Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer Information Program

Federal RegisterMar 30, 2010

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 575

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0036]

RIN 2127-AK45

Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer Information Program

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This document establishes the test procedures to be used by tire manufacturers in a new consumer information program to generate comparative performance information to inform consumers about the effect of their choices among replacement passenger car tires on fuel efficiency, safety, and durability. When this program is fully established, this information will be provided to consumers at the point of sale and online. This information will encourage the purchase of better performing replacement tires.

In order to provide this agency with time needed to conduct additional consumer testing and resolve important issues raised by public comments on the agency's proposal regarding the program, this rule does not specify how the information will be explained and provided to consumers. After a public meeting regarding the agency's draft plan for additional testing, NHTSA will proceed with the testing and then develop and publish a new proposal for these aspects of the new program.

DATES:

Today's final rule is effective June 1, 2010. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 1, 2010.

The various compliance dates for these regulations are set forth, as applicable, in § 575.106(e)(1)(iii).

Petitions for reconsideration must be received by May 14, 2010.

ADDRESSES:

Petitions for reconsideration must be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:

For policy and technical issues:

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:

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. Summary of NPRM

1. Proposed 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. Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards

6. Proposed Consumer Education Program

7. Benefits and Costs

8. Lead Time

D. Brief Summary of Public Comments on the NPRM

E. Final Rule

1. Test Procedures

2. Rolling Resistance Rating Metric

3. Label

4. Information Dissemination and Reporting Requirements for Tire Manufacturers and Tire Retailers

5. Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards

6. Consumer Education Program

7. Benefits and Costs

8. 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

B. Efforts by Other Governments To Establish Consumer Information Programs To Address These Issues

1. California

2. European Union

3. Japan

C. Mandates in Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 for a 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. Scope of the Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer Information Program

A. Which Tires Must Be Rated?

1. Passenger Car Tires

2. Replacement Tires

3. Tires Excluded

4. Voluntary Rating of Tires Not Subject to the Program

5. Each Different Stock Keeping Unit Must Be Rated

B. Entities Subject to Requirements of the Program

1. Tire Manufacturers

2. Tire Retailers

C. EISA Does Not Give NHTSA Authority To Establish a Rolling Resistance Performance Standard for Replacement Passenger Car Tires

IV. Rolling Resistance Test Procedure

A. Test Procedure

B. Lab Alignment Procedure

V. Rolling Resistance Rating Metric

VI. Rating System

A. What Information Will the Rating System Convey to Consumers?

1. Fuel Efficiency

2. Safety

i. Potential Safety Consequences

ii. Test Procedure

3. Durability

B. How Will the Rating System Information be Conveyed to Consumers?

VII. Information Dissemination and Reporting Requirements for Tire Manufacturers and Retailers

A. Requirements for Tire Retailers

1. NHTSA Will Re-Propose Information Dissemination Requirements for Tire Retailers

2. NHTSA Will Re-Propose Requirements Regarding the Label

B. Requirements for Tire Manufacturers

1. NHTSA Will Re-Propose Requirements Regarding Communication of Ratings

2. Data Reporting

C. Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards

D. Advertising

VIII. NHTSA's Consumer Education Program

IX. Benefits and Costs

A. Benefits

B. Costs

X. Lead Time

XI. Enforcement

XII. Regulatory Alternatives

XIII. Conforming Amendments to Part 575

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 final rule is being issued pursuant to the Energy Independence

and Security Act of 2007 (EISA),

which was enacted in December 2007. EISA includes 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 the effect of tire choices on fuel economy or the potential tradeoffs between tire fuel efficiency and tire safety and durability.

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 and concern. The 240 million passenger cars and light trucks in the United States consume about 135 billion gallons of motor fuel annually.

Finding ways to reduce this energy consumption is a national goal for reasons ranging from ensuring economic and national security to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving local air quality. 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 people buying them to place on their own vehicles, they are also matters of even broader public interest as they may influence the safety performance of vehicles on the nation's highways.

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. To better inform consumers, EISA requires that NHTSA develop requirements for providing this information to consumers, and a national tire maintenance consumer education program. Consumers need to inflate and maintain their tires properly so that they can 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.

However, TPMSs are not a substitute for proper tire maintenance. Motorists must be reminded of the fact that even small losses in inflation pressure can reduce tire treadwear life, fuel efficiency, and operating performance.

See

Final Rule, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems, Controls and Displays, 70 FR 18136 (April 8, 2005).

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”).

The tire fuel efficiency consumer information program will require tire manufacturers to rate their replacement tires for fuel efficiency, safety, and durability based on test procedures specified in this final rule. These test procedures address three aspects of tire performance: rolling resistance, wet traction and treadwear life. As noted above and described in further detail below, rolling resistance is a measurement of fuel efficiency. A measurement of wet traction is intended to indicate a tire's ability to stop on wet pavement. Thus, wet traction is a metric that measures an aspect of safety. A treadwear rating measures a tire's wear rate compared with that of control tires. Treadwear life, therefore, is a measure of durability.

Comparing the three different ratings for different replacement tires will enable consumers to see how different replacement tires can affect the fuel economy they are getting from their vehicles. This will also enable consumers to see the tradeoffs they may be facing between fuel efficiency, safety (

i.e.,

wet traction), and durability (

i.e.,

treadwear life), and how the balance of these factors may differ from tire to tire. Providing information regarding all three types of performance will help to ensure that no single aspect is given disproportionate attention. NHTSA's research found that while changing tire construction to improve fuel efficiency need not sacrifice wet traction or treadwear, maintaining the same wet traction performance and treadwear while increasing the fuel efficiency of a given tire often entails higher costs.

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 be changed in ways that sacrifice other factors.

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). Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0121-0035.

In developing the rule, 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 specifying the test procedure by which NHTSA will evaluate the accuracy of the rolling resistance rating assigned by the tire manufacturer. For the safety and durability rating, this final rule specifies that the agency will use previously established test procedures for wet traction and treadwear to evaluate the accuracy of the safety and durability ratings assigned by the tire manufacturer, respectively.

NHTSA is not specifying the content or requirements of the consumer information and education portions of the program at this time. In light of the important objectives of this rulemaking, we are continuing to work to improve the content and format of the consumer information so that consumers will, in fact, be adequately informed. Specifically, NHTSA will be conducting additional consumer testing to explore how consumers will best comprehend information in each of the three categories discussed above. After additional consumer testing, NHTSA will publish a new proposal for the consumer information and consumer education portions of this new program.

Prompting NHTSA to pursue a deeper examination of consumers' comprehension of comparative tire information, several comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) suggested the agency consider additional indicators for the proposed label that would provide some understanding of what the ratings meant in terms of the choices available to a consumer. These suggestions included the use of an icon or mark on the labels to help consumers at a glance identify the most fuel efficient tire—an idea NHTSA had sought comment on in the NPRM—and suggestions that the ratings show high and low demarcations reflecting the range of ratings within the same size so that consumers and retailers would not become disenchanted with the system if they could not purchase or provide any top-rated tires in the size for the consumer's vehicle. Another commenter expressed concern with the idea of a mark for the best performers in the fuel efficiency rating category, as it could imply government endorsement and the commenter stated such endorsement should not be given unless it was to the safest tire.

These comments, as well as comments from other Federal agencies, have led NHTSA to recognize that a revised consumer research methodology could provide advanced understanding of how the presentation of relative rating information affects consumers' perceptions of the relevance of the information, and what motivates consumers to act in accordance with the information they have learned. Through additional consumer research, and a continued open dialog with interested stakeholders, NHTSA will consider how to best promote consumer understanding of the real-world benefits and possible tradeoffs involved in selecting tires at various points along relevant scales.

To further the development of the consumer information and consumer education portions of the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program, NHTSA recently announced that it will hold a public meeting on a new draft consumer research plan on Friday March 26, 2010 at the U.S. Department of Transportation Headquarters building.

The agency has opened a new docket for the public meeting, Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0018, and on that docket interested members of the public can access the draft research plan, early agency consumer research, and any written comments submitted at the meeting or in response to the meeting notice. NHTSA will consider the public comments received in developing a research plan to aid in the development of consumer information requirements and NHTSA's consumer education plan regarding tire fuel efficiency. NHTSA will also continue to consider comments received on the NPRM relating to the consumer information and education portions of the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program. A continued open dialog will allow interested stakeholders to further explicate their ideas of what they believe should be included in a successful tire fuel efficiency consumer information program, and how this information can best be communicated. The new consumer research will further inform these concepts by indicating in what form consumers are most likely to understand information, and act in accordance with what they have learned.

Notice of Public Meeting; Tire Fuel Efficiency, 75 FR 11806 (March 12, 2010), Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0018-0001.

In developing this final rule, the agency consulted with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on many issues. Since the NPRM, the agency has received nearly 600 pages of comments, which have been carefully reviewed and considered. When developing the supplemental NPRM for the consumer information requirements, NHTSA will continue to consider and evaluate comments received on the NPRM. NHTSA will also continue to consult with EPA, DOE, and other Federal agencies experienced with energy efficiency consumer information programs on the development of the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program.

NHTSA has also prepared a companion Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA) that provides an analysis on the potential economic impacts of this consumer information program, which is available in the docket for this final rule.

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 National Academy of Sciences (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.

Many factors affect a vehicle's fuel economy, including its tires' rolling resistance,

i.e.,

the force needed to make the tires roll. The 2006 NAS report estimated that 4 percent (urban) to 7 percent (highway) of the energy created by a 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 replacement tires and its impact on vehicle fuel economy is not readily available.

