Document ID: NHTSA-2008-0121-0014
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer Information Program
Posted Date: 2009-06-22T04:00Z

[Federal Register: June 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 118)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 29541-29587]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22jn09-24]                         

[[Page 29541]]

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

Part II

Department of Transportation

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

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

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

49 CFR Part 575

Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer Information Program; Proposed Rule

[[Page 29542]]

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

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

[[Page 29543]]

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Transportation 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 70 FR 18136 (April 8, 2005).
    \4\ Transportation Research Board Special Report 286, Tires and 
Passenger Vehicle Fuel Economy, National Research Council of the 
National Academies, 5 (2006) (hereinafter ``2006 NAS Report'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-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.
    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

[[Page 29544]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Previous 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Notice 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 29545]]

comment on the use of other test procedures as described in section IV 
of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 49 CFR 575.104 (2008).
    \12\ NHTSA'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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Today'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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 29546]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.000

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Manufacturers 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 29547]]

can reduce tire treadwear life, fuel efficiency, and operating 
performance.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 70 FR 18136 (April 5, 2005); Docket No. NHTSA-2005-
20586-1.
    \16\ When 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,

[[Page 29548]]

which creates resistance, decreasing fuel efficiency.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.001

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml; 2006 NAS 
Report, supra note 4, at 29.
    \18\ Rolling 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id. at 1.
    \22\ H.R. Rep. No. 109-537, at 3 (June 28, 2006); 2006 NAS 
Report, supra note 4, at 1.
    \23\ Most passenger tires are replaced every 3 to 5 years 
because of wear. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See 73 FR 24352, 24360 (May 2, 2008).
    \25\ Notice 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id. at 24356.
    \27\ IPCC (2007): Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate 
Change. Contribution of Working Group 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.

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

[[Page 29549]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ H.R. Rep. No. 108-401, at 971 (Nov. 25, 2003) (Conf. Rep.).
    \29\ Ultimately 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Transportation 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Id. at 3.
    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 on-road 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Id. at 2, 4.
    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Cal. Pub. Res. Code Sec. Sec.  25000.5, 25722-25723 
(2009); 2001 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 912 (S.B. 1170) (West).
    \37\ See Cal. Pub Res. Code Sec. Sec.  25770-25773; 2003 Cal. 
Legis. Serv. Ch. 645 (A.B. 844) (West).
    \38\ Specifically, 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 Sec.  25772.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See id. at Sec.  25771.
    \40\ See id. at Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See id. at Sec.  25773.

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 29550]]

combined tire size designation and load index.'' \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See http://www.energy.ca.gov/transportation/tire_
efficiency/documents/index.html#061009 (last accessed June 15, 
2009).
    \44\ Publication 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See http://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/data/20081226_
01.html (last accessed Mar. 10, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ H.R. 5632, 109th Cong. (2d Sess. 2006).
    \50\ Previous 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.
    \51\ See H.R. Rep. No. 109-537 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 49 CFR 575.104(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 29551]]

durability.'' \54\ EISA specifies that the regulations establishing the 
program are to be promulgated not later than December 19, 2009.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(1).
    \55\ EISA 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(2)(A).
    \57\ Id. at Sec.  32304A(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(2)(B).
    \62\ See H.R. 5632, 109th Cong. (2d Sess. 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See H.R. Rep. No. 109-537, at 5 (2006).
    \64\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 4.
    \67\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(2)(D).
    \69\ See generally http://www.safercar.gov/portal/site/safercar/
menuitem.13dd5c887c7e1358fefe0a2f35a67789/
?vgnextoid=0e0aaa8c16e35110VgnVCM1000002fd17898RCRD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 29552]]

other Government agencies, to seek their views.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 96.
    \71\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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 sub-provision 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ 49 U.S.C. 32304A(c).
    \77\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(3).
    \79\ The 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 non-pneumatic 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 14.
    \83\ Id.
    \84\ 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 29553]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ Specifically, 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).
    \86\ Rubber Manufacturers Association, Preliminary 2008 
Factbook, see https://www.rma.org/publications/market_information/
index.cfm?CFID=23483353&CFTOKEN=70640000.
    \87\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ For 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.002

    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

[[Page 29554]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ An 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.
    \91\ The 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).
    \92\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ See 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.
    \94\ To 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ For 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 Sec.  575.104(c)(2).
    \96\ 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 summer-only 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ See 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.
    \98\ Rubber Manufacturers Association, Preliminary 2008 
Factbook, see https://www.rma.org/publications/market_information/
index.cfm?CFID=23483353&CFTOKEN=70640000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA requests comments on whether it should include in the 
manufacturer reporting requirement (see

[[Page 29555]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, The 
Pneumatic Tire, DOT HS 810 561, at 483 (February 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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 
non-governmental, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ SAE International, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 
15096-0001, Tel (877) 606-7323, http://www.sae.org.
    \102\ ISO Central Secretariat, 1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, Case 
postale 56, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland, Telephone +41 22 749 01 
11, Fax +41 22 733 34 30, http://www.iso.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ This 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, The 
Pneumatic Tire, DOT HS 810 561, at 514-515 (February 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ Rolling 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.

