Document ID: NHTSA-2010-0124-0003
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals
Posted Date: 2010-09-27T04:00Z

[Federal Register: September 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 186)]
[Notices]               
[Page 59319-59320]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27se10-149]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA-2010-0124]

 
Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of 
information, amendment.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from 
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit 
public comment on proposed collections of information, including 
extensions and reinstatements of previously approved collections. On 
September 3, 2010, NHTSA published a request for comment on one 
collection of information for which it intends to seek OMB approval (75 
FR 54217). This notice elaborates on some specific areas NHTSA is 
requesting comment on that were not mentioned in the original notice.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 2, 2010.

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.''
     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: Kil-Jae Hong, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue, SE., W52-232, NPO-520, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Hong's 
telephone number is (202) 493-0524.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 3, 2010, NHTSA published a 
request for comment on one collection of information for which it 
intends to seek OMB approval (75 FR 54217). That notice explained that 
to further NHTSA's development of a national tire fuel efficiency 
consumer information program required under the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007,\1\ NHTSA is proposing a multi-phased consumer 
research project and is currently requesting comment on the first phase 
of that research, which will consist of qualitative focus group market 
research. This notice elaborates on some specific areas NHTSA is 
requesting comment on that were not mentioned in the original notice. 
These areas are focus group location, testing for the impact of basing 
a tire fuel efficiency rating on rolling resistance coefficient (RRC) 
vs. rolling resistance force (RRF), and testing for the recognition of 
existing labeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NHTSA notes that comments have already been sought on and a public 
meeting has already been held on a draft research plan for the consumer 
research that is the subject of this collection of information.\2\ The 
relevance and poignancy of stakeholders' comments may be enhanced by 
reviewing that draft research plan and comments received in response to 
the draft research plan and public meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0018.

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

[[Page 59320]]

    With regard to focus group location, the notice indicated that 
NHTSA intended to conduct two (2) focus groups in three (3) cities. 
NHTSA plans to conduct the focus groups in one city each in the 
Northeast, South or Midwest, and the West to achieve geographic 
diversity. NHTSA is particularly interested in comments regarding 
whether or not the western location should be in California.
    In 2003, the California legislature adopted Assembly Bill No. 844 
(AB 844), which required the California Energy Commission to develop a 
comprehensive fuel efficient tire program. In 2009, a draft regulation 
was made public which specified testing and reporting requirements for 
manufacturers, described the database of fuel efficiency of replacement 
tires sold in California, and defined a ``fuel efficient tire.'' As a 
result of these regulations, if California is included, NHTSA wonders 
whether the results might differ from other locations because those 
consumers might be more exposed to the issues of fuel efficiency and 
tires than other consumers, which would offer potential insight into 
comprehension of tire information while possibly conveying consumer 
understanding that is unique to consumers that have been exposed to 
advanced information as compared to the general population. NHTSA seeks 
comments on whether focus groups results from California may not be 
generally applicable to a national population of replacement tire 
consumers. On the other hand, if the results were similar to other 
locations, that might indicate the difficulty in raising awareness of 
this type of information.
    With regard to RRC vs. RRF,\3\ in the March 30, 2010 final rule 
NHTSA stated that it was deferring the decision on which measurement 
metric was the appropriate metric to base the fuel efficiency rating 
upon (75 FR 15894, 15919). Previous comments received by the agency 
were split between those who supported basing a fuel efficiency rating 
on RRF because it directly relates to the amount of fuel consumed, and 
those who supported basing a fuel efficiency rating on RRC because 
ratings based on RRF would tend to cluster small tires around high 
ratings and larger tires around low ratings. These commenters argued 
that basing a fuel efficiency rating on RRC would spread out ratings 
for tires available to a single consumer so that the consumer would be 
able to get a top-rated tire, and that denying consumers the ability to 
purchase a top-rated tire would discourage consumers. NHTSA believes 
that a rating based on RRC could only be used to compare tires of the 
same size and load rating. Therefore, from the standpoint of consumer 
perception, the agency's main concern is that if a consumer is looking 
at fuel efficiency ratings across a range of different-sized tires, 
e.g., if the consumer has one family vehicle that requires 18-inch 
replacement tires and another family vehicle that requires 15-inch 
replacement tires, fuel efficiency ratings based on RRC would not 
accurately reflect the contribution of a tire to fuel consumption since 
RRCs for larger tires (with greater test loads) can be lower than those 
of smaller tires, i.e., they would get a higher fuel efficiency rating 
than a small tire in a rating system based on RRC. To assist in a 
decision on this issue, NHTSA intends to explore how often consumers 
consider different size tires in their purchase decisions, and what the 
perceptual implications are if a consumer cannot find a top-rated tire 
among the replacement tire choices that are available for their 
vehicle. NHTSA requests comment on whether there is other information 
NHTSA could explore with regard to this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ RRF is the rolling resistance force measurement measured by 
a rolling resistance test procedure. RRC is RRF divided by the test 
load of the tire, where most test procedures specify test load as a 
percentage of the maximum load rating of the tire being tested. In a 
June 2009 notice of proposed rulemaking, NHTSA proposed to base the 
fuel efficiency rating on the RRF metric because such a rating 
translates more directly to the fuel required to move a tire. See 74 
FR 29542 (June 22, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, NHTSA is requesting information on any labeling or other 
information that is currently voluntarily provided by tire 
manufacturers or tire retailers, on tires or otherwise. NHTSA intends 
to explore what information participants have seen, and how they 
recall, interpret, and apply it. This will assist the agency in 
evaluating how well the participants comprehend the information, which 
types of information are meaningful to their purchasing choices, and 
which information impacts their behavior.

    Issued on: September 21, 2010.
Rebecca Pennington,
Associate Administrator, Planning, Administrative and Financial 
Management.
[FR Doc. 2010-24115 Filed 9-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P