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. Per the President's May 19, 2009 announcement, on September 28, 2009, NHTSA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a joint NPRM, 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.

This joint proposal reflects a carefully coordinated and harmonized approach to implementing these two statutes. The new standards propose a significant increase in fuel economy by 2016. This consumer tire information program is one of the actions that will contribute towards the larger goals of energy independence and security. In comparison to CAFE standards, which apply to new vehicle fuel economy, this rule has goals of improving fuel economy for the existing fleet of vehicles, as replacement tires are purchased and installed.

Proposed Rulemaking to Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 74 FR 49454 (Sept. 28, 2009).

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 titled “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. Summary of NPRM

1. Proposed Test Procedures

The NPRM proposed to require tire manufacturers to rate the fuel efficiency of their tires using a measurement obtained with a test procedure recently finalized by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), ISO 28580:2009(E),

Passenger car, truck and bus tyres—Methods of measuring rolling resistance—Single point test and correlation of measurement results

(hereinafter referred to as ISO 28580).

The choice of which test procedure to specify for measuring rolling resistance is important because measuring rolling resistance requires precise instrumentation, calibration, test conditions, and equipment alignment for repeatable results. As explained in detail in the NPRM, 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.

See

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer Information Program, 74 FR 29542 (June 22, 2009); Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0121-0014 (hereinafter “Tire Fuel Efficiency NPRM”).

As for the safety and durability ratings, due to the statutory timeline within which this rulemaking must be completed, NHTSA proposed to use traction and treadwear test procedures that are already specified under another tire rating system, the uniform tire quality grading standards (UTQGS).

See

49 CFR 575.104 (2008).

2. Proposed Rolling Resistance Rating Metric

The NPRM proposed 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 test load. The proposed European tire fuel efficiency rating system specifies tire ratings based on RRC. NHTSA proposed to base the rolling resistance rating on the RRF metric because such a rating 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, the NPRM proposed a label that contains an individual tire's ratings for fuel efficiency (

i.e.,

rolling resistance), safety (

i.e.,

wet traction), and durability (

i.e.,

treadwear), and which was similar to a ratings label that tested well in consumer research conducted by NHTSA. Prior to the NPRM, NHTSA conducted focus group studies in which it presented several labels using different graphics and scales to relay the ratings. The proposed label showed 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 red and green shading, with red indicating lower/worse ratings and green indicating higher/better ratings. Other graphics presented in NHTSA's consumer research were discussed in the NPRM.

4. Proposed Information Dissemination and Reporting Requirements for Tire Manufacturers and Tire Retailers

For tire manufacturers, NHTSA proposed 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 fuel savings estimator tool that allows easy comparison of fuel savings between various replacement tires. Regarding labeling, we proposed to require tire manufacturers to print the tire fuel efficiency graphic in color along with any other information manufacturers include on an existing paper label on the tire.

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 proposed 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 also proposed a requirement that tire retailers must display a poster that NHTSA would print and distribute that would explain the rating system and encourage consumers to compare ratings across tires. Finally, for tire manufacturers and retailers that maintain a Web site, the agency proposed to require those Web sites to link to the comprehensive tire Web site we will be developing as part of the national tire maintenance consumer education program. The agency also sought 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. Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards

In the NPRM, the agency considered the need and appropriateness of continuing the current UTQGS requirements. NHTSA explained that if the agency maintained the current safety and treadwear UTQGS ratings, there would be concerns about consumer confusion as well as unnecessary duplication. For this and other reasons explained in the NPRM, the agency 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 rule.

6. Proposed Consumer Education Program

The NPRM identified and sought 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. Some of NHTSA's ideas for consumer education included 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 government Web site on tires containing a database of all tire rating information. NHTSA also

announced that we are planning to develop a comparative fuel savings estimator 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 estimator, 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, the NPRM announced plans to develop and form new partnerships to distribute educational messages about tire fuel efficiency and tire maintenance. NHTSA explained that we will seek to partner with any interested tire retailers, and State or local governments, as well as manufacturers who share NHTSA's goal of promoting the importance of proper tire maintenance. The NPRM also stated that we will seek to partner with universities, colleges 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.

7. Benefits and Costs

As explained in the NPRM, it is intended that the rule will have benefits in terms of fuel economy, safety, and durability. At the very least, the rule should enable consumers to make more informed decisions about these variables, thus increasing benefits of the factors that most matter to them. Because the agency could not foresee precisely how much the proposed consumer information program would affect consumer tire purchasing behavior and could not foresee the reduction in rolling resistance among improved tires, the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) estimated 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 developed estimates assuming that between 2 percent and 10 percent of targeted tires are improved and that the average reduction in rolling resistance among improved tires is between 5 percent and 10 percent. Under these hypothetical assumptions, the PRIA estimated that the proposal would save 7.9 to 78 million gallons of fuel and prevent the emission of between 76,000 and 757,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO

) annually. The values of the fuel savings were between $22 and $220 million at a 3 percent discount rate and between $20 and $203 million at a 7 percent discount rate.

The PRIA estimated the annual cost of NHTSA's proposal to be between $18.9 and $52.8 million. This included 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 anticipated one-time costs of around $4 million, including initial testing costs of $3.7 million and reporting start-up costs of $280,000.

8. Lead Time

NHTSA proposed to require tire manufacturers to meet applicable requirements for all existing replacement tires within 12 months of the issuance of a final regulation. For new tires introduced after the effective date of this rule, NHTSA proposed 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, in retailers that have a display room, the agency proposed to make this poster available within 12 months of the issuance of a final regulation. At that time NHTSA would publish a

Federal Register

notice announcing the availability of the poster. The agency proposed 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 proposed that a tire retailer would 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 proposed that those Web sites link to NHTSA's tire Web site within 12 months of the issuance of a final regulation.

D. Brief Summary of Public Comments on the NPRM

Scope of the program:

Some consumer and safety groups suggested that NHTSA require that tire manufacturers include the new tire ratings in advertisements for tires. Further, these groups, a tire manufacturer, and ExxonMobil Chemical Company (ExxonMobil) urged NHTSA to contemplate a standard for tire fuel efficiency performance. ExxonMobil also suggested that NHTSA establish a minimum inflation pressure retention loss rate for tires to minimize the air loss characteristics of tires. Various commenters sought confirmation of which entities would be considered tire manufacturers and tire retailers under the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program, as well as confirmation of the different tires types of tires that were not required to be rated under the program. Multiple commenters also asked whether tires that were not required to be included under the program could be voluntarily rated under the program.

Rolling resistance test procedure:

Various commenters urged us to adopt the full ISO 28580 test procedure. MTS Systems Corp. (MTS), a test equipment manufacturer, suggested a different test method using a flat surface test machine rather than a road wheel. Several commenters also noted the need for NHTSA to specify a reference test machine since the ISO test procedure needs one for the alignment of results between different measurement machines, but the ISO has not yet designated one.

Rolling resistance rating metric:

Tire Rack (an online tire retailer), Consumers Union (non-profit publisher of Consumer Reports magazine), and ExxonMobil expressed support for using RRF as the metric on which the agency should base the fuel efficiency rating. The tire manufacturers, a tire test equipment manufacturer, the European Commission, Japan Automobile Tyre Manufacturers Association (JATMA), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC, an environmental group), and General Motors (GM) commented that RRC would be a better metric for a fuel efficiency rating than RRF. These commenters argued that basing a fuel efficiency rating on RRC would spread out ratings for tires available to a single consumer so that the consumer would be able to get a top rated tire.

Safety:

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) supported the inclusion of tire safety information in the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program, and stated that the program should not promote cost savings at the expense of safety. JATMA supported the use of the current UTQGS traction grading test method as the basis for a safety rating for purposes of the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program. Tire Rack stated that NHTSA should base the safety rating on an average of the slide and peak coefficients of friction, the measurements of traction obtained via the traction test procedure. Consumers Union stated that the safety (wet

traction) rating scale should be revised to define a span that is most appropriate to the level of performance commonly found in current replacement tires while still leaving room for future improvement. The Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA, a tire industry trade association) argued that EISA did not give NHTSA the authority to establish a new rating system for consumer information on tire safety. RMA contended that the derivation of the safety rating formula from the wet traction test measurements was not explained well in the NPRM and that they were unable to comment on it.

Durability:

Michelin North America (Michelin, a tire manufacturer) commented that NHTSA should specify changes to the UTQGS treadwear procedure to yield more truly representative wear results. Michelin also commented that the durability (treadwear) rating scale should be adjusted because the ratings of some current replacement tires would far exceed the top rating on the scale. RMA argued that EISA did not give NHTSA the authority to establish a new rating system for consumer information on tire durability.

Overall rating:

The tire manufacturers, MTS, Tire Rack, Advocates, and NRDC did not support an overall rating. Consumers Union, as well as other consumer and safety groups (Public Citizen

et al.

)

did support some form of an overall rating.

Public Citizen, Center for Auto Safety, Consumer Federation of America, and Safe Climate Campaign submitted joint comments to the NPRM.

See

Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0121-0043.1. Throughout this notice, we will refer to these as Public Citizen

et al.

comments.

Label:

NRDC, a private citizen, and Public Citizen

et al.

suggested the inclusion of a best-in-class (EnergyStar-type) endorsement for the most fuel efficient tires. Relatedly, to facilitate comparisons, Consumers Union and Tire Rack suggested the ratings show high and low demarcations reflecting the range of ratings for tires of the same size. Public Citizen

et al.

supported providing all the ratings on the same scale. Ford Motor Company (Ford) and Advocates suggested using the UTQGS scales for the traction and treadwear ratings, as opposed to the proposed 0-100 scale. Advocates expressed support for the green-red color coding, while Michelin stated that the transfer of information to consumers cannot be wholly dependent upon color. Tire manufacturers supported a five category tire efficiency rating system, as opposed to the proposed 0-100 rating scale. RMA argued that EISA does not give NHTSA authority to provide consumer information on a tire's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Numerous commenters submitted suggestions about terminology on the label, the ordering of the rating scales, the required size of the tire label, additional disclaimers to place on the label, and alternate graphic icons for the rating scales. RMA and the European Commission opposed the inclusion of tire manufacture date on the tire label, an issue on which NHTSA sought comment in the NPRM, but did not propose regulatory language. Public Citizen

et al.

suggested that the tire identification number (TIN), which NHTSA's safety standards require be molded onto the tire, be included on the paper label. Public Citizen

et al.,

as well as the Tire Industry Association (TIA), expressed concern that the paper label may not provide consumers with information at a useful time in influencing purchasing decisions.

Information Dissemination and Reporting Requirements

•

Tire manufacturer requirements:

Tire manufacturers expressed support of the interpolation of test values for purposes of data reporting. Other commenters generally opposed the interpolation of test values. RMA opposed the proposed data reporting requirements. NRDC supported requiring manufacturers to report rolling resistance data. The International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) agreed with the proposal that manufacturers should be required to report which tires are exempted, and the basis for the exemption. Similarly, Michelin expressed support for requiring tire manufacturers to report which tires qualify for the low volume exemption and are not labeled.

•

Tire retailer requirements:

Consumers Union suggested that NHTSA provide further guidance on how best to ensure that consumers can see the educational poster at the point of sale. RMA suggested that instead of requiring the proposed ratings graphic appear on a tire label, NHTSA should require that the rating information be made available to consumers at the point of sale. TIA commented that NHTSA underestimates the importance of dialogue between sales associates and consumers at the point of sale, and suggested that sales associates should be trained to communicate the information provided in the new rating system. Similarly, Public Citizen

et al.,

Ford, the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) and ICCT encouraged the adoption of additional requirements beyond requiring the retailer keep the label on the tire until it is sold, reasoning that relatively few consumers see tires before they buy them as there are limited number of tires on display in tire retailers.

Uniform tire quality grading standards:

Tire manufacturers, Tire Rack, and Consumers Union expressed support for the idea of replacing the UTQGS requirements with the requirements created under the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program. These commenters cite the facts that this new rating system will be on a different scale and will be based on different test measurements than the UTQGS grading system, which may cause consumer confusion. Public Citizen

et al.

supported NHTSA's continuing to provide the temperature resistance rating along with the other UTQGS ratings, and stated that the temperature resistance rating should be incorporated into the new tire fuel efficiency consumer information program rating system.

Consumer education program:

Numerous commenters suggested various messages that NHTSA should be communicating to promote the success of the consumer education program. Many commenters stated that much of the effectiveness of this rating system will depend on the success and reach of the consumer education program, informing consumers of the meaning of the new rating system and of the importance of proper tire inflation and maintenance.

Benefits and costs:

NRDC and ICCT commented that our benefits are underestimated due to NHTSA's underestimation of the impact of reduced rolling resistance on fuel economy. RMA predicted higher testing, labeling, and tire improvement costs than NHTSA. RMA also commented that NHTSA overestimates benefits.

Lead time:

Tire manufacturers, the European Commission, and JATMA requested more lead time than the twelve months NHTSA proposed in the NPRM.

Enforcement:

ICCT and MTS commented that NHTSA should tighten the compliance tolerance bands that it gave in the NPRM, and emphasized that compliance tolerances are important because consumers should have confidence that the tires they are buying are accurately labeled. RMA expressed support for requiring reported ratings must be less than or equal to the rating determined by the agency in compliance testing. RMA opposed the tolerance band concept for compliance. RMA also requested clarification of how NHTSA intends to apply the new civil penalties provision.

E. Final Rule

The final rule adopts the test procedure provisions of the NPRM summarized above in section I.C, with the changes discussed below made in response to the public comments on the NPRM. This final rule also clarifies the scope of the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program, and responds to numerous comments on related issues.

As explained above, NHTSA is not specifying the content or requirements of the consumer information and education portions of the program at this time, but will be issuing a new proposal on these portions of the program after engaging in additional consumer research. NHTSA is also not finalizing information dissemination requirements for tire manufacturers or tire retailers in this final rule, as further consumer research may indicate how consumers best comprehend ratings and other consumer information. However, as discussed further below, this final rule does specify that NHTSA will require tire manufacturers to report ratings, but not test data, to the agency as part of the data reporting requirements of the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program.

1. Test Procedures

EISA mandates that this rulemaking include “specifications for test methods for manufacturers to use in assessing and rating tires to avoid variation among test equipment and manufacturers.”

As proposed in the NPRM, this final rule requires tire manufacturers to rate the fuel efficiency of their tires. To test for compliance with this requirement, NHTSA will use a measurement obtained using the recently approved test procedure ISO 28580:2009(E),

Passenger car, truck and bus tyres—Methods of measuring rolling resistance—Single point test and correlation of measurement results.

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

See http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=44770

(last accessed Sept. 24, 2009).

As explained in detail in the NPRM, the ISO 28580 test method is unique in that it specifies a procedure to correlate results between different test equipment (

i.e.,

different rolling resistance test machines). This is important because our research shows that machine-to-machine differences are a significant source of variation. As discussed below, the ISO has not yet completed all aspects of this procedure. NHTSA is nonetheless specifying the ISO 28580 test procedure in this final rule because EISA specifically directs the agency to avoid the type of significant variation that the ISO 28580 lab alignment procedure takes into account, but other established test methods do not. Further, the ISO 28580 test procedure is the specified test method in the European Union Directive and in the staff recommendations for a California regulation, allowing manufacturers to do one test to determine ratings for multiple regulations.

As commenters pointed out, under ISO 28580, use of the lab alignment procedure depends on the specification of a reference test machine against which all other labs will align their measurement results. Because the ISO has not yet specified a reference lab for the ISO 28580 test procedure, NHTSA must specify this laboratory for the purposes of implementing this rule so that tire manufacturers know the identity of the machine against which they may correlate their test results. In the near future, NHTSA will announce one or more private laboratories to operate the reference test machine(s) for the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program.

It is not the intent of NHTSA to unilaterally establish the reference machine for ISO or other global regions. Rather, the agency must define a “regional” reference machine for the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program that is independent of entities we regulate and is accessible to the agency by standard contractual mechanisms. This will allow reporting under the program and agency compliance testing that meet the requirements of EISA. It is our understanding that the output of a given “candidate” machine can be corrected using the appropriate correlation equations and, therefore, different entities/rating systems could also designate their own reference machines.

Under the ISO 28580 lab alignment procedure, machine alignment is conducted using batches of alignment tires of two models with defined differences in rolling resistance that are certified on the reference test machine. ISO 28580 specifies requirements for these alignment tires (“Lab Alignment Tires” or LATs), but specific sizes or models of LATs are not specifically identified in ISO 28580. Therefore, NHTSA must also specify which LATs tire manufacturers should use to align other rolling resistance machines to the reference lab. Since specifications and source of supply for these LATs has not yet been finalized, NHTSA will postpone the specification of LATs to a later date. NHTSA will address available LAT options in the forthcoming supplemental NPRM relating to the consumer information requirements and consumer education portions of the program.

Because bias ply tires are included in the scope of the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program, NHTSA is also specifying a break-in procedure for bias ply tires, in order to warm up these types of tires up before ISO 28580 testing.

This roadwheel break-in procedure that will be used for bias ply tires is adopted from already established Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Bias ply tire design is an older internal construction tire design. Radial ply construction of tires has been the industry standard for the past 20 years, and the vast majority of passenger car tires on the market today are of radial construction.

As for the safety and durability ratings, NHTSA is specifying the use of the test procedures that are already specified under the UTQGS. For the traction test, because we are requiring the collection of slightly different data than under the UTQGS traction test method, a one-time modification in the software used in the test equipment may be necessary. The agency will continue to examine other metrics to see if they could prove more effective in providing consumer information about safety and durability.

2. Rolling Resistance Rating Metric

Based on the large number of comments received on this issue, and to retain flexibility to use what the agency learns about consumer comprehension from the future consumer research, NHTSA will defer a decision on which rolling resistance metric should be used for the fuel efficiency rating and consider that matter further in the future supplemental NPRM and final rule that will finalize the consumer information and education portions of the program.

3. Consumer Information Program Requirements

NHTSA is not specifying the content or requirements of the consumer information program at this time. In light of the important objectives of this rulemaking, we are continuing to work to improve the content and format of the consumer information so that consumers will, in fact, be adequately informed. After additional consumer testing, NHTSA will publish a new proposal for the consumer information portion of this new program in a supplemental NPRM.

4. Information Dissemination and Reporting Requirements for Tire Manufacturers and Tire Retailers

NHTSA is requiring that tire manufacturers report the three ratings for each tire to the agency. Unlike the proposed data reporting requirements, NHTSA is not requiring manufacturers to report test measurements. This is due to concerns that this information being public could cause competitive harm to tire manufacturers. Requiring the

submission of such data would make public each manufacturer's statistical approach to risk in terms of how each manufacturer is rating tires to prevent the possibility of non-compliance.

NHTSA will also require tire manufacturers to report which tire models and sizes are excluded from the scope of this program, and thus not rated, because this information would be useful to consumers who wish to understand which tires are not rated and why. NHTSA will make this information available on its tire Web site. For manufacturers that are otherwise required to report ratings data, this information should be included with those data submissions. For manufacturers that only produce limited production tires, or other tires that are excluded from the applicability of today's program, these manufacturers must provide a one-time list of each one of its tire models/sizes, and a statement that every one of its tire models/sizes is excluded from the applicability of this regulation and, thus, is not rated. NHTSA will make this information on which tires are excluded from the new rating system available on its tire Web site.

Although NHTSA neither proposed to publish such data submitted to the agency, nor to post such data on the comprehensive tire Web site, such information in the possession of the agency would be subject to Freedom of Information Act requests and the agency does not believe it could deny such a request.

Regarding labeling, as noted above, NHTSA is not specifying the content or requirements of the consumer information program at this time. In light of the important objectives of this rulemaking, we are continuing to work to improve the content and format of the label so that consumers will, in fact, be adequately informed. After additional consumer testing, NHTSA will publish a new proposal for the consumer information portion of this new program in a supplemental NPRM.

As for requirements for tire retailers, for similar reasons discussed above, in order to have the full benefit of any new understanding of how consumers best comprehend information gained from the agency's new consumer research, NHTSA will re-propose requirements for tire retailers in the supplemental NPRM on the consumer information and education portion of the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program.

5. Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards

NHTSA is retaining the UTQGS requirements at this time, including the UTQGS treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance ratings. However, if a future final rule finalizes that ratings under the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program must be printed on a paper label on each passenger car replacement tire, NHTSA will consider removing the UTQGS requirement of molding UTQGS ratings onto tires, and the UTQGS requirement of printing UTQGS information on the paper tire label when a tire is labeled in accordance with the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program requirements. The requirements to report UTQGS grading information to NHTSA would remain. As such, the UTQGS ratings would still be available to interested consumers, vehicle manufacturers, and tire retailers, but a consumer looking at a tire would not be confronted with different and confusing rating scales. NHTSA wants to study further the likely consequences of discontinuing the temperature resistance rating before making a decision about the future UTQGS requirements. NHTSA is making no changes to UTQGS requirements in this final rule.

6. Consumer Education Program

For similar reasons discussed above, in order to have the full benefit of any new understanding of how consumers best comprehend information gained from the agency's new consumer research, NHTSA will re-propose its ideas for the consumer education portion of the program in the supplemental NPRM on the consumer information and education portions of the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program. The supplemental NPRM will newly propose and seek comment on numerous ways that NHTSA could implement a consumer education program to inform consumers about the effect of tire properties and tire maintenance on vehicle fuel efficiency, safety, and durability. The supplemental NPRM will also discuss some of the messages that NHTSA believes will be key to a successful tire fuel efficiency consumer information program.

Within the next year, NHTSA will begin developing a new government Web site on tires, which will be linked directly from

http://www.safercar.gov/.

It will contain all the information on NHTSA's current tire Web site (also located within

http://www.safercar.gov

), as well as links to other useful Web sites that contain educational information about tire maintenance.

In furtherance of the objectives of consumer education program, the supplemental NPRM will seek comment on the structure and content of the tire Web site. NHTSA's tire Web site will eventually contain a database of all tire rating information.

NHTSA's current online tire information can be found at

http://www.nhtsa.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.c6b5d461a04337a1ba7d9d1046108a0c/and http://www.safercar.gov/portal/site/safercar/menuitem.13dd5c887c7e1358fefe0a2f35a67789/?vgnextoid=0e0aaa8c16e35110VgnVCM1000002fd17898RCRD

(last accessed Sept. 24, 2009).

7. Benefits and Costs

It is hoped that the final rule will have benefits in terms of fuel economy, safety, and durability. At the very least, the final rule should enable consumers to make more informed decisions about these variables, thus increasing benefits in ways that most matter to them. It is possible that the rule will help promote innovation that will provide benefits to consumers in all three areas of tire performance. Because the agency cannot foresee precisely how much today's consumer information program will affect consumer tire purchasing behavior and cannot foresee the reduction in rolling resistance among improved tires (we estimate the potential range of rolling resistance improvement to be between 5 and 10 percent), the FRIA 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. For example, if we assume that 1 percent of targeted tires (1.4 million tires) are improved and that the average reduction in rolling resistance is 5 percent, then under these hypothetical assumptions, the proposal is estimated to save 3 million gallons of fuel and prevent the emission of 29,000 metric tons of CO

annually. The value of these savings is $11.6 million at a 3 percent discount rate.

If 1 percent of targeted tires are improved at an average cost of $3 per tire, the annual cost of NHTSA's final rule is estimated to be $9.4 million. This includes annual testing costs of $3.8 million, annual reporting costs of around $113,000, annual costs to the Federal Government of $1.3 million, and annual costs of $4.23 million to improve tires. This does not include annual costs for labeling. Since this final rule does not require a label, NHTSA will account for costs of a label when the requirement is re-proposed in the supplementary NPRM addressing consumer information requirements. In the first year, NHTSA anticipates one-time costs of $34.8 million, including the same costs noted above except changes in initial testing costs of $33.1 million, no one-time costs to improve

tires (NHTSA only assumes this as a subsequent annual cost, not an initial cost), and reporting start-up costs of almost $400,000.

Table 1 shows cost and benefit estimates developed to date, which may change based on further study on the design of the consumer information requirements. The assumptions are that silica technology is used at a cost of $3 per tire, that this technology improves rolling resistance and has no or slightly favorable impacts on wet traction and treadwear. The estimates below assume that 1 percent of targeted tires are sold with improved rolling resistance.

Table 1—Total Benefits and Costs Estimates

[In millions of dollars]

3 Percent discount rate

7 Percent discount rate

Fuel Efficiency Improvement

10%

Costs (first year)

$34.8

Costs (annual)

$9.4

Benefits

$11.6

$23.2

$10.6

$21.2

Annual Net Benefits (Costs)

$2.2

$13.8

$1.2

$11.8

Average annual benefit through 2050.

Counting only annual costs in the future; assuming 1% of replacement tires are sold with improved fuel efficiency.

8. Lead Time

Lead time will be determined based on the timing of the final rules that will specify the requirements and content of the consumer information and the specification of a reference laboratory or laboratories. If the later of the final rules is the one in which NHTSA announces the selection of a reference laboratory or laboratories with the capability to test LATs, NHTSA will require tire manufacturers to meet applicable requirements for replacement tires they manufacture in stages, by tire size. In that case, tire manufacturers must meet applicable requirements for 15 and 16-inch tires, the most popular rim sizes,

first; tire manufacturers must meet applicable requirements for other passenger car tire sizes at a later date. That phase in would be tied to the publication of a final rule specifying the availability of certified LATs from the reference laboratory or laboratories. As noted above, in the near future NHTSA will announce one or more private laboratories to operate the reference test machine(s). The agency is working expeditiously to establish and implement procedures for the selection of a reference laboratory or laboratories. Soon after, NHTSA will publish a

Federal Register

notice of the readiness of the reference laboratory or laboratories to provide LATs under ISO 28580.

The

RMA Preliminary 2010 Factbook

estimated that 15 and16-inch passenger replacement tires constituted about 22% of the replacement passenger tire sales in the U.S. in 2009.

See

Rubber Manufacturers Association, Tire Industry Factbook, available at

http://www.rma.org/rma_resources/market_information/tire_industry/

(last accessed March 11, 2010).

If the final rule specifying the requirements and content of the consumer information portion of the program occurs after the final rule specifying the reference laboratory or laboratories, NHTSA may establish a lead time different from the phase in described above since tire manufacturers will have had since the final rule specifying the reference laboratory or laboratories to begin testing to the test procedures specified in this final rule.

In that case, NHTSA would also announce in the final rule specifying the requirements and content of the consumer information and consumer education portion of the program the first date by which tire manufacturers must submit required data to NHTSA on replacement tires, and the compliance dates for any other tire manufacturer or tire retailer requirements established in that rulemaking. For new tires introduced after those compliance dates, NHTSA is requiring reporting of information at least 30 days prior to introducing the tire for sale, as is currently required for UTQGS information.

The lead time is longer than the 12 months proposed in the NPRM for several reasons. First, as commenters correctly pointed out, tire manufacturers will need some additional time to validate correlation equations between ISO 28580 and other rolling resistance test methods many manufacturers presently use if they are using laboratories other than Smithers Scientific Services, Inc. (Smithers) and Standards Testing Laboratories (STL).

Second, because the safety rating test requires recording of the peak coefficients of friction, it is unlikely that manufacturers have established much (if any) correlation of their peak traction measurements to the peak values at NHTSA's San Angelo test facility. Therefore, it will likely take tire manufacturers more than a year to test enough tires to establish a correlation for all of their tire sizes to include estimated values in the reporting formula.

