Consumer Information Regulations Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards

Federal RegisterJul 5, 1995

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 575

[Docket No. 94-30, Notice 3]

RIN 2127-AF17

Consumer Information Regulations Uniform Tire Quality Grading

Standards

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of

comment period; notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: On May 24, 1995, NHTSA published a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards

(UTQGS). Pursuant to requests from several tire manufacturers, NHTSA

announces an extension of the period for submitting written comments on

the NPRM from July 10, 1995 to August 14, 1995. The agency also

announces the holding of a public meeting to supplement the written

comments. Finally, NHTSA proposes an additional calculation to

supplement the proposed rolling resistance regression equation so that

the equation can be used to calculate a specific rolling resistance

coefficient.

DATES: Public meeting and copies of oral testimony: The public meeting

will be held July 24, 1995, beginning at 9 a.m. Those wishing to make

oral presentations should contact Mr. Orron Kee at the address or

telephone number listed below, and submit copies of their planned

testimony by July 20, 1995.

Written comments: Written comments on the May 24, 1995 NPRM and

this SNPRM must be received on or before August 14, 1995.

Proposed Effective Date: If adopted, the amendments proposed in

this notice would become effective one year after date of publication

of the final rule in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Public Meeting: The meeting will be held in Room 2230 Nassif

Building, 400 Seventh Street, S.W, Washington, D.C.

Written Comments: Comments on the NPRM and SNPRM should refer to

Docket No. 94-30; Not. 2 or the docket and notice number shown above,

and be submitted to: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 5111, Washington, DC

20590. Docket room hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday.

Written copies of oral testimony: Written copies of oral testimony

for the meeting should be provided to Mr. Orron Kee at the address

below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Orron Kee, Office of Market

Incentives, Office of the Associate Administrator for Rulemaking,

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Room 5320, Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 366-0846.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In the May 24, 1995 Federal Register, NHTSA published a notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the Uniform Tire Quality Grading

Standards (UTQGS)(49 CFR 575.104) to: Revise the

[[Page 34962]]

treadwear testing procedures to maintain the base course wear rate of

course monitoring tires at its current value; create a new traction

grade of ``AA'' in addition to the current traction grades of A, B, and

C; and replace the temperature resistance grade with a rolling

resistance/fuel economy grade. (60 FR 27472)

Requests for Extension of Comment Period and for Public Meeting

Subsequent to the May 1995 NPRM, NHTSA received requests for

extension of the period for submitting written comments on the NPRM and

for a public meeting on the NPRM from the Goodyear Tire and Rubber

Company, the Kelly Springfield Tire Company, Multinational Business

Services, Inc., Cooper Tire and Rubber Company, and Bridgestone/

Firestone, Inc. A copy of each letter has been placed in NHTSA's docket

at Docket No. 94-30, Notice 2. NHTSA has decided to grant these

requests. A public meeting will be held on July 24, 1995 in Room 2230,

Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC. The meeting

will begin at 9 a.m. Although NHTSA wishes to hear as many views as

possible, it reserves the right to limit the number of witnesses and

the time allotted to each speaker. The period for submitting written

comments, originally scheduled to end July 10, is extended to August

14, 1995.

Topics for Public Meeting

To focus the discussion at the public meeting, NHTSA asks those

testifying at the meeting to address one or more of the following

topics:

1. Effect of rolling resistance improvements on traction under each

of the following conditions: wet road surface, dry road surface, and

low temperatures.

2. Effect of rolling resistance improvements on cornering and

handling performance.

3. Differences in the rolling resistance, traction, and handling

characteristics of original equipment tires and replacement passenger

car tires.

4. Costs of:

(A) Testing for rolling resistance grading instead of temperature

resistance grading;

(B) Revising tire molds, tread labels, and brochures to include

rolling resistance grades;

tires so that it equals that of original equipment passenger cars; and

(D) Leadtime necessary before commencing to test and label tires

for rolling resistance.

5. Carbon dioxide reduction and fuel economy improvement benefits

from low rolling resistance tires.

6. Suggestions and supporting data for other test procedure

revisions to improve treadwear test consistency and repeatability.

