 and 0.65 

seconds after initiation of braking 

sequence. 

(iv) Repeat the test on the concrete 

surface, locking the same wheel. 

(v) Repeat the tests specified in 

paragraphs (g)(2)(iii) and (iv) of this 

section for a total of 10 measurements 

on each test surface. 

(vi) Repeat the procedures specified 

in paragraphs (g)(2)(iii) through (v) of 

this section, locking the wheel 

associated with the other standard tire. 

(vii) Average the 20 measurements 

taken on the asphalt surface to find the 

standard tire average peak coefficient of 

friction for the asphalt surface. Average 

the 20 measurements taken on the 

concrete surface to find the standard tire 

average peak coefficient of friction for 

the concrete surface. The standard tire 

average peak coefficient of friction so 

determined may be used in the 

computation of adjusted peak 

coefficient of friction coefficients for 

more than one candidate tire. 

(viii) Prepare two candidate tires of 

the same construction type, 

manufacturer, tire line, and size 

designation in accordance with 

paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section, mount 

them on the test apparatus, and test one 

of them according to the procedures of 

paragraphs (g)(2)(ii) through (v) of this 

section, except load each tire to 85% of 

the test load specified in § 575.104(h). 

For CT tires, the test inflation of 

candidate tires shall be 230 kPa. 

Candidate tire measurements may be 

taken either before or after the standard 

tire measurements used to compute the 

standard tire traction coefficient. Take 

all standard tire and candidate tire 

measurements used in computation of a 

candidate tire’s adjusted peak 

coefficient of friction within a single 

three hour period. Average the 10 

measurements taken on the asphalt 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 118 / Monday, June 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 29587 

surface to find the candidate tire average 

peak coefficient of friction for the 

asphalt surface. Average the 10 

measurements taken on the concrete 

surface to find the candidate tire average 

peak coefficient of friction for the 

concrete surface. 

(ix) Repeat the procedures specified 

in paragraph (g)(2)(viii) of this section, 

using the second candidate tire as the 

tire being tested. 

(x) Compute each candidate tire’s 

adjusted peak coefficient of friction for 

asphalt (μAPA) by the following formula: 

μAPA = (Measured Candidate Tire 

Average Peak Coefficient of Friction for 

Asphalt + 0.75)¥(Measured Standard 

Tire Average Peak Coefficient of 

Friction for Asphalt) 

(xi) Compute each candidate tire’s 

adjusted peak coefficient of friction for 

concrete (μAPC) by the following 

formula: 

μAPC = (Measured Candidate Tire 

Average Peak Coefficient of Friction for 

Concrete + 0.60)¥(Measured Standard 

Tire Average Peak Coefficient of 

Friction for Concrete) 

(h) Treadwear rating conditions and 

procedures.—(1) Conditions. Test 

conditions are as specified in 

§ 575.104(e)(1). 

(2) Procedure. Test procedure is as 

specified in § 575.104(e)(2). 

Tables and Figures to § 575.106 

Issued on: June 16, 2009. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. E9–14496 Filed 6–18–09; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2EP22JN09.014</GPH>