Finally, manufacturers cannot start rating for fuel efficiency until they can obtain certified reference tires from a reference lab so that they can use the ISO 28580 lab alignment procedure. NHTSA has determined that upon the availability of certified LATs, manufacturers will be able to accurately rate all tires within 24 months. However, recognizing that the deadlines imposed by EISA indicate a desire to have information available to consumers as quickly as possible, NHTSA would phase in the availability of this consumer information. Because tires with 15 and 16 inch rim sizes make up more than 22 percent of sales in the replacement passenger car tire market, NHTSA believes there will be a significant benefit for requiring these most popular tire sizes to be rated as soon as possible. Recognizing the uncertainty of the rulemaking timeline for finalizing the requirements and content of the consumer information and consumer education portions of the tire fuel efficiency program, NHTSA will tie all compliance dates to the latter of the consumer information and education final rule, or the final rule announcing the availability of the reference laboratory or laboratories to test LATs under ISO 28580.

II. Background

This discussion is substantially the same as the Background discussion in the NPRM, but is repeated here to provide context for this new regulatory program and for the convenience of the reader. Comments on EISA section 111's preemption provision are discussed in this section. Discussions of the European Union's efforts towards increasing on-road fuel economy by reducing average rolling resistance is also updated.

See

Tire Fuel Efficiency NPRM,

supra

note 9, at 29547-29552.

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. The fourth, 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 1 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, which creates resistance, decreasing fuel efficiency.

ER30MR10.019

As noted above,

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.

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.

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

(last accessed Sept. 24, 2009); 2006 NAS Report,

supra

note 4, at 29.

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).

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, also increasing rolling resistance. Therefore, properly inflated tires have less rolling resistance and higher fuel efficiency than under-inflated tires. Moreover, all tires need 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.

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.

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.

Thus, the tires consumers purchase will not only affect the handling, traction, ride comfort, and appearance of their cars, but also the fuel economy.

Id.

at 1.

H.R. Rep. No. 109-537, at 3 (June 28, 2006); 2006 NAS Report,

supra

note 4, at 1.

Most passenger tires are replaced every 3 to 5 years because of wear.

Id.

Fuel economy improvements are a large part of ensuring a more secure energy future.

EISA will help reduce America's dependence on oil by reducing U.S. demand for oil by requiring the light duty vehicle industry to achieve a national average fuel economy of at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020 for passenger cars and light trucks combined. Achieving this will entail increasing fuel economy standards by 40 percent and resulting in saving billions of gallons of fuel. In accordance with the President's May 19, 2009 announcement, on September 28, 2009, NHTSA and EPA issued a joint NPRM, with NHTSA proposing CAFE standards under EPCA, as amended by EISA, and EPA proposing greenhouse gas emissions standards under the Clean Air Act.

This proposal would require a fleet-wide fuel economy of 34.1 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2016, thus nearly reaching the EISA target four years earlier than the EISA deadline. Today's rule complements that proposal by establishing 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.

See

Proposed Rulemaking to Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 74 FR 49454, 49631 (Sept. 28, 2009).

Id.

Further, improving fuel economy reduces the amount of tailpipe emissions of CO

. CO

emissions are directly linked to fuel consumption because CO

is an ultimate end product of burning gasoline. The more fuel a vehicle burns, the more CO

it emits. Since the CO

emissions are essentially constant per gallon of fuel combusted, the amount of fuel consumption per mile is directly related to the amount of CO

emissions per mile. Thus, improvements in fuel economy necessarily reduce tailpipe emissions of CO

The need to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,

e.g.,

motor vehicle tailpipe emissions of CO

, in order to forestall and even mitigate climate change is well recognized.

Id.

at 24356.

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.

3. 2006 National Academy of Sciences report

In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004,

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

Transportation Research Board Special Report 286, Tires and Passenger Vehicle Fuel Economy, National Research Council of the National Academies (2006). Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0121-0008.

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.

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.

Id.

at 3.

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.

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.

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 promulgated in today's notice begins this undertaking.

Id.

at 2, 4.

Id.

B. Efforts by Other Governments To Establish Consumer Information Programs To Address These Issues

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.

1. 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.

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),

which required the CEC to develop a comprehensive fuel efficient tire program.

See

Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 25000.5, 25722-25723 (2009); 2001 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 912 (S.B. 1170) (West).

See

Cal. Pub Res. Code §§ 25770-25773; 2003 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 645 (A.B. 844) (West).

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 § 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.

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.

In deciding whether to adopt standards, the CEC must ensure that a standard:

See id.

at § 25771.

See id.

at § 25772. By contrast, 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.

See id.

at § 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.

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.

The draft regulation would specify testing and reporting requirements for manufacturers, and describes the database the CEC will maintain. The draft regulation would define 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 combined tire size designation and load index.”

See http://www.energy.ca.gov/transportation/tire_efficiency/documents/index.html#061009

(last accessed Sept. 24, 2009).

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 Nov. 12, 2009).

2. European Union

Europe is approaching the issue of tire fuel efficiency from two directions. On July 13, 2009, Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union concerning new type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles was adopted.

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.

Commission Regulation 661/2009, 2009 O.J. (L 200) 1, available at

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:200:0001:0024:EN:PDF

(last accessed Nov. 12, 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.

The rolling resistance rating is determined using the same test procedure as in ISO 28580:2009(E),

Passenger car, truck and bus tyres—Methods of measuring rolling resistance—Single point test and correlation of measurement results.

The ratings must be provided to consumers in a label on the tire, or at the point of sale (

e.g.,

in cases where the tire itself is not visible at the point of sale), and also in technical promotional literature, including Web sites. The label design is the same A to G scale as that used to rate the energy efficiency of household appliances in Europe.

It will apply to tires fitted to passenger cars as well as light and heavy duty vehicles. Tire manufacturers are required to have a link on their Web site to the European Commission Web page covering the new Regulation. The new regulation will go into effect on November 1, 2012, but tire manufacturers are encouraged to comply earlier.

See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindByProcnum.do?lang=2&procnum=COD/2008/0221

(last accessed Nov. 12, 2009). Mandatory requirements are also proposed to begin in October 2010 for wet grip and external rolling noise.

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).

3. 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.

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.

See http://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/data/20081226_01.html

(last accessed Nov. 12, 2009).

Tire manufacturers in Japan have recently proposed a voluntary rating system that includes rolling resistance and wet grip. Rolling resistance is divided into five categories labeled AAA, AA, A, B, and C. Wet grip is divided into four categories labeled a, b, c, and d. For additional information,

see http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tftc.gr.jp%2Ftirepark%2Fperformance%2Flabel%2Flabel.html&sl=ja&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

(last accessed March 11, 2010).

C. 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

following the recommendations in the 2006 NAS Report.

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.

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.

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

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.,

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.

1. Tires Subject To the Consumer Information Program

The national tire fuel efficiency consumer information program mandated by EISA and established 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.

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.

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

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)].”

Accordingly, the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program described in today's notice applies only to replacement passenger car tires with the same exclusions as the UTQGS regulation.

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 durability.”

EISA specifies that the regulations establishing the program are to be issued not later than December 19, 2009.

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

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.”

However, NHTSA may “not require permanent labeling of any kind on a tire for the purpose of tire fuel efficiency information.”

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

Id.

at § 32304A(d).

The only Committee Report commenting on the legislation that eventually became section 111 of EISA explained that the 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.

Thus, NHTSA reviewed conclusions and recommendations in the 2006 NAS Report regarding how best to inform consumers using a tire fuel efficiency rating system.

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 and traction.

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 economy is an attribute that is likely to be of interest to many tire buyers.

NHTSA has attempted to keep these key observations in mind in the development of this final rule.

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.

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.”

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.

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

See

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

As noted above, 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.”

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,

and tire dealers/retailers and distributors.

See

H.R. Rep. No. 109-537, at 5 (2006).

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 include “specifications for test methods for manufacturers to use in assessing and rating tires to avoid variation among test equipment and manufacturers.”

See

section IV of this notice for a discussion of NHTSA's specification of the ISO 28580 test procedure to measure rolling resistance.

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.”

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.

2006 NAS Report,

supra

note 4, at 4.

See

NHTSA Tire Rolling Resistance Rating System Test Development Project: Phase 1—Evaluation of Laboratory Test Protocols (October 2008). Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0121-0019.

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.”

NHTSA already has some information regarding tire maintenance on its safercar.gov Web site.

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

See generally http://www.safercar.gov/portal/site/safercar/menuitem.13dd5c887c7e1358fefe0a2f35a67789/?vgnextoid=0e0aaa8c16e35110VgnVCM1000002fd17898RCRD

(last accessed Sept. 24, 2009).

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.

NHTSA has focused on these principles in determining 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.”

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 other Government agencies, to seek their views.

2006 NAS Report,

supra

note 4, at 96.

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.”

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.”

NHTSA has fulfilled the statutory consultation requirement in a way that best serves the goals of EISA.

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.

2006 NAS Report,

supra

note 4, at 4.

NHTSA consulted with representatives of DOE, EPA, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

who work in energy efficiency consumer information and rating programs. These agencies provided feedback on NHTSA's draft final rule which included valuable comments and insight based on their experiences communicating information on the energy efficiency of consumer products.

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 Sept. 24, 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.

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

In the NPRM, NHTSA sought 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 (AB 844).

We discuss these comments in section XIV.D below.

Cal. Pub Res. Code §§ 25770-25773; 2003 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 645 (A.B. 844) (West). This California legislation mandated that the California Energy Commission (CEC) develop and implement both a tire efficiency program and a corresponding consumer information program, and was passed on October 1, 2003.

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.

The RMA recommended that NHTSA clarify how it intends to enforce this provision and subject its interpretation to comment.

See

section XI for more detail on RMA's comments on this provision and NHTSA's response.

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.”

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.”

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

Id.

III. Scope of the Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer Information Program

A. Which tires must be rated?

As explained above in section II.C.1 of this notice, EISA specifies that the tire

fuel efficiency requirements are to “apply only to replacement tires covered under [49 CFR] section 575.104(c)” (NHTSA's UTQGS regulation).

Title 49 CFR, section 575.104 applies only to “new pneumatic tires

for use on passenger cars” with some exclusions of particular types of tires.

All terms in 49 CFR Part 575 are as defined by the Safety Act or in 49 CFR Part 571,

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

(FMVSSs).

Some commenters had questions about whether or not certain tires were excluded from the program. Others asked about the voluntary rating of tires not covered under the program. These comments are addressed in the sections below.

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

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.

49 CFR 575.104(c)(1).

49 CFR 575.2,

Definitions.

1. Passenger Car Tires

Section 571.139 of title 49 CFR (or FMVSS No. 139,

New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles

) defines “passenger car tire” as “a tire intended for use on passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less.” Accordingly, as stated in the NPRM, the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program applies only to replacement passenger car tires, which are tires intended for use on passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, that have a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.

This FMVSS No. 139 definition of “passenger car tires” is consistent with past agency interpretations of the scope of 49 CFR 575.104.

See

April 24, 1980 Letter to Mr. Robert A. Eddy (McCreary Tire & Rubber Company) (explaining that tires “which are manufactured solely for use on a traction test trailer would not fall within the application of the UTQG Standards”); October 27, 1978 Letter to Mr. Ken Yoneyama (Bridgestone) (explaining that “UTQGS applies to a tire type whose predominant contemplated use is on passenger cars, even if the manufacturer knows the tire type is also used as original equipment on multi-purpose passenger vehicles”).

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. Many smaller sport utility vehicles (SUVs), pickup trucks, and vans are equipped with passenger car tires, even though these vehicles are classified as light trucks by NHTSA.

Ordinarily, 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.

EISA excludes replacement LT tires from the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program.

JATMA asked for confirmation of their understanding that LT tires are not included in the scope of the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program.

As explained in this section, that understanding is correct.

2006 NAS Report,

supra

note 4, at 14.

Id.

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

Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0121-0031.1 at 1.

Providing information on LT tires:

ICCT asked that NHTSA, since EISA does not appear to contain any restriction on NHTSA providing information to consumers, investigate whether our data combined with California and European Union tire testing data would provide enough data for NHTSA to provide consumers with information on LT tires on the agency's online Web site.

ICCT commented that this is especially important given the high rolling resistances that NHTSA reported for LT tires.

Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0121-0042.1 at 2.

See

Tire Fuel Efficiency NPRM,

supra

note 9, at 29553.

Agency response:

NHTSA agrees that educating consumers about the general qualities and trends of rolling resistance for tires excluded under the program, including LT tires, is worthwhile because consumers currently do not have any information about the relative fuel efficiency between different types of tires. While section 111 of EISA is limited to “only * * * replacement tires covered under [NHTSA's UTQGS regulation],”

nothing in EISA appears to restrict NHTSA from educating the public about motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment using information generated by the agency, as it already does for many different tire characteristics. As noted in the NPRM, the agency expects test data to be available for many LT tires, as these tires are covered by the Europe and California programs, in addition to some LT tires having been included in NHTSA's Phase 1 research for this rulemaking.

NHTSA tested some LT tires in its Phase 1 research because that research was initiated in July 2006, subsequent to the release and based on the recommendations in the 2006 NAS Report, before the passage of EISA. Moreover, by educating consumers about what type of comparative fuel efficiency they can expect between replacement passenger car tires and original equipment (OE) tires or LT tires, the agency would not be mandating anything of tire manufacturers or tire retailers, but merely using information that has already been generated by NHTSA and other government regulatory bodies, and is available under the Freedom of Information Act.

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

See

Tire Fuel Efficiency NPRM,

supra

note 9, at 29552-29553.

Passenger car tires used on trailers:

The National Association of Trailer Manufacturers (NATM) commented it did not believe Congress intended to include replacement tires sold for use on trailers to be within the scope of the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program.

NATM explained that some of its trailer manufacturer, trailer dealer, and trailer-parts distribution members sell “P” tires to consumers for replacement use on light-duty trailers, particularly small utility trailers. NATM believes that NHTSA's proposed definition of passenger car tire could be read to include those replacement “P” tires sold by NATM members for use on light-duty trailers. Specifically, NATM stated that the “intended for use” language in the passenger car tire definition could be interpreted to bring under the jurisdiction of this program “P” tires that may have been designed and manufactured primarily for use on passenger cars but that ultimately are sold for use on trailers. NATM suggests that NHTSA modify the definition of passenger car tire to read: “

Passenger car tire

means a tire

sold for use

on passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less.”

Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0029.1.

Agency response:

NHTSA disagrees with NATM's suggested definition for passenger car tires. The statute provides that the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program is “for replacement tires designed for use on motor vehicles.”

The statute's applicability section states that this section shall apply “only to replacement tires covered under [49 CFR] section 575.104(c)” as of December 19, 2007, when the Ten-in-

Ten Fuel Economy Act

became law.

100

For this reason, NHTSA believes Congress intended the agency look to the UTQGS regulation for appropriate definitions of different types of tires. Section 575.104(c) provides that section 575.104,

Uniform tire quality grading standards,

apply “to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars,” subject to some exclusions, such as for winter-type snow tires, space-saver or temporary use spare tires, and tires with nominal rim diameters of 12 inches or less.

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

The “Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act” is the short title of EISA Title I,

Energy Security Through Improved Vehicle Fuel Economy.

Public Law 110-140, § 101.

100

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

The definitions governing 49 CFR Part 575 are contained in 49 CFR 575.2. This section states that all terms in 49 CFR Part 575 are as defined by the Safety Act or in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 49 CFR Part 571. Neither “passenger car tires” nor “tires for passenger cars” is defined in the Safety Act.

101

Therefore, NHTSA looked to the FMVSSs for definitions. As of December 2007, NHTSA had regulations on passenger car tires.

102

Those regulations define passenger car tire as follows: “Passenger car tire means a tire intended for use on passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, that have a gross vehicle weight rating of (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less.”

103

In view of the applicability statement in EISA referring to the UTQGS regulations (§ 575.104), the UTQGS definitional reference to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (§ 575.2), and the fact that passenger car tire is defined in a FMVSS, NHTSA interprets the consumer tire information program in EISA as applying to passenger car tires as defined in 49 CFR 571.139. For these reasons, NHTSA's definition of passenger car tires is taken from FMVSS No. 139. This FMVSS No. 139 definition of “passenger car tires” is consistent with past agency interpretations of the scope of the UTQGS regulations.

104

101

See

49 U.S.C. 30102.

102

See

FMVSS No. 139,

New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles,

49 CFR 571.139.

103

49 CFR 571.139 S3.

104

See

However, based on EISA's applicability only to replacement passenger car tires (with some limited exclusions), NHTSA does agree with NATM that EISA did not contemplate that the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program would include information to educate consumers about tires they are purchasing for trailers.

105

Accordingly, tire retailers that sell only replacement passenger car tires for use on trailers, and not for use on any other motor vehicles, would not be considered tire retailers for the purposes of today's final rule.

See

section III.B.2 below.

105

See

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

2. Replacement Tires

In this final rule, NHTSA is retaining the proposed definition of replacement passenger car tire as “any passenger car tire other than a passenger car tire sold as original equipment on a new vehicle.”

106

As explained in the NPRM, 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.”

107

NHTSA is using this language as the basis of a definition of replacement tires for the purposes of the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program because EISA specifies that the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program “shall only apply to replacement tires covered under [the UTQGS regulations].”

108

For this reason, NHTSA believes Congress intended the agency look to the UTQGS regulation for appropriate definitions of different types of tires.

106

Tire Fuel Efficiency NPRM,

supra

note 9, at 29553, 29584.

107

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

108

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

The agency believes the definition of what a replacement tire is (as distinguished from an OE tire) needs to be in terms of the actual sale of the tire, not the intention when manufactured.

109

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.

109

NATM inappropriately cited this statement from the NPRM in its rationale for its request that NHTSA change the definition of passenger care tire addressed above in section III.A.1. The agency used this rationale as a way to ensure that a manufacturer could not state that it intended a passenger car tire to be original equipment, but then it just ended up being sold as a replacement car tire, allowing it to fall outside of the scope of “replacement passenger car tire.” The concern NATM attempted to analogize would be a manufacturer manufacturing a tire

intending

its use only on trailers, but then eventually the tire gets sold for use on a passenger car. NHTSA does not believe that this is a likely situation that outweighs the inefficiencies that would be created using the “sold for use” language in the passenger car tire definition described above.

Original equipment tires:

Michelin commented that it supported the application of this rulemaking to OE tires. Michelin stated that it is in the best interest of consumers to have the tire performance grading information available for OE tires and clearly displayed on a new vehicle because it will be meaningful for the consumer to have such tire performance information on the vehicle at the point of sale.

110

Public Citizen

et al.

similarly stated that it supports molding

111

the ratings on all tires, both OE and replacement tires.

112

110

Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0121-0048.1 at 13.

111

Section 111 of EISA explicitly prohibits NHTSA from requiring the molding of anything for the purposes of tire fuel efficiency information onto tire sidewalls. 49 U.S.C. 32204A(d).

112

Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0121-0043.1 at 4.

Agency response:

NHTSA proposed a definition of replacement passenger car tire to be “any passenger car tire other than a passenger car tire sold as original equipment on a new vehicle.” As indicated above, NHTSA interprets EISA's repeated use of the word “replacement tires”—including in the statute's applicability provision—to indicate that EISA does not give NHTSA authority to mandate a rating system for any tires other than replacement tires; that is, tires sold for use on a new vehicle (OE tires). Therefore, as NHTSA interprets the statute, the agency does not have the authority under EISA section 111 to require vehicle manufacturers to display tire performance information for OE tires. Likewise, EISA expressly forbids NHTSA from requiring any permanent labeling of this information on tires, so the Public Citizen

et al.

comment is not adopted.

113

49 U.S.C. 32304A(d).

However, if tire manufacturers submit rating information on OE tires to NHTSA, the agency will post that information on its tire Web site for consumers to look up by vehicle make and model, or by size designation. NHTSA notes that if OE tires are not rated, consumers will not be able to compare replacement tires with the tires that were originally on their vehicle. Therefore, the agency encourages tire manufacturers to voluntarily report OE tire rating information to NHTSA so that consumers are able to compare the performance of their OE tires with what they can expect from potential replacement tires.

Original equipment tires sold as replacement tires:

Tire Rack commented that it is an independent tire dealer selling OE and replacement tires and that it believes that the fuel efficiency rating of all OE tires under the scope of the program should be made public to provide consumers with a basis of comparison from which they can begin their search and selection.

114

Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0121-0026.1 at 2-3.

Agency response:

NHTSA notes that for purposes of the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program, “OE” passenger car tires sold to consumers at a tire retailer are considered replacement tires under the definition above because they are not being

sold as original equipment on a new vehicle.

These tires were sold from tire manufacturers to Tire Rack for resale. Hence, the manufacturers must provide all of this consumer information for those tires and consumers will be able to look up ratings for those tires on the agency's tire Web site. Although NHTSA is not requiring consumers be provided with the tire ratings mandated today when they purchase a new passenger car, retailers like Tire Rack could choose to tell consumers what fuel efficiency rating they are currently operating under by finding a replacement passenger car tire that is identical to the specifications of the original tires on their vehicle. Additionally, consumers could look up ratings for these tires on the tire Web site.

3. 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.”

115

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 were included in the NPRM and are included in the new regulations for the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program established in today's final rule.

116

115

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 575.104(c)(2).

116

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

Public Citizen

et al.

commented that it supported requiring deep tread, winter-type snow tires, and space-saver or temporary use spare tires to be rated under the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program.

117

Public Citizen

et al.

explained that deep tread tires are sometimes not intended for sustained highway use, and may create handling problems when used in normal driving, and that NHTSA has not addressed whether improper operation on these specialized tire types is more dangerous. Public Citizen

et al.

stated that consumers may be interested in performance characteristics of these specialized tire types.

117

Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0121-0043.1 at 11.

Agency response:

As indicated above, because the applicability provision of EISA section 111 specifically limits this program to replacement tires covered under NHTSA's UTQGS regulation, and the UTQGS regulations specifically exclude requiring deep tread, winter-type snow tires, and space-saver or temporary use spare tires,

118

as NHTSA interprets EISA and its UTQGS regulation, NHTSA does not have the authority under EISA to require vehicle manufacturers to display tire performance information for these specialty tires. To the extent the agency has the information, NHTSA will include information on deep tread, winter-type snow tires, and space-saver or temporary use spare tires on the tire Web site.

118

49 CFR 575.104(c)(1).

Regarding the use of tires not intended for sustained highway use in normal driving, NHTSA has historically recognized that improper operation of any tire can be dangerous. For instance, the recent “What's your PSI” campaign and the brochure

Tire Safety: Everything's Riding on It,

available on

http://www.safercar.gov

stress the importance of proper tire selection and maintenance.

4. Voluntary Rating of Tires Not Subject to the Program

As noted above in section III.A.1 and III.A.2, EISA excludes LT tires and OE tires from the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program.

119

Some commenters noted concerns with the exclusion of OE tires and LT tires from the EISA mandated tire fuel efficiency consumer information program.

120

For instance, Tire Rack commented that “[w]hile not required by the rulemaking, it is hoped there would be a future opportunity for tire manufacturers producing LT-sized tires to voluntarily provide rolling resistance information.”

121

119

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

120

Tire Rack Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0121-0026.1 at 2-3; ICCT Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0121-0042.1 at 2; Public Citizen

et al.

Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0121-0043.1 at 4.

121

Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0121-0026.1 at 2-3.

Agency response:

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 and prior to the passage of EISA.

122

LT tires represented approximately 16.7 percent of the U.S. replacement tire market in 2007.

123

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. The same would be true for other tires excluded from the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program including original equipment tires, or any other excluded tires. That is, while these tires are not required to be rated under today's final rule, NHTSA has no objection to voluntary rating by manufacturers or importers, and would include any tires voluntarily reported in its database.

122

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 F 2493-06 P225/60R16 97S Standard Reference Test Tire (SRTT).

123

Rubber Manufacturers Association, Preliminary 2008 Factbook,

see https://www.rma.org/publications/market_information/index.cfm?CFID=23483353&CFTOKEN=70640000

(last accessed Sept. 26, 2009).

5. Each Different Stock Keeping Unit Must Be Rated

As the agency proposed in the NPRM, this final rule is requiring each different stock keeping unit (SKU), or each size within each model within each brand, to be rated separately for fuel efficiency (using a rolling resistance value), safety (using a wet traction test value), and durability (using a treadwear test value).

As explained in the NPRM, tire manufacturers may have different brands, and within each brand different tire models (or tire lines),

124

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. Each of these brands is available in different tire sizes, for example a 185/65R14 or a 215/70R15.

See

Figure 2.

125

The model of tire (Pilot) then may be available in several performance levels. Figure 2 illustrates there are three 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 sizes 185/60R14 to 235/40R17. Similarly, 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.

124

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.

125

Although this figure was in the NPRM, this discussion is repeated here because the agency believes a proper understanding of the replacement tire market is key to the understanding of certain requirements of the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program.

ER30MR10.020

The NPRM also explained that in passenger car tire sizes (

e.g.,

185/65R14), the first three numbers indicate the nominal width of the tire,

i.e.,

the 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, or bias-belted construction, which is indicated by a “B” in the size specification. Radial ply construction of tires has been the 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.

Rolling resistance varies among tires of the same size. 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.

126

Rolling resistance can also vary widely across different sized tires in a brand. In data reported by the California Energy Commission (CEC), passenger car tires of the same brand and model with different sizes ranged in rolling resistance from 7.5 to 22.8 pounds.

127

For these reasons, NHTSA is requiring 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 wet traction test value), and durability (using a UTQGS treadwear test value). Consumers researching tires should be able to compare tire models and sizes with some reliability.

126

See

NHTSA Rolling Resistance Rating System Test Development Project: Phase 1—Evaluation of Laboratory Test Protocols (October 2008). Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0121-0019.

127

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).

Research done for the 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)

128

of replacement passenger car tires sold in the United States.

129

The CEC research also indicated that it could take up to 2.7 years to test one tire of each SKU once.

130

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 estimate values by interpolating or extrapolating test values for certain SKUs from knowing the actual test values of other SKUs). Tire manufacturers have this same ability to estimate UTQGS traction test values and UTQGS treadwear test values by having actual traction and treadwear test values of other, similar tires of different SKUs. For these reasons, NHTSA concludes, as the agency did in the NPRM, 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). NHTSA is not requiring tire manufacturers to report a test procedure value for rolling resistance, traction, and treadwear for each different SKU, as proposed in the NPRM. NHTSA explained that a tire manufacturer would be free to reasonably estimate the test values it would report, and the agency sought comment on this approach.

128

A 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 will 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

the Regulatory Text section at the end of this notice.

129

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 was also posted to the NPRM docket.

See http://www.energy.ca.gov/transportation/tire_efficiency/documents/index.html

(last accessed Sept. 28, 2009); Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0121-0007.

130

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.

Interpolation versus required testing:

RMA commented that it supports the ability for tire manufacturers to provide predicted (interpolated) tire ratings.

131

RMA stated that tire manufacturers routinely develop and utilize accurate computer models to predict tire performance of tires not physically tested, using proprietary information about tire chemistry, design, construction, and test data available for similar tires. RMA commented that permitting interpolation-based ratings would allow a tire manufacturer to efficiently rate affected tires while minimizing costs. RMA recommended that NHTSA modify the regulatory text to make clear that interpolation is acceptable as a basis for tire ratings.

131

RMA Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0121-0036.1 at 12.

NRDC, Ford, and Alan Meier each expressed concern with NHTSA's proposal to allow manufacturers to report a tire's ratings without running a test. NRDC commented that requiring tire manufacturers to submit actual test values would ensure that reported data is accurate and not requiring actual testing threatens to undermine the rating system credibility and the program's effectiveness.

132

Further, NRDC stated that not specifying a limit on the number of SKUs that can be reported with estimated, non-tested values would overburden NHTSA's compliance testing obligation, which they call NHTSA's only accurate validation mechanism. Ford stated that it did not support interpolating test values from one tire to another because of potential significant differences in tire construction from one tire to another, even within a tire line.

133

Alan Meier of the University of California, Davis argued that requiring a direct measurement of each tire is a vital element of the program because a measurement for each tire model is essential for the credibility of any information system.

134

Mr. Meier also stated that only if NHTSA could substantiate and verify the idea that test values can be accurately interpolated should a simulation model be allowed. Similarly, Consumers Union commented that NHTSA should require a standard statistical process and corresponding sample size for verifying that the assigned test value is determined with sufficient significance that no production tire will exceed the maximum test value assigned.

135

132

NRDC Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0121-0040.1 at 2, 4.

133

Ford Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0121-0038.1 at 3.

134

Alan Meier Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0121-0037.1 at 1-2.

135

Consumers Union Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0121-0034 at 2.

Agency response:

As an initial point, as discussed in section VII.B.2 below, NHTSA is not requiring tire manufacturers to report test values to the agency, but merely the actual ratings it is assigning to each tire SKU. The agency will continue to not require any amount of actual testing in the regulations for this rating program. First, EISA does not require particular tests. Second, as noted above, a tire manufacturer has the ability to estimate with relative accuracy the test values of a tire with a given size specification if it knows the test value of a tire in the same model line. NHTSA agrees with RMA's understanding of the industry that tire manufacturers routinely develop and utilize accurate computer models to predict tire performance of tires not physically tested, using information available for similar tires. Additionally, the CEC research discussed above indicates that requiring testing of all tire SKUs would cause a significant delay in the implementation of this program and would increase the cost burden of this regulatory program on tire manufacturers unnecessarily.

Finally, not specifically requiring testing is consistent with the enforcement mechanism known as “self certification,” which was established by statute for Federal motor vehicle safety standards,

136

and is the process NHTSA follows to ensure compliance with its other programs and regulations as well. Under self certification, the burden for ensuring that all new vehicles and equipment (

e.g.,

tires) comply with Federal regulations is borne by the manufacturer. NHTSA does not perform any pre-sale testing, approval, or certification of vehicles or equipment, whether of foreign or domestic manufacture, before introduction into the U.S. retail market. To ensure compliance with agency regulations, NHTSA randomly tests certified vehicles or equipment (in accordance with the test procedures laid out in the regulations) to determine whether the vehicles or equipment fails to comply with applicable standards. For such enforcement checks, NHTSA purchases vehicles and equipment and tests according to the procedures specified in the standards. If the vehicle or equipment passes the test, no further action is taken. If the vehicle or equipment fails, NHTSA has the authority to request additional information from the manufacturer on the basis for certification and to assess

civil penalties for any confirmed violation.

137

136

49 U.S.C. 30115.

137

See, e.g.,

49 U.S.C. 30165, 30166 (safety standards); 49 U.S.C. 32308, 32309 (consumer information); 49 U.S.C. 32507 (bumper standards); 49 U.S.C. 32706, 32709 (odometer fraud).

Neither EISA (nor other statutes NHTSA administers) nor NHTSA standards and regulations require that a manufacturer base its certifications (or ratings) on any particular tests, any number of specified tests or, for that matter, any tests at all. A manufacturer is required to exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is the responsibility of the tire manufacturer to determine initially what test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with applicable Federal safety standards. The enforcement of the UTQGS rating system follows the same concept, and the rating system established under the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program will do the same.

For instance, the UTQGS do not require that manufacturers test their tires at NHTSA's test track at San Angelo, Texas. Manufacturers may test their tires where they choose, and may even choose not to test their products at all. However, the specification in the UTQGS regulations that testing is done at San Angelo means that NHTSA must use that track in any compliance testing of tires. In order to protect themselves against the possibility that the agency will find a noncompliance based on testing at San Angelo and initiate an enforcement action, it would be prudent for tire manufacturers to base their assigned grades on their own testing at San Angelo or on some substitute means whose results demonstrably correlate with the results of testing at San Angelo.

Mr. Meier commented that there is considerable evidence that identical models and SKUs manufactured in different facilities (or at different times) will have significantly different rolling resistances. For this reason, Mr. Meier stated a clear and unambiguous audit trail is needed to link a manufacturer's claimed values to tires that actually exist. This is not necessary. Since NHTSA conducts annual compliance testing and could buy and test a tire at any time to compare to the ratings a manufacturer has reported to the agency, tire manufacturers are responsible for monitoring the consistency and accuracy of its ratings throughout the production run. It is in the best interest of manufacturers, thus, to establish a comprehensive quality control program to periodically test tires randomly selected to ensure the accuracy of the rating through the entire production cycle.

Therefore, consistent with self certification and in the spirit of other NHTSA standards, 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. Because this is the agency's general practice, NHTSA does not think it is necessary to make this clear in the regulatory text, as suggested by RMA. A tire manufacturer will be responsible for the accuracy of the ratings they report to NHTSA 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.

Manufacturers currently rate treadwear by tire line:

RMA commented that since many manufacturers currently rate tires for UTQGS treadwear by tire line, it is difficult to assess how tires would be rated for UTQGS treadwear under the proposed SKU-based rating system.

138

RMA Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0121-0036.1 at 11.

Agency response:

Tire manufacturers will be able to use their judgment to determine how many and which tires they must test to enable them to accurately assign ratings. The manufacturer ultimately bears the responsibility for establishing ratings considering the variability of its tire line and the variability of the testing process for that category.

Notice:

Lastly, RMA commented that it was unable to understand the tire selection for rating protocol due to an inconsistency between the preamble and the proposed regulatory text. RMA claimed it was unclear as to whether NHTSA is proposing that each SKU be rated, or whether each tire of a different size is to be rated. RMA stated that this inconsistency obstructed its ability to comment on which tires are to be rated for rolling resistance, and that this—along with other alleged concerns—caused RMA to be uncertain about what was being proposed or NHTSA's intent. Therefore RMA stated that it was unable to meaningfully comment on the NPRM and requested that NHTSA issue a supplemental NPRM.

Agency response:

As noted by RMA in its comments, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking provisions require that general notice of a proposed rule must be published in the

Federal Register

and must include “either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved.”

139

NHTSA satisfied this APA requirement in the NPRM.

139

5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has explained that the APA's notice requirements “are designed (1) to ensure that agency regulations are tested via exposure to diverse public comment, (2) to ensure fairness to affected parties, and (3) to give affected parties an opportunity to develop evidence in the record to support their objections to the rule and thereby enhance the quality of judicial review.”

140

Thus, adequate notice and opportunity for comment exists “if it affords interested parties a reasonable opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process, and if the parties have not been deprived of the opportunity to present relevant information by lack of notice that the issue was there.”

141

An agency NPRM “must provide sufficient detail and rationale for the rule to permit interested parties to comment meaningfully.”

142

140

Environmental Integrity Project

EPA,

425 F.3d 992, 996 (DC Cir. 2005) (quoting

Int'l Union, United Mine Workers of Am.

Mine Safety & Health Admin.,

407 F.3d 1250, 1259 (DC Cir. 2005)).

141

American Radio Relay League

Federal Communications Commission,

524 F.3d 227, 236 (DC Cir. 2008) (citing

WJG Tel. Co., Inc.

Federal Communications Commission,

675 F.2d 386, 389 (DC Cir. 1982)).

142

Fertilizer Institute

EPA,

935 F.2d 1303, 1311 (DC Cir. 1991) (quoting

Florida Power & Light Co.

United States,

846 F.2d 765, 771 (DC Cir. 1988)).

RMA commented that the inconsistencies between the preamble and the proposed regulatory text deny RMA and other interested parties a meaningful opportunity to comment because it was difficult to understand exactly what was being proposed. NHTSA's notice of proposed rulemaking consisted of a lengthy preamble discussion and proposed regulatory text. Courts have found sufficient APA notice where the NPRM was not entirely clear on what was being proposed, but where the NPRM at least discussed an issue such that interested parties had reason to comment on it.

143

This is the case here. RMA was on notice of the subject and issues involved. It knew the possible outcomes under discussions in the preamble to the NPRM and under the proposed regulation. It also knew

that a logical outgrowth of either was possible.

143

See Nat'l Small Shipments Traffic Conference, Inc.

Civil Aeronautics Board,

618 F.2d 819, 833 (DC Cir. 1980) (finding sufficient notice where a NPRM was not “a paragon of clarity” but the preamble implied the prohibition that was ultimately adopted in the final rule).

RMA commented that contradictions between the preamble and regulatory text means that the final rule runs a risk of not being a “logical outgrowth” of the proposed rule. “A rule is deemed a logical outgrowth if interested parties `should have anticipated' that the change was possible, and thus reasonably should have filed their comments on the subject during the notice-and-comment period.”

144

NHTSA disagrees with RMA that NHTSA's requirement that each SKU must be rated separately is not a “logical outgrowth” of the NPRM merely because the proposed regulatory text stated something different,

i.e.,

that “every size designation must be rated separately.”

145

The preamble discussed at length why NHTSA was considering it important to require each tire SKU to be rated separately.

146

Further, as indicated above, many commenters had something to say about this aspect of the NPRM, which serves as evidence that the rest of the interested public was sufficiently aware of the possibility that the agency may adopt such a requirement. In fact, RMA commented on this aspect of the proposal, even though it asserted it was confused about what NHTSA was actually proposing.

147

144

Miami-Dade County

EPA,

529 F.3d 1049, 1059 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting

Northeast Md. Waste Disposal Auth.

EPA,

358 F.3d 936, 952 (DC Cir. 2004)) (quotation and citation omitted);