7. Cost of regrading tires under existing regulation when treadwear

rating increases due to changes in the base course wear rate.

8. Cost of labeling for higher traction grade:

(A) Cost if that higher grade is the only change made to the UTQGS

regulation; and

(B) Additional cost if higher grade is added at same time as

rolling resistance grade.

Oral testimony is not limited to the topics listed above. NHTSA

welcomes additional comments at the meeting on any other issue raised

in the May 24, 1995 NPRM or this SNPRM to amend the UTQGS Standard.

Procedural Matters for the Public Meeting

Persons wishing to speak at the public meeting should contact Mr.

Orron Kee, whose address and telephone number appear in the beginning

of this notice. Please contact Mr. Kee by July 20, 1995, so that NHTSA

can determine the need for any special equipment, and can make any

other special arrangements. NHTSA asks that, if possible, each

participant provide Mr. Kee with a copy of his or her oral presentation

by July 20, 1995, and limit the presentation to 30 minutes. If the

presentation will include slides, motion pictures, or other visual

aids, please bring at least one copy of each such aid to the meeting so

that the agency can include them in the public record.

To facilitate communication, NHTSA will provide auxiliary aids

(e.g., sign language interpreter, braille materials, large print

materials and/or a magnifying device) to participants as necessary,

during the meeting. Any person desiring auxiliary aids should contact

Ms. Barbara Carnes, NHTSA Office of Safety Performance Standards,

telephone (202) 366-1810, by July 12, 1995.

If the number of requests for oral presentations exceeds the

available time, NHTSA will ask prospective speakers and organizations

with similar views to combine or summarize their presentations. If time

permits at the end of the scheduled presentations, NHTSA will permit

unscheduled speakers to make statements.

The NHTSA presiding officials at the meeting may ask questions of

any speaker. Further, any attendee at the meeting may submit written

questions for the agency panel, at its discretion, to address to

presenters of testimony. However, there will be no opportunity for

attendees to directly question any presenter of testimony.

A schedule of persons making oral presentations will be available

at the designated meeting room. Please be aware that NHTSA will place a

copy of any written statement provided by those persons in the docket

for this notice. A verbatim transcript of the meeting will be prepared

and placed in the docket as soon as possible following the hearing.

Any interested person can submit written comments on the issues set

out in this notice, for inclusion in the docket. Unless a person is

requesting confidential treatment for information in his or her

submission, the person need not submit more than three copies of the

comments. NHTSA asks however, that if possible, 10 copies be provided.

Any written testimony submitted will be considered as comments to the

NPRM.

Supplemental Proposal

Among the proposals in the May 24, 1995 NPRM was a proposal to

replace the UTQGS' temperature resistance grade with a rolling

resistance/fuel economy grade. On page 27481 of the NPRM, NHTSA

explained that the substitution was proposed because NHTSA tentatively

concluded that fuel economy information is more understandable and more

meaningful to the tire-buying public than the temperature resistance

rating. Further, adding the fuel economy grade furthers the initiatives

in the Climate Change Action Plan issued by the Clinton Administration

in October 1993 in a national effort to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions.

NHTSA proposed to base the new fuel economy rating on a rolling

resistance coefficient instead of rolling resistance itself since doing

so would partially normalize rolling resistance variations by tire size

within a tire line. The rolling resistance coefficient (Cr) is

calculated by dividing the rolling resistance by the load on the tire

when tested in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J-1269, Rolling

Resistance Measurement Procedure for Passenger Car, Light Truck, and

Highway Truck and Bus Tires, revised March, 1987 (SAE J-1269). One tire

manufacturer, Michelin, commented in response to the agency's April 25,

1994 Request for Comments on UTQGS that the rolling resistance

coefficient ranges from 0.0073 to 0.0156, while other tire

manufacturers, Goodyear, assessed the range as being between 0.0067 and

[[Page 34963]]

0.0152, and Standard Testing Laboratories (STL), assessed it as being

between 0.005 to 0.015. (59 FR 19686)