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

[[Page 29556]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.003

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ The proposed test procedure, ISO 28580, has provisions to 
use all four methods to measure the energy loss.
    \108\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, The 
Pneumatic Tire, DOT HS 810 561, at 515 (February 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ Lightly 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.
    \110\ As 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.

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

[[Page 29557]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.004

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ A color version of Figure 6 will be placed in the docket.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.005
    
    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:

[[Page 29558]]

     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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ Internationally some laboratories use a 2 meter (78.34 
inch) roadwheel, often with a bare steel surface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ Capped 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.
    \116\ Regulated 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 multi-point 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 single-point tests, data from any method 
can be correlated to data from any other method. Accordingly, NHTSA 
tentatively concludes that a single-point, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 single-point test procedure are detailed in documents available in 
the docket.\118\ If

[[Page 29559]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Tire 
Rolling Resistance for Light Vehicles, I: Selection of Tires and 
Tests for Rating 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 cross-correlated 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 single-point 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ We note that these wheels did not have the micro-texture 
required by ISO 28580 for steel-surfaced roadwheels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 micro-
textured 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ Most 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ What 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 29560]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 high-
performance 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

[[Page 29561]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ See http://usa.polk.com/News/LatestNews/News_20080215_
scrappage.htm (last accessed Mar. 10, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ The UTQGS is discussed in more detail later in this 
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 29562]]

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 
in-use 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 traction-related 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ See Council Directive 1992/75/EC, 1992 O.J. (L 297).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ See http://www.safercar.gov/; 73 FR 40016 (July 11, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ NHTSA Rolling Resistance Focus Group Report, at 7-8 
(January 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In NHTSA's research, consumer focus groups also expressed a clear 
preference to have fuel efficiency, traction, and

[[Page 29563]]

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 cost-per-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 
pounds-force (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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ Note 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 29564]]

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 ([mu]APA) and the Adjusted Peak 
Coefficient of Friction for Concrete ([mu]APC) 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:

[mu]APA = (Measured Candidate Tire Average Peak Coefficient 
of Friction for Asphalt + 0.75) - (Measured Standard Tire Average Peak 
Coefficient of Friction for Asphalt)

[mu]APC = (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 = {([mu]APA + 
[mu]APC) {1 - [([mu]APA - [mu]APC)/
([mu]APA + [mu]APC)]\2\{time}  - 0.6{time}  * 
(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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ This formula is an adaptation of the Fahrenheit to 
Centigrade (also a 0 to 100 scale) conversion formula.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``([mu]APA + [mu]APC) {1- 
[([mu]APA - [mu]APC)/([mu]APA + 
[mu]APC)]\2\{time} '' portion of the RTC formula 
has been developed with the intention of encouraging tire manufacturers 
to design tires with little disparity between [mu]APA and 
[mu]APC. That is, if [mu]APA= [mu]APC, 
``([mu]APA + [mu]APC) {1 - [([mu]APA - 
[mu]APC)/([mu]APA + 
[mu]APC)]\2\{time} '' would be equal to ([mu]APA 
+ [mu]APC) 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 ``([mu]APA + 
[mu]APC) {1-[([mu]APA-[mu]APC)/
([mu]APA + [mu]APC)]\2\{time} '' 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 29565]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ Manufacturers 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.
    \136\ Color versions of Figures 8-12 will be placed in the 
docket and on NHTSA's Web site, http://www.nhtsa.gov.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.006

[[Page 29566]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.007

[[Page 29567]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.008

[[Page 29568]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.009

[[Page 29569]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.010

[[Page 29570]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.011

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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

[[Page 29571]]

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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.012

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ See http://www.energystar.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 21.
    \140\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 29572]]

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-to-understand 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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:
    [cir] The gas mileage your vehicle will get,
    [cir] The traction and other safety characteristics your vehicle 
can achieve, and
    [cir] 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ Note that NHTSA uses the term ``paper label'' in the 
colloquial sense; many labels on tires are actually made of plastic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 29573]]

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.

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ While 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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 
([mu]APA), based on the formula in section VI.B.1 above.
     Adjusted peak coefficient of friction for concrete 
([mu]APC), 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ See 49 CFR 575.104(d)(i)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 29574]]

Safety Act of 1966.\147\ This statutory requirement has been codified 
and amended to read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ See 49 CFR 575.104 (2008).
    \147\ See National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 
Public Law 89-563, Sec.  203, 80 Stat. 718 (1966) (codified as 
amended at 49 U.S.C. 30123(b)).

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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 high-speed 
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ UTQGS 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ 60 FR 27472 (May 24, 1995).
    \151\ See Request for Comments, 59 FR 19686 (Apr. 25, 1994).
    \152\ Id. at 19689.
    \153\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ See 60 FR 27472, 27478-27481.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 29575]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ NHTSA Rolling Resistance Focus Group Report (January 
2008). This report will be posted to the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ See http://www.safercar.gov/portal/site/safercar/
menuitem.13dd5c887c7e1358fefe0a2f35a67789/
?vgnextoid=9f4baa8c16e35110VgnVCM1000002fd17898RCRD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ See http://www.safercar.gov/portal/site/safercar/
menuitem.13dd5c887c7e1358fefe0a2f35a67789/
?vgnextoid=eac9aa8c16e35110VgnVCM1000002fd17898RCRD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ See http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/tiresafety/
ridesonit/tires_index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 5.
    \161\ See 70 FR 18136 (April 8, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While past consumer information efforts have been effective in 
communicating the importance of tire safety and maintenance, the agency

[[Page 29576]]

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).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.013

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

[[Page 29577]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ See http://www.epa.gov/smartway/index.htm (last accessed 
June 4, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ All costs discussed below are presented in 2008 economics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ This 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ Preliminary 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 29578]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ According to Modern Tire Dealer in 2008, there were 198 
million replacement tires sold. http://www.moderntiredealer.com/
FAQ/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ Final 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.
    \168\ Final 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 29579]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ Smithers estimated that there were 62,124 passenger car 
tires and 9,888 light truck tires that would need to be tested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 sub-provision to 49 U.S.C. 32308 
(General prohibitions, civil penalty, and enforcement) which provides 
for civil

[[Page 29580]]

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 non-compliance 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-to-machine 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 ([micro]APA) and the adjusted peak coefficient 
of friction for concrete ([micro]APC) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-to-machine 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 locked-wheel) 
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 + \1/3\C2) and for the other 
test tire T2/(\1/3\ C1 + \2/3\C2), 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

[[Page 29581]]

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-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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ See 49 CFR 553.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ Optical 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ See 49 CFR part 512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,

[[Page 29582]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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.

[[Page 29583]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ Preliminary 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ 62 FR 19885 (Apr. 23, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.,

[[Page 29584]]

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 non-governmental, in liaison with ISO.\177\ Standards 
developed by ISO are voluntary consensus standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ ISO Central Secretariat, 1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, Case 
postale 56, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland, Telephone +41 22 749 01 
11, Fax +41 22 733 34 30, http://www.iso.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ 66 FR 28355 (May 18, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  575.106 to subpart B to read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 alpha-numeric designation assigned by a

[[Page 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 Sec.  
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 pounds-force, 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 Sec.  575.104(f).
    (vii) Average peak coefficient of friction for concrete, as 
measured in Sec.  575.104(f).

[[Page 29586]]

    (viii) Adjusted peak coefficient of friction for asphalt 
([micro]APA), based on the formula in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) 
of this section.
    (ix) Adjusted peak coefficient of friction for concrete 
([micro]APC), 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 
[micro]APA and [micro]APC 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 = {([micro]APA + [micro]APC) {1-
[([micro]APA-[micro]APC)/([micro]APA + 
[micro]APC)]\2\{time}  -0.6{time}  * (100/2.0)

Where:

[micro]APA = adjusted peak coefficient of friction for 
asphalt, and
[micro]APC = 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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  575.104(f)(1).
    (2) Procedure. (i) Prepare two standard tires as specified in Sec.  
575.104(f)(2)(i).
    (ii) Mount the tires on the test apparatus described in Sec.  
575.104(f)(1)(iv) and load each tire to 1,085 pounds.
    (iii) Tow the trailer on the asphalt test surface specified in 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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 ([mu]APA) by the following formula:

    [mu]APA = (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 ([mu]APC) by the following formula:

    [mu]APC = (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 Sec.  575.104(e)(1).
    (2) Procedure. Test procedure is as specified in Sec.  
575.104(e)(2).

Tables and Figures to Sec.  575.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.014

    Issued on: June 16, 2009.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9-14496 Filed 6-18-09; 11:15 am]