Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/04/13/2015-08418/tire-identification-and-recordkeeping
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 02:42:39
Document Index: 241315234

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 574', '§\u2009574', '§\u2009574', '§\u2009574', '§\u2009574', '§\u2009574', '§\u2009574', '§\u2009574', 'art 574', 'arts 574', 'art 574', '§\u2009574', '§\u2009574', 'arts 551', '§\u2009579', '§\u2009574']

A Rule by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on 04/13/2015
19553-19564 (12 pages)
II. July 2014 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Three-Symbol Plant Code
IV. Standardizing TIN Length
VI. Changes to Figures 1 and 2
VII. Other Suggested Changes and Technical Amendments
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2015-08418 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2015-08418
The tire identification number (TIN), which must appear on virtually all new and retreaded motor vehicle tires sold in the United States, plays an important role in identifying which tires are subject to recall and remedy campaigns for safety defects and noncompliances. This final rule makes two amendments to the TIN. First, because NHTSA has run out of two-symbol codes to identify new tire plants, NHTSA is expanding the first portion of the TIN, previously known as Start Printed Page 19554the manufacturer identifier, but more commonly referred to as a “plant code,” from two symbols to three for manufacturers of new tires. This amendment substantially increases the number of unique combinations of characters that can be used to identify individual manufacturers of new tires. Second, NHTSA is standardizing the length of the tire identification number to eliminate confusion that could arise from the variable length of tire identification numbers. This final rule standardizes the length of the TIN at 13 symbols for new tires and 7 symbols for retreaded tires, making it easier to identify a TIN from which a symbol is missing.
Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must be received by May 28, 2015.
From its adoption in 1971, the TIN has consisted of up to four groups of symbols. The first group of symbols identifies the manufacturer of the tire. Each individual tire plant has its own identifier; thus, one tire manufacturer may have multiple codes. Although part 574 has referred to this grouping as the manufacturer's identification mark, it may also be known informally as a “plant code.” For new tires, this code consists of two symbols, and for retreaded tires, the code consists of three symbols. This plant code is assigned to new manufacturers and retreaders when they contact NHTSA and provide contact information and information about what types of tires they are producing.
The second and third groupings provide information about the tire itself. The second grouping is up to two characters and identifies the tire size. Although the original TIN requirement had a list of tire sizes and two-symbol codes, the agency has since left it to manufacturers to determine their own codes and provide decoding information to NHTSA upon request. This change allowed manufacturers to create new tire sizes without NHTSA first having to modify its regulations to provide a tire size code.
The TIN is required to be marked on at least one sidewall of each tire that is manufactured or retreaded. Manufacturers must use one of 30 alphanumeric symbols in the TIN. Certain letters such as G, I, O, Q, S, and Z are not allowed to be used because of the potential difficulty differentiating one symbol from another (for example, the number 5 and the letter S).
On July 24, 2014, NHTSA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing two amendments to the TIN. First, because NHTSA was running out of two-symbol codes to identify new tire plants, NHTSA proposed to expand the plant code, from two symbols to three for manufacturers of new tires. Second, NHTSA proposed to standardize the length of the TIN 13 symbols for new tires and 7 symbols for retreaded tires.
We received 13 comments in response to the July 2014 NPRM. Oyatullohi Maddud, Tire Rack, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Specialty Tires of America (Specialty), Gillespie Automotive Safety Services (GASS), Kojin Kitao, the Japan Automobile Tyre Manufacturers Association (JATMA), Safety Research and Strategies (SRS), the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA), Zhongce Rubber Group Co. (Zhongce), the Government of Thailand (Thailand), the Tire and Rubber Association of Canada, and the Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy of the Republic of Korea (Korea). The comments are addressed in the following sections.
RMA also requested an extension of the comment period in order to gather additional information regarding the cost of converting existing molds to three-symbol plant codes and 13-symbol TINs. We agree with RMA's general assertion that additional time would be necessary in order for them to obtain this information. However, the agency is faced with the exhaustion of two-symbol plant codes and must begin issuing three-symbol plant codes immediately in order to allow new plants to open. In order to issue three-symbol plant codes immediately, RMA's petition to extend the comment period is denied. However, we believe that our approach in this final rule, in response to RMA's and others' comments, mitigates the need for extra time to respond to the NPRM.Start Printed Page 19555
NHTSA, through its Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, issues new tire and retreaded tire plant codes to manufacturers when they apply for them. For new tire manufacturers, who have a two-symbol code, the entire supply of 900 plant codes has been depleted.
In order to assign new plant codes, the agency has found it necessary to reissue previously issued, but currently unused plant codes. This shortage has arisen because of the increase over time in the number of tire manufacturers. This increase is projected to continue. However, a recent increase in the number of new plant code applications has completely depleted the supply of previously issued, but currently unused, plant codes. Without taking further action, the agency would be forced to refuse to assign new plant codes, which would make it impossible for new manufacturers to enter the tire market, or to assign identical plant codes to multiple manufacturers, which has the potential for substantial confusion and could impair tire recalls.
To enable the agency to issue new plant codes, the agency proposed to change the two-symbol plant code to a three-symbol plant code. We believe that this is the best long-term solution to the lack of supply of new manufacturer plant codes.
Oyatullohi Maddud, Tire Rack, GASS, RMA, Zhongce and Thailand agreed that NHTSA should begin issuing three-symbol plant codes to new tire manufacturers immediately upon running out of two-symbol codes.
NHTSA has run out of two-symbol plant codes. Therefore, it is necessary to issue this final rule to allow the issuance of three-symbol plant codes to new tire manufacturers. We are adopting the three-symbol plant code as proposed. For existing manufacturers with two-symbol plant codes, the agency will issue new three-symbol plant codes in place of each two-symbol plant code. For nearly all manufacturers, the agency will assign a “1” symbol in front of each existing two-symbol plant code.[2] For example, a manufacturer using two-symbol code “AB” will likely be assigned the three-symbol code “1AB”.
The length of a TIN is not currently standardized. The second and third groupings of the TIN are required to contain no more than two and four symbols, respectively. Thus, the total length of these two groupings may be between zero and six symbols, depending on whether the tire is new or retreaded, and also on decisions by the manufacturer regarding the inclusion of optional codes. The third grouping is optional for all but non-pneumatic tire manufacturers, non-pneumatic tire assembly manufacturers, and tires manufactured for a brand name owner. Based on all of the variations in TIN length allowed, a full TIN for new tires may be anywhere between 6 and 12 symbols (which would go up to 13 after NHTSA adopts a three-symbol plant code).
The nonstandard length of the TIN becomes more complicated by the TIN marking requirements in FMVSS No. 139. As mentioned above, FMVSS No. 139 requires a full TIN to be marked on one side of the tire and either a full TIN or a partial TIN on the other side of the tire. A partial TIN excludes the four-symbol date code and any optional code. Thus, a partial TIN may be as long as eight symbols (if a two-symbol size code is used and a four-symbol third grouping is used).
Because both a full TIN and partial TIN could potentially be eight symbols in length, it may not always be clear whether an eight-symbol TIN obtained from one side of a tire meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 139 is a full TIN or a partial TIN. The last four symbols in a full TIN representing the week and year of manufacture are always numeric. Nevertheless, we do not expect that everyone who records TINs for purposes such as crash reports or consumer complaints is likely to know the requirements for the various groupings of the TIN.
The July 2014 NPRM proposed to standardize the length of a TIN for all tire manufacturers using the three-symbol plant code at 7 symbols for retreaded tires and 13 symbols for new tires. We believed that this would prevent any confusion regarding whether a TIN is a complete TIN or a partial TIN. The proposal allowed manufacturers that have previously been assigned a two-symbol plant code to continue to use the existing TIN grouping requirements until they begin using a three-symbol plant code. We expected that manufacturers to begin using both the three-symbol plant code and the 13-symbol TIN at the same time.
We received comments from JATMA, RMA, Thailand, and the Tire and Rubber Association of Canada regarding the length of the TIN. Tire Rack supported adopting a standardized-length TIN. The other commenters cited the development of a global technical regulation (GTR) on light vehicle tires. The length of the TIN in the adopted GTR is specified as 15 symbols, including an 8-symbol manufacturer code. The commenters were concerned that the 8-symbol manufacturer code in the GTR is different than the 6-symbol code specified in the NPRM. Zhongce questioned the need for the standardized six-symbol manufacturer's code. Zhongce stated that they currently use five symbols for the optional code and questioned the need to add an additional character in existing molds.
After the comment period closed, GTR No. 15 related to passenger car tires was adopted. A TIN is included in GTR No. 15. The TIN format in the GTR is nearly identical to the July 2014 NPRM, with one notable exception. Both the GTR and the NPRM include a three-symbol plant code and a four-symbol date code. However, the GTR has an eight-symbol manufacturer code, whereas the NPRM included a six-symbol manufacturer code. Thus, the total TIN length in the GTR is 15 symbols, instead of the 13 symbols in the NPRM.
We are not making any changes to the proposal related to these comments. Although the GTR was not mentioned in the NPRM, we were aware of the discrepancy between the then-draft GTR and the NPRM at the time of the NPRM, but chose to propose a shorter manufacturer code to minimize the cost transitioning to the new TIN format. Although an 8-symbol manufacturer code is included in the adopted GTR, we believe that a 6-symbol manufacturer code will reduce the costs of standardizing the length of the TIN. No tires currently sold have a TIN longer than 12 symbols. If we were to adopt a 15 symbol TIN, manufacturers would need to allocate space on the tire for at least three extra symbols (and possibly more). Based on the comments received from tire manufacturers regarding the expense of adding of at least one symbol to the TIN, we believe that the costs of adding at least three symbols to the TIN would be much higher. Therefore, we are not modifying the TIN length to expand the manufacturer code to eight symbols.[3]
Moreover, we cannot agree with Zhongce's suggestion to allow the use of shorter manufacturer codes, thereby making the length of the TIN nonstandard. Making all TINs using a three-symbol plant code 13 symbols Start Printed Page 19556long is necessary to ensure the identification of the manufacturer with the TIN. Existing TINs are up to 12 symbols long, but use two-symbol plant codes. If we allow manufacturers with three-symbol plant codes to use TINs that are 12 symbols or shorter, we will have no way of knowing whether the TIN uses a two-symbol or three-symbol plant code. Without knowing that, the manufacturer of the tire cannot be ascertained from the TIN. Thus, it is necessary for NHTSA to specify a 13-symbol TIN to accompany the three-symbol plant code.
In the July 2014 NPRM, we recognized that, for existing manufacturers currently using two-symbol plant codes, immediately requiring the use of a three-symbol plant code and standardized TIN length would impose additional costs with little benefit. The NPRM therefore proposed to make the use of the three-symbol plant code and standardized TIN length optional for existing manufacturers with two-symbol plant codes, beginning immediately upon issuance of a final rule implementing the proposal. NHTSA proposed that mandatory compliance with the use of the three-symbol plant code and 13-symbol TIN would be required beginning not sooner than five years after publication of a final rule implementing the proposal. NHTSA believed that five years would be sufficient lead time before manufacturers would be required to use a three-symbol plant code and 13-symbol TIN.
Several commenters objected to requiring existing manufacturers to use a three-symbol plant code on the basis of cost and inconvenience. JATMA and Korea asserted that existing plants should not be required to adopt three-symbol plant codes because of their concern about the cost and time needed to upgrade existing molds and because they did not believe that there was sufficient space between the certification symbol and a “1” that was inserted before the plant code in an existing mold. Thailand asserted that products produced using a two-symbol plant code should be allowed to continue to be produced using a two-symbol code because increasing the number of symbols would affect cost without improvement in quality. Specialty requested that limited production tires be excluded from any requirement to use a three-symbol plant code because of the cost of modifying those molds.
RMA requested that NHTSA provide additional lead time and further requested that the comment period by extended for RMA to provide additional information on how much lead time they believed would be necessary to minimize costs to the industry. RMA stated that requiring existing plants to convert to 13-symbol TINs imposed substantial burdens on manufacturers not using all of the currently optional portions of the TIN. RMA also stated that the agency was incorrect to assume that the average life of a mold is five years.
RMA suggested that, because NHTSA would soon exhaust the supply of two-symbol codes, NHTSA should go forward with the three-symbol manufacturer identifier and the standardized-length TIN, but consider a longer implementation period. In its comments, RMA and the Tire and Rubber Association of Canada suggested that a 10-year lead time is more appropriate. JATMA and Korea also asserted that a longer lead time was appropriate.
Because of the immediate need for three-symbol plant codes, NHTSA must go forward with a rule allowing the use of three-symbol plant codes. Moreover, to ensure that plant codes for new tires are recognizable, we are moving forward with a requirement that manufacturers who use a three-symbol plant codes use the 13-symbol TIN. NHTSA continues to believe that eventual standardization of TIN length is valuable for ensuring quick identification of the tire manufacturer, for the reasons discussed above. However, in light of the comments received, we are extending the lead time from five years to 10 years for existing plants to adopt the three-symbol plant code and standardized 13-symbol TIN.
NHTSA's proposed five-year lead time was based upon the assumption that the average life of a tire mold is five years. Past rulemakings related to tire labeling have offered five years of lead time or less.[4] Moreover, our assumption was partially based upon RMA's comments on the adoption of FMVSS No. 139 and an NPRM proposing upgrades to truck tire requirements.[5] However, the issues identified by the commenters suggest that the assumptions underlying NHTSA's assertion that manufacturers could replace or modify existing molds to use 13-symbol TINs with minimal costs may be outdated or incorrect.
Therefore, NHTSA has extended the lead time from the five years proposed in the NPRM to 10 years, as suggested by the commenters. We believe that this change, as well as others discussed below, will minimize the impact of this final rule on existing plants.
To estimate the total cost of a 10-year lead time, we have used RMA's estimate that 20,504 molds would need to be modified at an average cost per mold of $957 (valued in 2014 dollars).[6] We believe that RMA members represent approximately 62 percent of new tire production for the U.S. market and non-RMA members represent approximately 38 percent of new tire production for the U.S. market.[7] We have assumed that the 20,504 molds that RMA members are required to modify represent 62 percent of the total molds that will need to be modified as a result of this rule, and that non-RMA members will need to modify 12,612 molds in order to comply with this final rule. Thus, we believe that 33,116 molds will need to be modified at a total cost of approximately $31.7 million.
Although only some molds will need to be modified to comply with this final rule, we expect that the costs of this rule will be spread out over all tires sold, not just tires manufactured in the molds that must be modified. Based on the data provided by RMA in its comments regarding the rates at which molds will be retired over a 5-10 year period, we have used a linear regression to estimate that nearly all molds currently in use today will be retired within 13 years. Given an annual average tire production of approximately 300 million, we believe that approximately 3.6 billion new tires will be produced for the U.S. market during this 13-year period. We expect that the $31.7 million cost of modifying molds could be spread out over all tires produced in this 13-year period.[8] Thus, the average cost increase Start Printed Page 19557of a tire as a result of this rule over the next 13 years is expected to be less than one cent ($0.009).[9]
The July 2014 NPRM proposed minor changes to Figures 1 and 2 of 49 CFR 574.5. For example, the new proposed Figures 1 and 2 included a requirement for a 50 mm blank space following the date code. We received comments from JATMA, RMA, Zhongce, Thailand, the Tire and Rubber Association of Canada, and Korea objecting to this requirement. RMA and the Tire and Rubber Association of Canada also stated that some Canadian tire manufacturers use the 50 mm space following the TIN to display Canada's National Safety Mark, and argued that this proposed requirement represented a barrier to trade that was not justified by safety. RMA noted that this change was not discussed in the preamble to the NPRM. Zhongce and Thailand also argued that the 50 mm blank space requirement may unnecessarily cause difficulties in tire design. Korea suggested that a 20 mm space requirement may be more appropriate.
In light of the potential inconsistency between the proposed specification in Note 3 of Figure 1 that that there be a blank space of at least 50 mm (2 inches) after the date code and Canadian tire marking requirements, we have not included this specification in this final rule. Although we were concerned about the potential for confusing the date code with other information, we did not discuss this matter in the preamble of the NPRM and did not intend to propose it. Moreover, we have no data to suggest that any benefit to the public as a result of this change would be justified by the creation of a potential inconsistency with the Canadian tire labeling requirements.
Separately, RMA suggested that NHTSA remove the 6 mm space requirement between the DOT symbol and the beginning of the TIN. RMA also requested that NHTSA reduce the minimum height requirement for the TIN to 4 mm for all tires rather than only for tires with smaller sidewall areas. RMA stated that these changes would give manufacturers additional flexibility to modify existing molds to include a three-symbol plant code.
We are not adopting these suggestions in this final rule. We believe that the specified minimum space after the DOT symbol ensures that the TIN is distinguished from the certification symbol. Moreover, we believe that the 6 mm letter height (which is currently the requirement for all tires, including those with shorter sidewalls) ensures readability and that the exception for smaller letter height should only apply to tires with shorter sidewalls.
In contrast, Tire Rack suggested that the 6 mm minimum letter height size be maintained throughout the TIN, particularly the date code. Our response is that, for the tires for which the 6 mm minimum letter height requirement applies, that requirement applies to both the TIN and the certification symbol.
Tire Rack also suggested that condensed fonts can be difficult to distinguish and included attachments with specific examples. Tire Rack suggested that NHTSA specify the use of bold fonts and prohibit condensed and lightweight fonts. However, having examined the photographs submitted by Tire Rack, we believe that the letters used in condensed fonts can be distinguished and that specifying/prohibiting bold, condensed, or lightweight fonts is not necessary at this time.
Additionally, on the topic of fonts, we inadvertently proposed to modify Note 1 of Figures 1 and 2 regarding requests for the use of other fonts that are submitted to NHTSA. The proposal would have modified the language to specify that requests are submitted to the “Administrator” rather than the “Administration.” Historically, NHTSA has considered the use of other fonts to be a matter of legal interpretation decided by the Chief Counsel. It was not our intent in the NPRM to reserve this authority to the Administrator. In this final rule, we are specifying that a petition to use an alternate font is submitted to NHTSA.
RMA requested that NHTSA should continue to permit the use of print types that have previously been approved. Nothing in this rulemaking affects previously approved print types, although we have not attempted to list those types in this regulation.
Zhongce suggested that NHTSA remove the specification for font type, or alternatively standardize the height-width ratio of the font. Zhongce argued that the specified fonts are not pleasant looking and manufacturers will want to use other fonts. We have not made any change in response to these comments. The specified fonts (and others approved by NHTSA) were chosen or approved for the ease of distinguishing characters, and the specification of font type has not, to our knowledge, had any effect on tire customers' purchasing decisions. Moreover, although the regulation does not specify the height-width ratio, we believe that the specification of fonts inherently specifies a height-width ratio for the characters. That is, if a manufacturer varies the height-width ratio for a particular font, it may not be using the specified font.
Regarding the allowable fonts, we have discovered that the list of allowable fonts in Figures 1 and 2 has been inadvertently modified to specify that “Future Bold, Modified Condensed” or “Gothic” are the only two allowable fonts. However, the original font specification allowed four fonts: Futura Bold, Futura Modified, Futura Condensed, and Gothic. We have changed the location of the quotation marks and added commas to make clear in Figures 1 and 2 that there are four allowable fonts, not two.
Kojin Kitao requested three clarifications regarding Figures 1 and 2: (1) Whether the DOT symbol and the TIN, or the TIN alone, must be in the specified fonts; (2) whether the entire TIN can be laser etched on a tire as in the proposed Figures 1 and 2, or whether only the date code may be laser etched as specified in § 574.5(d)(1); and (3) clarification on the location of the certification symbol and TIN on certain tires where it appeared that proposed Figure 1 had duplicate language. First, although the proposal stated that both the certification symbol and the TIN must be in the specified fonts, the version of Figures 1 and 2 in this final rule applies the font requirement solely to the TIN. We did not discuss this change in the preamble and did not intend the font requirement to apply to the certification symbol. Second, we intended to allow only the date code to be laser etched on a tire as specified in § 574.5(d)(1). We have eliminated contrary language from Figures 1 and 2 suggesting that other information may be laser etched. Third, we recognize that the proposed language in Figures 1 and 2 regarding the location on the tire for the certification symbol and DOT code contains duplicate language, and we have corrected this duplication. These changes are reflected in this final rule.
Tire Rack included two additional suggestions in its comments. First, it requested that NHTSA standardize the location of the certification symbol by allowing it only to the left of the TIN. Tire Rack requested that NHTSA eliminate Option 2 as depicted in Start Printed Page 19558Figures 1 and 2, which allows the certification symbol to be located above or below the TIN. Tire Rack observed that it had not seen any tires using Option 2 and believes that its use in the future could only cause confusion. Second, Tire Rack suggested that the branding of TINs on tires should be limited to smooth locations on the sidewall and be prohibited from being branded over multiple background surfaces.
We have not adopted these suggested changes. It was not our intent in this rulemaking to make substantive changes to the labeling of the TIN on the tire, other than to accommodate a longer plant code and TIN, and we consider these comments to be outside of the scope of this rulemaking. Moreover, we are concerned that these changes would eliminate flexibility for manufacturers without necessarily improving the ability of the TIN to be quickly understood in order to facilitate safety recalls.
Zhongce and GASS also identified errors in the pictures depicted in Figures 1 and 2. Specifically, some of the dimension lines did not line up with the dimensioning arrows. These errors have been corrected in this final rule.
We received suggestions from GASS and Tire Rack to specify required spacing between the three groupings of symbols of the TIN. We have not adopted this suggestion, because we are concerned that it will eliminate a cost-effective option for converting existing tire molds to a 13-symbol TIN. RMA has suggested that the modification of existing molds that are transferred to new plants will not simply involve the insertion of a “1” in front of the TIN. A mandatory minimum space between the groupings could prevent manufacturers from placing symbols between the existing groupings in order to use 13-symbol TINs on existing molds. We do not seek to impose costs unnecessarily; if this is a cheaper approach to achieve a clearly legible 13-symbol TIN, we would want manufacturers to be able to take advantage of it.
NTSB and SRS [10] commented that the agency should alter the TIN to change the format of the date code. SRS requested that NHTSA use a non-coded date of manufacture. Currently, the last four numbers represent the week and year of manufacture of a tire. The commenters did not specify, however, how NHTSA should require the date of manufacture to be presented on the tire.
Given that we did not propose any changes to the date code portion of the TIN, nor did we discuss or request comment on any potential changes to the date code, such a change may be beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Even if it were in scope, however, we do not believe a change to the date code is necessary for consumers to determine when their tires were manufactured. NHTSA's tire consumer Web site, http://www.safercar.gov/​tires/​index.html, explains in several places how to find and interpret the date code. Furthermore, a person should easily be able to determine the location of the date of manufacture on a tire is located either by querying an internet search engine or by asking a tire dealer.
NTSB and Tire Rack suggested that the use of partial TINs on some tires has not allowed consumers to have necessary information about their tires and requested that full TINs be required on both sides of a tire. This suggestion is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. We did not discuss or propose any changes to the placement of the TIN on one or both sidewalls.
NTSB also suggests that NHTSA enhance the usability of TIN coding by requiring that any coding used by manufacturers be reported to NHTSA and be made public. NTSB particularly notes that the manufacturer, brand name, model, size, and date of manufacture be made available. We are not making the suggested changes. The information referenced by NTSB is already required to be marked on the sidewall of any tire certified to FMVSS requirements. We do not believe that safety would be improved by requiring this information to be additionally included in the TIN itself.
GASS stated that in the first sentence of proposed § 574.5(a)(3) specifying marking requirements for non-pneumatic tires, the agency should specify that, instead of saying the TIN has to be placed “onto one side of” the tire, the agency should specify that it be placed “onto at least one side of” the tire. GASS reasoned that this change would be consistent with requirements for other types of tires. We agree, and we have made this suggested change.
GASS raised other technical issues that we have not adopted. First, GASS suggested that proposed § 574.5(b)(1) and (b)(3) be modified to make explicit references to Figures 1 and 2, as we have done in § 574.5(b)(2). We do not believe this change is necessary. Second, GASS suggested that the list of authorized symbols in § 574.5(f) has the letter “I” instead of the number “1”. This is not correct. The number “1” was used in the NPRM. Third, GASS suggested that the list be modified to make explicit notations of the symbols that are letters and those that are numerals. We do not believe this change is necessary because the context in which the information is presented (alphabetical and numerical order) makes clear which symbols are letters and which are numbers.
RMA stated that in proposed § 574.5(a)(4) regarding the labeling of tires manufactured for mileage-contract purchasers, NHTSA incorrectly converted 0.25 inches into 13 millimeters rather than 6 millimeters. We agree that this conversion was incorrect. We have included the correct metric conversion in this final rule.
Finally, we sought comment on whether it is necessary to make any technical amendment to any of the tire labeling regulations in light of the proposed changes. RMA suggested several other technical amendments that were necessary. First, RMA suggested that NHTSA amend S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 139, which includes language that allows optional codes to be excluded from partial TINs allowed on one sidewall of a tire. However, this final rule does not completely eliminate optional codes. Existing plants with two-symbol plant codes will be allowed to continue to use the old TIN format. Thus, it would be premature to remove the reference to optional codes in FMVSS No. 139.
Second, RMA stated that the Early Warning Reporting (EWR) regulations in 49 CFR 579.26 contain three references that should be corrected. First, the general provisions specify that manufacturers located in the United States may report “the two-character DOT alphanumeric code” identifying the production plant. In addition, paragraphs (a) and (d) contain references to “tire type codes” which, under the new TIN format, would be the manufacturer's code. We agree that 49 CFR 579.26 requires technical corrections for consistency with the changes to part 574, and have included RMA's suggested technical corrections in this final rule.[11]
This final rule will impose costs upon some existing tire manufacturers. New tire manufacturers would be issued three-symbol plant codes immediately and would be required to use the standardized 13-symbol TIN. For these new manufacturers or existing manufacturers opening new plants, this final rule will impose at most negligible costs. Manufacturers constructing new molds for a new plant should be able to comply with the new TIN requirements at no additional cost. For existing plants, new tire manufacturers will be required to modify any molds still in service in 10 years to accommodate a three-symbol plant code and a 13-symbol TIN. As discussed in more detail in section V, above, we expect that, for existing plants, this final rule will result in a one-time cost of approximately $31.7 million to modify molds to accommodate a three-symbol plant code and a 13-symbol TIN. We estimate that this cost could be spread out over all tires produced over a 13-year period, resulting in an increase in cost per tire of less than one cent.
We do not believe that the safety benefits of this final rule can be expressly quantified, but we anticipate that these amendments would benefit the public in two ways. First, without expanding the plant code to three characters, the agency would need either to stop issuing new plant codes or to issue identical codes to multiple manufacturers. Either of these approaches could lead to confusion in the identification of the manufacturer of a tire, particularly those tires that are manufactured for another brand name owner. Second, the standardization of the TIN length eliminates the potential for confusion regarding whether a TIN is a full TIN or a partial TIN, which may assist consumers with identifying whether their tires may be subject to recall and may prevent crash investigators from recording partial TINs rather than full TINs on their reports.
NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule would directly impact manufacturers and retreaders of tires for use on all motor vehicles. Although we believe many manufacturers affected by this final rule are considered small businesses, we do not believe this final rule will have a significant economic impact on those manufacturers. We expect that many changes that need to be made by manufacturers as a result of this final rule be done during the normal mold replacement cycle at no additional cost to manufacturers. The new tire manufacturers that would bear the costs of this rule as discussed in section V, above, are not small businesses. Although some retreaders are likely small businesses, we believe that they can make the modifications required by this final rule without incurring significant costs. The process by which retreaders label tires with TINs is different than for new tire manufacturers. Retreaders do not label TINs on tires using tire molds; rather, they use smaller, less expensive means for labeling tires. We do not believe that this final rule would cause retreaders to modify molds, and we believe that any modifications to TIN labeling methods necessary to comply with this rule could be made at minimal cost.
NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule would not have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” The agency expects that general principles of preemption law would operate so as to displace any conflicting State law or regulations.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of preemption is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceedings before they may file suit in court.Start Printed Page 19560
This final rule will not result in any expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million, adjusted for inflation.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR parts 574 and 579 as follows:
1. Revise the authority citation for part 574 to read as follows:
(5) Optional phase-out of two-symbol plant code. NHTSA will assign to tire manufacturers who were previously assigned a plant code consisting of two symbols a new three-symbol plant code to replace each two-symbol plant code. A manufacturer may continue to use a previously assigned two-symbol plant code until April 13, 2025. Manufacturers who use a two-symbol plant code must comply with paragraph Start Printed Page 19561(g) of this section in lieu of the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section. Retreaders may also optionally comply with paragraph (g) of this section in lieu of paragraph (b) of this section until April 13, 2025.
(b) TIN content requirements—(1) Plant code. The plant code, consisting of three symbols, must be the first group of the TIN. The plant code represents the identity of the new tire manufacturer or retreader. The plant code is assigned to the manufacturer or retreader by NHTSA upon request. See § 574.6.
Note to § 574,6: Additional requirements for new tire manufacturers may be applicable. See 49 CFR parts 551 and 566.
Start Printed Page 19564 Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30102-103, 30112, 30117-121, 30166-167; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.8.
4. Amend § 579.26 by:
a. Revising the fifth sentence of the introductory text;
b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (a); and
c. Revising the second sentence of paragraph (d).
* * * For purposes of this section, the two- or three-character DOT alphanumeric code for production plants located in the United States assigned by NHTSA in accordance with §§ 574.5 and 574.6 of this chapter may be used to identify “plant where manufactured.” * * *
(a) Production information. Information that states the manufacturer's name, the quarterly reporting period, the tire line, the tire size, the tire type code or manufacturer's code, the SKU, the plant where manufactured, whether the tire is approved for use as original equipment on a motor vehicle, if so, the make, model, and model year of each vehicle for which it is approved, the production year, the cumulative warranty production, and the cumulative total production through the end of the reporting period. * * *
(d) Common green tire reporting. * * * For each specific common green tire grouping, the list shall provide all relevant tire lines, tire type codes or manufacturer's code, SKU numbers, brand names, and brand name owners.
Issued on April 3, 2015 in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5.
2. NHTSA will directly contact any manufacturer whose three-symbol plant code is something other than a “1” in front of its existing two-symbol code.
3. RMA notes the inconsistency between the GTR and the NPRM and suggests that NHTSA propose to amend the GTR to be consistent with our final rule. This suggestion is beyond the scope of this rulemaking; however, we plan to request that the GTR be amended to harmonize with this final rule.
4. See 64 FR 36807 (Jul. 8, 1999) (four digit date code); 63 FR 28912 (May 27, 1998) (metric labeling on truck tires).
5. See 67 FR 69600, 69608 (Nov. 18, 2002) (RMA comment that mold life expectancy is up to five years); Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0132-0018, at 4 (comments of RMA on truck tire NPRM stating that the average mold life for radial truck and bus tires is five years).
6. We believe that $957 per mold represents a high estimate of the cost of modifying a mold. Some molds may be modified simply by inserting new screw-in plates or a similarly uncomplicated process at substantially less than $957 per mold. However, in order to provide a conservative cost estimate, we will assume the cost per mold estimated by RMA.
7. See Factbook 2014—Summary ed., Rubber Manufacturers Association.
8. We believe the costs can be spread out over such a long period, in part, because there is no gradual phase-in for existing plants. That is, all molds that need to be modified will not need to be modified until 2025. The only molds we expect to be modified during the first half of the 10-year lead time would be molds that are moved from one plant to another. Those molds would already require some modification under the current requirements and we would reasonably expect that the additional modifications to those molds as a result of this rule could be done at a relatively low cost.
9. We have not considered retreaders in this analysis because we believe that the process by which retreaders label the TIN on a tire does not require modification of molds. We expect the cost of any modifications that retreaders may be required to make as a result of this final rule to be negligible.
10. SRS also raised other matters in its comments. However, none of those matters are related to this rulemaking.
11. RMA also provided a list of non-regulatory changes that RMA believes are necessary to accommodate this final rule. RMA included suggested changes to the instructions for EWR reporting, the templates for EWR reporting, and potential changes to the Artemis database system. We will consider whether the changes to the EWR reporting instructions and templates are necessary. We believe that the Artemis database system is presently capable of accommodating three-symbol plant codes.
[FR Doc. 2015-08418 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am]