In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed two alternative ways of calculating the

tire's fuel economy based on the rolling resistance coefficient. In the

final rule, one of the two alternatives may be adopted. The first

method begins by using 0.010 as the midpoint of all the rolling

resistance coefficient ranges suggested by Michelin, Goodyear, and STL

in their comments on the April 1994 Request for Comments. The first

method would rate tires with a coefficient of less than 0.010 as ``A''

for fuel economy. Tires with a coefficient of 0.010 to 0.015 would be

rated ``B,'' while tires with a rolling resistance coefficient greater

than 0.015 would be rated ``C.'' The first method would be consistent

with the views of those commenters that stated that if a rolling

resistance/fuel economy rating were established, the A, B, and C

ratings would be simpler, and therefore preferable.

The second method of calculating the tire's fuel economy favors a

more differentiated, quantitative expression of the amount of potential

fuel savings than would be provided by a general indication as in the

case of the letter ratings. For example, a tire with rolling resistance

coefficient of 0.0080 would be graded as achieving a 9 percent increase

in fuel savings (100(0.0150-0.0080)/(0.0150)(5)). (The number (5) in

the preceding calculation represents a 5 percent change in rolling

resistance.) Similarly, a tire with a rolling resistance coefficient of

0.0150 would be graded as achieving a 1 percent increase in fuel

economy.) A tire with a rolling resistance coefficient of 0.0150 or

greater would be graded as 0 percent, indicating no fuel savings.

After publishing the NPRM containing these two alternative

calculation methods, NHTSA determined that the SAE J-1269 calculation

results not in a specific coefficient, but in a regression equation

that specifies the rolling resistance coefficient as a function of tire

load and pressure. In order to compare different tires, a specific

combination of tire load and pressure must be specified. To compare

fuel economy ratings of tires, it is more meaningful to compare

coefficients against coefficients, rather than (as proposed in the

NPRM), equations against equations.

NHTSA therefore proposes that variables (tire load and pressure) in

the SAE J-1269 equations be calculated using the test load and pressure

specified for the high speed performance test in Table II of Standard

No. 109 New Pneumatic Tires (49 CFR 571.109). That test has the same

values for test load and pressure as those in the temperature

resistance test presently specified in the UTQGS. NHTSA proposes to use

the high speed performance test values because the values specified in

Table II are close to the test points specified in SAE J-1269.

Standard No. 109's high speed performance test procedures specify a

test load of 88 percent of the tire's maximum load with a pressure

somewhat less than the maximum pressure, in accordance with the value

provided in Table II of Standard No. 109. The pressures specified in

Table II are not reduced by the same amount for the higher pressure

300, 340, and 350 kPa tires as they are for the 240 and 280 kPa tires.

Stamping a tire as 300, 340, or 350 kPa signifies that the pressures

are available if needed, not that the tires must be inflated to the

maximum pressures. Standard load conventional tires all reach their

maximum load capacity at 240 kPa or 280 kPa (for P-metric tires). Tires

stamped with 300 kPa or 350 kPa maximum pressure have the same maximum

load capacity as tires stamped 240 kPa maximum pressure. Standard load

conventional tires stamped with 340 kPa maximum pressure have the same

maximum load capacity as tires stamped 280 kPa. 300, 340 or 350 kPa-

stamped tires may have an additional 60 or 110 kPa inflation pressure,

when needed for specific uses.

Public comment is sought on the proposed method for calculating a

specific rolling resistance coefficient using the SAE J-1269 rolling

resistance regression equation. Comment is also sought whether there

are alternative methods of selecting the load and pressure values to

calculate a specific coefficient, using the SAE J-1269 equation.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. E.O. 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This notice has not been reviewed under E.O. 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review. The agency has considered the impact of this

rulemaking action and has concluded that it is not ``significant''

under the DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The amendments

proposed in this notice are intended to make the UTQGS more meaningful

and helpful to consumers in selecting tires to meet their needs.

Adoption of the new calculation method proposed in this notice would

not inherently increase the costs, either to manufacturers or to

consumers, of replacing the temperature resistance grade with the

rolling resistance grade. Discussion of the impacts of the NPRM is

contained in the agency's Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation, a copy of

which has been placed in NHTSA's Docket No. 94-30, Notice 2.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has considered the impacts of this rulemaking action under

the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that the proposed

amendment would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Accordingly, the agency has not prepared a

preliminary regulatory flexibility analysis. The agency believes that

no passenger car tire manufacturers qualify as small businesses.

Further, as noted above, adoption of the proposed calculation method

would not impose any additional costs.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking for purposes of the National

Environmental Policy Act and has determined that implementation of the

proposal in this document would have no significant impact on the

quality of the human environment.

D. Federalism

NHTSA has analyzed this proposal in accordance with the principles

and criteria contained in E.O. 12612 and has determined that the

proposals in this notice do not have sufficient federalism implications

to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment. No state laws would

be affected.

E. Civil Justice Reform

The proposed amendment in this notice would not have any

retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), whenever a Federal motor

vehicle safety standard is in effect, a state or political subdivision

thereof may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to

the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle only if the state's

standard is identical to the Federal standard. However, the United

States government, a state or political subdivision of a state may

prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment

obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement

than that required by the Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth

a procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending

or revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. A petition for

reconsideration or other administrative proceedings is not required

before parties may file suit in court.

[[Page 34964]]

Comments

Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the

amendments proposed in this rulemaking action. It is requested but not

required that any comments be submitted in 10 copies.

Comments must not exceed 15 pages in length (49 CFR 553.21). This

limitation is intended to encourage commenters to detail their primary

arguments in concise fashion. Necessary attachments, however, may be

appended to those comments without regard to the 15-page limit.

If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim

of confidentiality, 3 copies of the complete submission including the

purportedly confidential business information should be submitted to

the Chief Counsel, NHTSA at the street address shown above, and 7

copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been

expunged should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for

confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth

the information specified in 49 CFR 512, the agency's confidential

business information regulation.

All comments received on or before the close of business on the

comment closing date indicated above for the proposal will be

considered, and will be available to the public for examination in the

docket at the above address both before and after the closing date. To

the extent possible, comments received too late for consideration in

regard to the final rule will be considered as suggestions for further

rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal will be available for

public inspection in the docket. NHTSA will continue file relevant

information in the docket after the closing date, and it is recommended

that interested persons continue to monitor the docket for new

material.

Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their

comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed stamped

postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the

comments the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 575

Consumer protection, Motor vehicle safety, reporting and

recordkeeping, Tires.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 575 would be amended

as follows;

PART 575--CONSUMER INFORMATION REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for Part 575 would continue to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. Secs. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

2. Section 575.104 would be amended by revising paragraph (g).

Sec. 575.104 Uniform tire quality grading standards.

* * * * *

[Alternative 1 to paragraph (g)]:

(g) Fuel economy grading. The fuel economy grade is calculated as

follows:

(1) The tire's rolling resistance coefficient is determined in

accordance with the procedures of SAE Recommended Practice J-1269,

Rolling Resistance Measurement Procedure for Passenger Car, Light

Truck, and Highway Truck and Bus Tires, revised March, 1987 (SAE J-

1269). In evaluating the rolling resistance coefficient (using the

regression equation from the SAE J-1269 procedure), use the load value

specified in Standard No. 109 New Pneumatic Tires (49 CFR 571.109) for

the tire and its corresponding test pressure specified in Table II of

Standard No. 109, for the high speed performance test.

(2) The rolling resistance coefficient (Cr) is the ratio of

rolling resistance force (Fr) to the normal load (Fn) on the

tire: or

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP05JY95.002

Example No 1: Fn = 1,100 pounds of force (lbf); Fr = 8

lbf; then

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP05JY95.015

A rolling resistance coefficient of 0.00727 would result in a grade

of ``A'' for fuel economy.

Example No. 2: Fn = 1,100 lbf, and Fr = 18 lbf, then

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP05JY95.016

A rolling resistance coefficient of 0.01636 would result in a grade

of ``C'' for fuel economy.

[Alternative 2 to paragraph (g)]: