Consumer Information Regulations: Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 575

[Docket No. 94-30, Notice 06]

RIN 2127-AF17

Consumer Information Regulations: Uniform Tire Quality Grading

Standards

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Uniform Tire Quality Grading

Standards to: Revise treadwear testing procedures to maintain the base

course wear rate of course monitoring tires at its current value of

1.34. This revision is expected to eliminate treadwear grade inflation,

reduce testing expenses, and reduce the environmental consequences of

operating test convoys for the purpose of calculating the base course

wear rate for each new batch of course monitoring tires; and add a top

end traction grading category of ``AA'' to the current traction grading

categories of A, B, and C. The new AA category will make possible the

differentiation of tires with the very highest traction characteristics

from those with lower traction characteristics.

DATES: This final rule is effective March 9, 1998.

Any petition for reconsideration of this rule must be received by

NHTSA not later than October 24, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket and

notice numbers noted above for this rule and be submitted to the Docket

Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street SW, Room 5109, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-4949.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Mr. Orron Kee,

Chief, Consumer Programs Division, Office of Planning and Consumer

Programs, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street SW, Room 5307, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-0846;

FAX (202) 493-2739. For legal issues: Mr. Walter K. Myers, Office of

the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400

Seventh Street SW, Room 5219, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202)

366-2992; FAX (202) 366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preamble Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. Background

(a) Current Provisions

(1) Treadwear

(2) Traction

(b) Request for Comments

(c) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(1) Treadwear

(2) Traction

(3) Fuel Economy

(4) Comments

(d) DOT Appropriations Act of 1996

(e) Public Comments on the NPRM

(1) Treadwear

(2) Traction

III. Agency Decision

(a) Treadwear

(b) Traction

IV. Cost/Benefit Analysis

(a) Treadwear

(b) Traction

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

(a) EO 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

(b) Regulatory Flexibility Act

(c) EO 12612--Federalism

(d) National Environmental Policy Act

(e) Paperwork Reduction Act

(f) Civil Justice Reform

I. Introduction

This final rule amends the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards

(49 CFR 575.104) to fix the base course wear rate of course monitoring

tires at a permanent value of 1.34, and establishes an AA traction

grade. A proposal in the agency's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking of May

24, 1995 (60 FR 27472) to rescind the temperature resistance grade and

substitute therefor a fuel economy grade based on low rolling

resistance characteristics of tires is not addressed in this notice

(see the discussion in paragraph II(d) below).

II. Background

(a) Current Provisions. Section 30123(e) of Title 49, United States

Code requires the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe a uniform

system for grading motor vehicle tires to assist consumers in making

informed choices when purchasing tires. Pursuant to that congressional

mandate, NHTSA promulgated the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards

(UTQGS) in 49 CFR 575.104. The UTQGS apply to new pneumatic tires for

use on passenger cars, except deep tread, winter-type snow tires,

space-saver or temporary-use spare tires, tires with nominal rim

diameters of 10 to 12 inches, and limited production tires as defined

in Sec. 575.104(c)(2).

The UTQGS require tire manufacturers and tire brand name owners to

grade their tires with respect to their relative treadwear, traction,

and

[[Page 47438]]

temperature resistance performance. Treadwear grades are shown by

numbers, such as 100, 150, and 200, while traction and temperature

resistance grades are indicated by the letters A, B, and C, with A

representing the best performance and C indicating the minimum level of

performance necessary to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard No. 109, New pneumatic tires.

(1) Treadwear. Treadwear is graded by first running the tires being

graded, called ``candidate tires,'' over a selected 400-mile segment of

public highway near San Angelo, Texas. After an 800-mile ``break-in''

run, the candidate tires are driven over the test course for a total of

6,400 miles in test convoys composed of 4 passenger cars and/or light

truck vehicles. Each driver remains in the same position within the

convoy. The vehicles are rotated among the 4 positions in the convoy

regularly as are the positions of the tires on the test vehicles so

that the tires get equal time with each driver, each vehicle, and each

wheel position.

``Course monitoring tires'' (CMT) are used as the control standard

in grading candidate tires. CMTs are specially designed and built to

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard E1136 to

have narrow limits of variability. When NHTSA procures a new batch, or

lot, of CMTs, the agency establishes a new base course wear rate (BCWR)

for that lot. The BCWR, measured in miles per thousand miles (MPTM), is

established by running tires from the new lot of CMTs over the 6,400-

mile test course, in the same manner as candidate tires, with tires

from the previous batch of CMTs. A course severity adjustment factor

(CSAF) for the CMTs is determined by dividing the BCWR for the old CMTs

by the average wear rate of the old CMTs in the test. The wear rate of

the new CMTs is then multiplied by the CSAF to determine the adjusted

wear rate (AWR) of the new CMTs, which then becomes the BCWR for the

new CMTs.

Once the BCWR for the new CMTs is established, these CMTs are used

to grade candidate tires. Upon completion of the 6,400-mile test, the

BCWR is divided by the average wear rate of the CMTs to determine the

CSAF for the candidate tires. That factor is then applied to the wear

rates of the candidate tires to obtain the AWR of the candidate tires.

That AWR is then extrapolated to the point of wearout (considered to be

1/16th inch of remaining tread depth), which is then converted to the

treadwear rating of the tire.

The BCWR is intended to provide a common baseline by which to grade

candidate tires by relating all new CMTs to the original lot of CMTs.

However, NHTSA has noted that the BCWRs of successive new lots of CMTs

have been steadily declining over the years. Specifically, the first

lot of CMTs procured from Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (Goodyear)

in 1975 yielded a BCWR of 4.44. The latest batch, procured by the

agency in 1995, produced a BCWR of 1.34.

The significance of the decrease in the BCWR rate is that as the

BCWR decreases, the treadwear grade increases. Consequently, the newer

treadwear grades have increased to the point that they have become a

somewhat misleading indicator of actual tread life when compared to

tires tested with higher BCWRs.

(2) Traction. Traction grades are established by locked-wheel

braking tests of traction on wet asphalt and wet concrete surfaces at

the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Test Facility (UTQGTF), located at

Goodfellow Air Force Base near San Angelo, Texas. A test trailer is

equipped first with two control tires manufactured in accordance with

ASTM standard E501. The trailer is towed over the wet asphalt surface

at a speed of 40 miles per hour (mph) and one wheel equipped with a

control tire is locked. The traction coefficient of that tire is

recorded continuously and averaged for a period of 0.5 to 1.5 seconds

after lockup. The UTQGTF is arranged so that the test trailers traverse

both the asphalt and the concrete test surfaces in a loop. The test is

repeated for a total of 10 times on each surface for each tire and the

measurements taken on a surface are averaged to determine the control

tire's traction coefficient for that surface. The purpose of testing

the control tires is to monitor the friction properties of the asphalt

and concrete surfaces to account for daily fluctuation due to

environmental factors and the polishing effects of sustained use.

The same procedure is used to measure the locked-wheel braking

traction coefficients of candidate tires. The measured traction

coefficients of candidate tires are adjusted by the difference between

the nominal coefficients of the control tires on the test surfaces

(0.50 for the asphalt surface and 0.35 for the concrete surface) and

the actual coefficient of the control tire run simultaneously with the

candidate tire. Using this procedure, the measured coefficients of all

candidate tires are adjusted to a common pavement friction basis for

each of the test surfaces.

The grades of the candidate tires are currently designated as

``A'', ``B'', and ``C''. A tire achieving a high level of traction

performance on both the wet asphalt (above 0.47) and the wet

concrete (above 0.35) surfaces is graded ``A.'' A tire

achieving medium traction performance (above 0.38 on wet

asphalt and above 0.26 on wet concrete) is graded ``B.'' A

tire achieving a traction performance level of 0.38 or less on

the wet asphalt and 0.26 or less on wet concrete is graded

``C.''

(b) Request for Comments. As a result of the White House Conference

on Global Climate Change held on June 10 and 11, 1993, the White House

issued a report announcing nearly 50 initiatives to reduce greenhouse

gas emissions in the United States. The report, entitled ``Climate

Change Action Plan,'' was issued on October 19, 1993 and, among other

things, calls for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels

by the year 2000. One such initiative called for DOT, through NHTSA, to

issue new rules and test procedures requiring tire manufacturers to

test and label tires relative to their fuel economy based on their

rolling resistance. 1

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

\1\ Action #22: ``DOT, through the National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, will adopt test procedures and new DOT rules

requiring tire manufacturers to test and label (for fuel economy

based on rolling resistance). DOT will also create a consumer-

focused publicity program and a monitoring program in order to

realize maximum benefits. The Administration is proposing to

obligate $0.3 million in FY 1995 for this action and $2 million

through 2000.''

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

Pursuant to the Climate Change Action Plan, NHTSA published a

Request for Comments on April 25, 1994 (59 FR 19686) seeking responses

to a series of questions regarding available data on rolling resistance

and testing procedures. The notice also posed questions concerning

whether and how the treadwear testing procedures should be changed; and

whether a traction grade of ``AA'' should be created to identify those

tires with clearly superior traction characteristics. NHTSA also asked

whether the UTQGS should include peak traction, how it should be

measured and expressed, and the cost of measuring peak traction. 2

NHTSA noted that if peak traction performance of tires differed

substantially from sliding traction, an alternative traction grading

procedure might be necessary.

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

\2\ Peak traction is the primary traction force in anti-lock

braking systems in which maximum braking action is obtained while

the tire is still rolling.

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

(c) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. After consideration of the 34

timely comments received in response to the Request for Comments, NHTSA

published a Notice of Proposed

[[Page 47439]]

Rulemaking (NPRM) on May 24, 1995 (60 FR 27472), with a comment closing

date of July 10, 1995.

(1) Treadwear. The agency proposed to freeze the BCWR of the CMTs

used in treadwear grading at its then-current value of 1.47 MPTM in an

attempt to reduce treadwear grade creep.

The agency explained in the NPRM that it had considered many

possible explanations for the consistent decrease in the BCWR of the

CMTs, such as differences in climatic variations, changes in course

severity, non-uniformity of wear rates among tires in the same lot,

effects of aging and storage of CMTs, and errors in the BCWR

calculation. To minimize the aging/storage factor, the agency now wraps

CMTs in polyethylene bags for storage in a facility in which, although

not temperature controlled, the temperature varies only between 50 deg.

and 90 deg. Fahrenheit throughout the year. The agency then proposed

fixing the BCWR at 1.47 MPTM to address the possibility of an error in

the BCWR calculation. The agency believed that in addition to reducing,

if not eliminating, the treadwear grade inflation, fixing the BCWR at a

single figure would eliminate the time and expenditure of scarce

resources required for operating test convoys for each new lot of CMTs,

as well as eliminating the environmental impacts of operating those

convoys.

(2) Traction. The agency further proposed to create a traction

grade of ``AA'' to distinguish those tires with superior traction

characteristics from those with lower traction performance

characteristics.

NHTSA noted in the NPRM that analysis of traction data since 1989

revealed that traction performance has improved to the extent that the

current grading system does not adequately differentiate between tires

with varying levels of traction performance, particularly the tires

showing the highest levels of traction performance. To address that

situation, the agency solicited comments in the Request for Comments on

whether the traction grading rules should be amended to differentiate

more clearly between the highest performing tires. After considering

the responses to the Request for Comments, NHTSA proposed to establish

a new traction grading category of ``AA'' for tires achieving traction

coefficients of more than 0.54 on wet asphalt and more than

0.41 on wet concrete 3. NHTSA stated that since the

``AA'' category would be optional, manufacturers would incur no

additional costs beyond modifying paper labels and sales brochures to

reflect 4 traction grades instead of three. On the other hand, an

``AA'' category might provide an incentive to manufacturers to improve

the traction performance of their tire lines.

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

\3\ The preamble in the NPRM erroneously discussed a traction

coefficient value of 0.41 for the wet concrete surface. The

correct value should have been 0.38.

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

With respect to the peak traction data solicited in the Request for

Comments, NHTSA decided, based on the comments received, not to propose

inclusion of peak traction in the traction ratings at this time. NHTSA

noted that the majority of vehicles currently on the road are not

equipped with ABS. The significance of that fact is that those vehicles

continue to depend on sliding traction rather than peak traction for

maximum stopping action. In addition, several tire manufacturers

commented that peak traction performance is highly correlated with

sliding traction performance.

(3) Fuel Economy. The agency proposed in the NPRM to rescind the

temperature resistance grade and substitute therefor a fuel economy

rating based on low rolling resistance characteristics of the tire.

(4) Comments. The NPRM generated 120 comments, all of which

addressed the fuel economy proposal, while 10 commented on the traction

proposal and 12 on the treadwear proposal. Commenters to the fuel

economy proposals included several members of the U.S. Congress; the

Secretary of Energy; tire manufacturers, wholesalers, and retail

dealers, including their foreign plants and subsidiaries;

environmental, safety, and consumer advocates; educators; and members

of the public. Except for a certain few tire manufacturers, the

majority of the tire industry and certain members of Congress strongly

opposed the fuel economy proposal. The Secretary of Energy, on the

other hand, along with most advocacy groups and most members of the

public, supported it.

In response to a number of requests, the agency extended the NPRM

comment period to August 14, 1995 (60 FR 34961, July 5, 1995) and

hosted a public meeting on the UTQGS proposals on July 28, 1995.

Twenty-five representatives of the groups enumerated above made oral

presentations at the meeting while a number of others, including

several members of Congress, filed written submissions. Nearly all the

statements presented at the meeting, whether oral or written, addressed

the fuel economy issue, expressing positions on both sides of the

issue. Thereafter, in response to further requests, the agency again

extended the NPRM comment period to September 1, 1995 to permit

participants at the public meeting an opportunity to file written

responses to matters presented at the public meeting (60 FR 42496,

August 16, 1995).

Although the comment period closed on September 1, 1995, NHTSA

continued to receive correspondence on both sides of the rolling

resistance issue, including letters from various members of the

Congress.

(d) DOT Appropriations Act of 1996. In early November, 1995, while

NHTSA was still evaluating the comments and data from the NPRM and the

public meeting, the Transportation Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year

1996 was enacted. Amendment number 66 to that Act prohibited the

obligation or expenditure of any funds

[T]o plan, finalize, or implement any rulemaking to add to section

575.104 of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations any

requirement pertaining to a grading standard that is different from

the three grading standards (treadwear, traction, and temperature

resistance) already in effect.

NHTSA discontinued rulemaking activity on the fuel economy issue, but

continued to assess the comments on the treadwear and traction

proposals. Accordingly, this final rule addresses only the latter two

proposals.

(e) Public Comments on the NPRM.

(1) Treadwear. Some commenters supported the proposal to fix the

BCWR at the current figure, others supported the proposal as better

than nothing, and still others opposed it. Regardless of their support

for fixing the BCWR at a single figure, all commented that the present

treadwear test procedure is inadequate and a new test procedure should

be devised.

Michelin, The Cooper Tire Company (Cooper), Continental General

Tire, Inc. (CGT), and the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA)

supported the proposal to fix the BCWR at its current value so that

further grade inflation will not occur. RMA and CGT agreed that the

BCWR should be fixed immediately at 1.34 to prevent any further

deterioration of the treadwear grades. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (BF)

supported fixing the BCWR, although it regards the BCWR itself as

invalid in view of the consistency of the quality of modern tires.

Similarly, Hercules Tire and Rubber Company (Hercules) supported

freezing the BCWR at its current value ``or simply scrapping the system

and starting over.'' Goodyear commented that the treadwear grade itself

should be removed from the UTQGS because as manufacturers' treadwear

warranties continue to improve, the treadwear labels under the UTQGS

become less

[[Page 47440]]

significant for tire consumers. If the grade is not eliminated,

however, Goodyear supports freezing the BCWR at its current value.

Nevertheless, the company, like some other commenters, believes the

treadwear test to be unreliable, inaccurate, cumbersome, costly, and

environmentally unfriendly.

The Kelly Springfield Tire Company (Kelly) and Multinational

Business Services, Inc. (MBS) oppose fixing the BCWR at a single

figure. The European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation (ETRTO) stated

that changing the BCWR would be misleading to consumers because too

many factors have an influence on the test results. Kelly stated that

the treadwear grade should be eliminated and that freezing the BCWR

would not make the treadwear rating any less confusing to consumers.

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), MTS Systems

Corporation (MTS), and Herzlich Consulting, Inc. (Herzlich) expressed

no opinion on freezing the BCWR, but commented at length on the

inadequacy of the treadwear test. Advocates stated that using CMTs to

determine the treadlife of all candidate tires creates test conditions

that are arguably much less demanding than actual operating conditions

on the road. MTS stated that the treadwear test should be conducted in

an indoor test lab under controlled, repeatable conditions.

(2) Traction. Ten commenters, including 8 tire manufacturers,

submitted comments on the ``AA'' traction proposal. Two supported the

proposal, while the rest opposed it.

In support of the proposal, Michelin stated that creation of an

additional traction grade would provide more differentiation between

tires with superior traction characteristics without having to redefine

the current A, B, and C levels. ETRTO stated that the present traction

grades are generally acceptable and should be maintained, but if NHTSA

wants to add a grade to indicate higher traction characteristics, ETRTO

would prefer to maintain the present grades as they are and add an

``AA'' grade.

In opposing the addition of an ``AA'' grade to the traction

category, Goodyear, Cooper, Dunlop, and CGT all stated that the

traction test procedures were flawed and should be revised to reflect

more accurately the true traction characteristics of tires. Goodyear,

Dunlop and Kelly stated that the test procedure does not allow tires

designed for hydroplane resistance to demonstrate that feature.

Goodyear asserted that the average water depth of 0.02 inches used in

the UTQGS test procedure is less than half the industry standard depth

of 0.05 inches. Thus, the water depth used in traction grading favors

tires with less void area. Dunlop suggested that a hydroplaning test be

conducted in water depths of up to 15 millimeters (0.6 inches).

Finally, Goodyear repeated its assertion made in earlier comments that

the new test pads used at the UTQGTF caused traction grades to go down,

and adding an ``AA'' grade would only accentuate the flaws in the test

procedure.

Cooper asserted that the current test procedure is not repeatable

or sensitive enough to detect the real differences between tires. For

example, the ASTM ``standard'' tire is a straight-ribbed bias tire

designed to be specially sensitive to differences in road surfaces,

while candidate tires are commercial radial tires designed to yield

good traction performance over a wide range of road surfaces and

weather conditions.

Dunlop stated that the traction test is an insufficient basis for a

traction grade because it is only a straight-ahead test on a damp

surface. Dunlop and CGT suggested that, to be more accurate, the test

should include accelerating traction, cornering traction, and traction

testing under varying ambient conditions. Dunlop also suggested that if

the current traction test procedures were not eliminated, a wet lateral

braking test should be conducted over 2 different friction surfaces

where deceleration Gs are measured and stopping distances calculated.

Finally, Dunlop suggested adding the word ``wet'' to traction labels

because the current straight-ahead test renders the traction rating

``inconclusive'' as a benefit to consumers whose vehicles are equipped

with ABS.

MBS stated that the traction rating, based solely on sliding

traction, is not helpful because it indicates nothing about other

traction characteristics. MBS asserted that the traction rating should

include peak traction performance for consumers with vehicles equipped

with ABS. Kelly, however, stated that although there is a correlation

between peak and sliding traction and that both values can be

considered for grading purposes, the results are dependent on the

differences among the various types of ABS systems. Thus, since a

significant majority of vehicles in service are not equipped with ABS,

sliding traction values rather than peak traction values should be

retained for the traction ratings.

MBS and Dunlop argued that adding an AA grade could confuse

consumers and mislead them because straight-ahead, sliding traction may

not be best for ABS-equipped vehicles. Kelly stated that consumers

could be confused by the limited amount of differentiation within the

AA category. MBS and Cooper stated that the traction test should be

redesigned and improved to be repeatable, sensitive, and relevant, and

that research and testing should be conducted to ascertain the

correlations among the different tire traction characteristics.

Advocates strongly opposed adding an AA rating to the UTQGS.

Rather, Advocates favored increasing the minimum requirements for the

existing grades. Advocates argued that adding an AA grade would not be

as much of an incentive for tire manufacturers to improve the traction

characteristics of their tires as would increasing minimum grade

requirements. Advocates further asserted that adding an AA grade would

only give manufacturers an excuse to charge higher prices for more

highly-rated tires, thereby providing them larger profits.

Finally, Kelly stated that although the cost of tire mold reworking

would be minimal, the costs associated with the proposed change would

not be insignificant. Kelly stated that the 6,750 paper labels used in

the Kelly production scheme would have to be changed to reflect the 4-

grade traction rating system when only a very small number of higher

grade changes would occur. Kelly asserted that the cost of changing

those labels would be significant due to the necessity for new artwork,

production of new labels, and subsequent destruction or other disposal

of obsolete labels. CGT estimated that adding an AA grade would incur

costs of $48,000 for new labels and required point-of-sale information.

Like Kelly, Dean Tire & Rubber Company argued that adding an AA rating

to the UTQGS would increase costs with no commensurate benefit.

III. Agency Decision

(a) Treadwear. NHTSA does not disagree that the treadwear grading

procedure could be further improved. NHTSA does disagree, however, with

Goodyear and Kelly that the treadwear grade should be eliminated. As

the agency noted in the NPRM, 74 percent of consumers are familiar with

the treadwear rating and 29 percent consider it in purchasing tires.

Thus, the solution is not to eliminate the treadwear rating, but to

improve the grading procedure to make the rating as meaningful and

helpful as possible to the tire-buying public.

As stated above, when the NPRM was published on May 24, 1995, the

then-current BCWR was 1.47 MPTM. Since that time, a new lot of CMTs was

[[Page 47441]]

procured and calibrated with a BCWR of 1.34. Thus, the BCWR continues

its steady decline. To control that decline, this final rule announces

the freezing of the BCWR at 1.34. Nothing in the comments has dissuaded

NHTSA from believing that freezing the BCWR at 1.34 will significantly

reduce, if not eliminate altogether, any variation in the grading

results between lots. The agency also believes that the use of ASTM-

specification tires with strict quality control will also contribute to

controlling any lot-to-lot variations. NHTSA notes that the changes in

the BCWRs have been consistently in the downward direction. If tire

performance were changing appreciably due to production variables, the

BCWR could be expected to change randomly in either direction.

NHTSA also disagrees with the commenters that stated that

manufacturers' treadwear warranties have progressed to the point that

they can supplant the UTQGS treadwear ratings. One manufacturer

acknowledged that manufacturers' treadwear warranties are not always

based on test results. Further, not all tires carry manufacturers'

warranties and the terms of such warranties are not uniform.

Accordingly, NHTSA believes that the UTQGS treadwear ratings are more

accurate, consistent, and meaningful to consumers than manufacturers'

warranties because the UTQGS ratings are based on uniformly applicable

criteria.

The commenters' suggestions for changing the treadwear grading

procedure fall into 2 basic categories: Revising the road test and

developing a laboratory test. The commenters favoring the revised road

test stated that the San Angelo test course is too mild and that, with

the great improvement in treadwear in recent years, a test of only

6,400 miles does not provide sufficient tread wear on which to base

reliable projections to wearout. The commenters that favored the

laboratory test argued that a lab test would eliminate the need for

CMTs and test convoys and would provide consistent, repeatable test

results. In neither case did commenters suggest any specific test

procedures nor offer any data that could form the basis for development

of revised tests. NHTSA believes that adoption of either of these

alternatives could entail considerable expenditure of funds and

resources. Expansion of the road test to more closely approximate full-

life testing of treadwear would increase the test duration and

significantly increase costs and environmental impact. NHTSA's

experience has shown that laboratory test machines lose repeatability

because the abrasive surfaces of the test wheels tend to fill up with

rubber particles. Accordingly, NHTSA does not believe that either of

these alternatives is practicable at this time. The agency has,

however, requested the assistance of the ASTM F9 committee in devising

a better treadwear test. In addition, the agency intends to request

data on the effects of aging on treadwear performance and storage

procedures to reduce aging in a future Federal Register notice.

NHTSA believes, therefore, that until a better treadwear grading

procedure can be devised, the BCWR should be fixed at its present value

of 1.34 MPTM. The establishment of a BCWR for a new lot of CMTs does

not normally need to be promulgated by rulemaking action published in

the Federal Register. In this case, however, since the agency solicited

public comment on its proposal to change the procedure for calculating

the BCWR by fixing it at a permanent value, the agency deems it

appropriate to announce this decision in the Federal Register.

(b) Traction. As noted above, Goodyear again commented that the new

skid pads at the UTQGTF are more severe than the old pads in traction

rating. NHTSA notes that the skid pads were changed in December 1991,

and acknowledges that there may be a statistical difference in test

results between the new pads and the old pads. Since the old pads no

longer exist, however, the agency is not able to make a comparison for

the purpose of devising a possible correction factor. Nevertheless, the

agency believes that any differences in the test results do not

significantly affect the traction ratings of tire lines and in any

case, new tire lines should by now, after nearly 5 years, have replaced

those tested on the old skid pads. Thus, most tires should by now be

graded on a common basis.

Several commenters proposed other types of traction testing,

including the testing of hydroplaning, cornering, acceleration, and

peak traction characteristics, and testing in various water depths,

ambient conditions, and road surfaces. While the agency regards these

suggestions as worthy of consideration, they go beyond the scope of the

proposals in the NPRM. Those traction factors could, however, be the

subject of future agency research.

While Dunlop's suggestion that the traction grade be labeled ``wet

traction'' on the tire sidewall and on other required labels may be

somewhat more informative to the public, such a change would require

the modification of tire molds, tread labels, and point-of-sale

brochures. NHTSA believes that the costs associated with such a subtle

change could not be justified by any perceived benefit.

NHTSA does not agree with Advocates' suggestion for raising the

cutoff values for the existing traction grades rather than establishing

a new grading category. The agency believes that considerable public

confusion could be generated during the transition to the higher cutoff

values where tires bearing the same grade but with significantly

different traction characteristics are available side-by-side on store

shelves. Such a transition could be lengthy because changing tire molds

could take as long as 2 to 3 years and some tires may remain in

dealers' stocks for a year or more. Further, since the UTQGS are only

consumer information and do not establish minimum traction performance

levels, the agency believes that simply adding an ``AA'' grade to the

UTQGS traction ratings is the simplest, least confusing, least

burdensome, and most cost effective way of differentiating between

those few tire lines with the highest traction performance

characteristics and those tire lines with lower levels of performance.

Advocates expressed concern that manufacturers would increase their

prices for AA rated tires to the detriment of consumers. NHTSA

acknowledges that manufacturers may choose to increase the prices of

their AA traction-rated tires. However, the agency regards that as the

type of marketing decision that manufacturers, distributors, and

dealers are free to make in response to any product rating program.

NHTSA believes that a tire rated AA for traction identifies that tire

as one with superior traction performance and even if it costs slightly

more, the consumer is advised of the specific characteristics of the

tire from which he or she can make an informed purchasing decision.

NHTSA believes that while there may be some costs associated with

the preparation and printing of tread labels and point-of-sale

brochures, such costs can be minimized with adequate lead time.

Manufacturers typically revise their labels and brochures annually,

presumably not printing them in unlimited quantities. Thus, a lead time

of 18 months should permit new labels and brochures to be prepared and

printed in accordance with the normal business cycle, without undue

scrappage of obsolete material. With respect to changing tire molds,

the agency notes that since an AA rating is optional, tire

manufacturers have an unlimited time in which to change molds on

qualifying tire lines, if they decide to rate their tires with a

traction

[[Page 47442]]

grade of AA at all. Accordingly, NHTSA believes that the minor costs

associated with this rulemaking are well justified by the value of this

rulemaking to consumers (see detailed discussion of costs and benefits

in Section IV, below).

The agency proposed the AA rating criteria in the NPRM based on the

statistical distribution of traction test results of 254 tire lines

tested on the new skid pads at the UTQGTF. The distribution of the

traction coefficients of the tested tires showed a mean, or average,

value of 0.516 on wet asphalt and 0.364 on wet concrete, with a

standard deviation of 0.029 on the wet asphalt and 0.017 on the wet

concrete. Since those calculations were made, NHTSA has tested 40

additional tire lines. The mean plus one standard deviation for the

entire population of 294 tires is 0.548 for asphalt and 0.387 for

concrete. This compares to the values of the mean minus one standard

deviation of 0.484 for asphalt and 0.341 for concrete, which are close

to the current threshold values for the A grade. The agency believes

that the proposed AA traction grade threshold is statistically

compatible with the ranges for the A grade and the combined ranges of

the B and C grades since, of the 294 tires tested, only 34 (12 percent)

would qualify for the AA traction grade while 213 (72 percent) would

qualify for the A grade. Thus, there should be approximately the same

number of tire lines graded AA as are graded B and C.

IV. Cost/Benefit Analysis

(a) Treadwear. The fixing of the BCWR at a permanent value of 1.34

MPTM will not cause the Federal government or tire manufacturers to

incur any additional costs. Instead, it will substantially reduce the

cost of CMTs to tire testers and remove the necessity for the

government to contract for one test convoy each year.

Tire manufacturers routinely purchase CMTs from lots procured by

the government for testing of their tire lines. Prior to September 1,

1995, NHTSA charged $304.50 per tire. A DOT Inspector General audit,

however, concluded that NHTSA was not recovering the full cost of

purchasing, storing, and testing the CMTs. By final rule published on

August 2, 1995 (60 FR 39269) NHTSA started charging $379.00 per tire,

effective September 1, 1995. That charge included the government's

purchase price of $250.00, $45.00 in testing costs to establish the

BCWR, $34.00 for storage costs, and $50.00 for general facility costs

and related salaries.

NHTSA estimates that fixing the BCWR at a permanent value will

eliminate the need to calibrate new lots of CMTs, perhaps even

eliminating the need for the government to purchase and store CMTs for

resale. The savings to the government realized by not having to procure

and store CMTs for resale and by not having to operate at least one

test convoy per year is difficult to quantify. However, manufacturers

purchasing CMTs from the government, even though they would no longer

need to, could realize savings of from $45.00 to $95.00 per tire. At

least the $45.00 testing cost could be saved, as well as perhaps some

or all of the storage and/or facility costs.

Although the specific benefits of this change are also difficult to

quantify, it is expected to reduce or eliminate the treadwear grade

inflation experienced in the past, thereby relieving manufacturers of

the possible need to retest certain tire lines and providing consumers

more consistent and reliable treadwear grade information.

(b) Traction. The addition of an AA traction grade will not require

any additional testing by manufacturers. Further, as previously noted,

the assessing of an AA traction grade is optional for manufacturers.

Accordingly, any costs associated with changing tire molds to show an

AA grade can be phased in at the manufacturers' convenience and during

the regular course of reworking the molds for their tire lines. In any

case, only a very few tire lines will be affected. Accordingly, NHTSA

estimates that there should be no additional mold or testing costs to

manufacturers as a result of this change.

The only additional costs required by this change will be to

indicate the existence of a new traction grade on tread labels and

point-of-sale brochures. CGT estimated this cost to be $48,000. Pirelli

estimated the cost of new artwork for labels to be $12,000 and the cost

of brochures and dealer price books at $104,000. Kelly stated that

6,750 label designs would need to be changed, but gave no cost figure.

Goodyear estimated that it would cost $26,000 for new labels and

$120,000 for new point-of-sale brochures. MBS estimated that the costs

of new labels and brochures would be $15 million for the tire industry.

None of the commenters specified whether the costs they quoted were

additional annual costs or whether those were one-time costs associated

with adding a description of the AA grade for the first time. Tire

manufacturers update and reissue their labels and brochures

periodically, normally annually, to account for new tire lines and

improvements or changes in existing tire lines. It follows, therefore,

that once a description of the AA grade is printed on/in the labels and

brochures, that description can be repeated without change on

subsequent labels and brochures without adding any additional costs to

those printings. Accordingly, the agency assumes the figures quoted

above are one-time costs only.

The MBS estimate of $15 million appears to be very high, compared

to the figures estimated by the manufacturers themselves. Even so,

NHTSA regards $15 million as a maximum figure applicable to the entire

tire industry that, as previously pointed out, would be a one-time

expenditure only.

This change will substantially benefit consumers by allowing them

to identify those tire lines with the highest traction performance

characteristics, thereby providing them even greater tire selectivity

and allowing them to make even more-informed choices. In addition,

NHTSA believes that introduction of an AA traction rating will provide

an incentive to tire manufacturers to improve the traction performance

of new tire lines, thereby contributing to motor vehicle safety.

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

(a) Executive Order No. 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and

Procedures

This document was reviewed under Executive Order No. 12866,

Regulatory Planning and Review. NHTSA has analyzed the impact of this

rulemaking action and has determined that it is ``significant'' under

the DOT's regulatory policies and procedures because the proposal which

preceded it contained an issue of substantial public and congressional

interest. That issue, the substitution of a fuel economy grade for the

existing temperature resistance grade, is not addressed in this final

rule.

The Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation prepared by this agency for

the 1995 NPRM remains valid as to the amendments adopted in this final

rule. See section IV, Cost/Benefit Analysis, above for a full

discussion of cost savings, additional costs, and proposed anticipated

benefits of this rulemaking.

(b) Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under

the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that the amendments

promulgated by this final rule will not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, a regulatory

flexibility analysis has not been prepared.

The agency believes that few, if any, tire manufacturers qualify as

small

[[Page 47443]]

businesses. Small businesses, small organizations, and small

governmental units may be affected by this rulemaking action only to

the extent that they could possibly pay slightly more for tires that

are graded AA for traction performance characteristics.

(c) Executive Order 12612, Federalism

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action in accordance with the

principles and criteria of Executive Order 12612 and has determined

that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

(d) National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the

National Environmental Policy Act and has determined that

implementation of this rulemaking action will not have any significant

impact on the quality of the human environment.

(e) Paperwork Reduction Act

The provisions of this final rule requiring manufacturers to mold

certain information into or onto the sidewalls of tires and to affix

labels to tires explaining the tire quality grades for the benefit of

consumers are considered to be third-party information collection

requirements as defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in

5 CFR part 1320. The information collection requirements for 49 CFR

575.104 have been submitted to and approved by OMB pursuant to the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3501, et seq.

This collection of information authority has been assigned OMB control

number 2127-0519, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards, 49 CFR Part

575.104, and has been approved for use through September 30, 1998.

(f) Civil Justice Reform

This final rule does 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 standard is identical to the

Federal standard. However, a state may prescribe a standard for a motor

vehicle or equipment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher

performance requirement than the Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. Sec. 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.

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 is amended as

follows:

PART 575--CONSUMER INFORMATION REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for Part 575 continues 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 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B);

(d)(1)(iii); (d)(2)(i); the introductory text of (d)(2)(ii);

(e)(2)(ix)(C); Figure 1; Part I and the introductory text of Part II of

Figure 2; and the paragraph entitled ``Traction'' in Part II of Figure

2; by adding paragaph (d)(2)(ii)(D); and by removing paragraphs (i),

(j), (k), and (1), to read as follows:

Sec. 575.104 Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards.

* * * * *

(d) Requirements--(1) Information.

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

(B) Each tire manufactured on and after the effective date of these

amendments, other than a tire sold as original equipment on a new

vehicle, shall have affixed to its tread surface so as not to be easily

removable a label or labels containing its grades and other information

in the form illustrated in Figure 2, Parts I and II. The treadwear

grade attributed to the tire shall be either imprinted or indelibly

stamped on the label containing the material in Part I of Figure 2,

directly to the right of or below the word ``TREADWEAR.'' The traction

grade attributed to the tire shall be indelibly circled in an array of

the potential grade letters AA, A, B, or C, directly to the right of or

below the word ``TRACTION'' in Part I of Figure 2. The temperature

resistance grade attributed to the tire shall be indelibly circled in

an array of the potential grade letters A, B, or C, directly to the

right of or below the word ``TEMPERATURE'' in Part I of Figure 2. The

words ``TREADWEAR,'' ``TRACTION,'' AND ``TEMPERATURE,'' in that order,

may be laid out vertically or horizontally. The text of Part II of

Figure 2 may be printed in capital letters. The text of Part I and the

text of Part II of Figure 2 need not appear on the same label, but the

edges of the two texts must be positioned on the tire tread so as to be

separated by a distance of no more than one inch. If the text of Part I

and the text of Part II of Figure 2 are placed on separate labels, the

notation ``See EXPLANATION OF DOT QUALITY GRADES'' shall be added to

the bottom of the Part I text, and the words ``EXPLANATION OF DOT

QUALITY GRADES'' shall appear at the top of the Part II text. The text

of Figure 2 shall be oriented on the tire tread surface with lines of

type running perpendicular to the tread circumference. If a label

bearing a tire size designation is attached to the tire tread surface

and the tire size designation is oriented with lines type running

perpendicular to the tread circumference, the text of Figure 2 shall

read in the same direction as the tire size designation.

* * * * *

(iii) In the case of information required in accordance with

Sec. 575.6(a) to be furnished to the first purchaser of a new motor

vehicle, each manufacturer of motor vehicles shall, as part of the

required information, list all possible grades for traction and

temperature resistance and restate verbatim the explanation for each

performance area specified in Figure 2. The information need not be in

the format of Figure 2, but it must contain a statement referring the

reader to the tire sidewall for the specific tire grades for the tires

with which the vehicle is equipped.

(2) Performance.--(i) Treadwear. Each tire shall be graded for

treadwear performance with the word ``TREADWEAR'' followed by a number

of two or three digits representing the tire's grade for treadwear,

expressed as a percentage of the NHTSA nominal treadwear value, when

tested in accordance with the conditions and procedures specified in

paragraph (e) of this section. Treadwear grades shall be expressed in

multiples of 20 (for example, 80, 120, 160).

(ii) Traction. Each tire shall be graded for traction performance

with the word ``TRACTION,'' followed by the symbols AA, A, B, or C,

when the tire is tested in accordance with the conditions and

procedures specified in paragraph (f) of this section.

* * * * *

(D) The tire may be graded AA only when its adjusted traction

coefficient is both:

(1) More than 0.54 when tested in accordance with

paragraph (f)(2) of this section on the asphalt surface specified in

paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section; and

(2) More than 0.38 when tested in accordance with

paragraph (f)(2) of this

[[Page 47444]]

section on the concrete surface specified in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of

this section.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(2) * * *

(ix) * * *

(C) Determine the course severity adjustment factor by assigning a

base course wear rate of 1.34 to the course monitoring tires and

dividing that rate by the average wear rate for the four course

monitoring tires.

* * * * *

(i) Removed.

(j) Removed.

(k) Removed.

(l) Removed.

* * * * *

BILLING CODE 4910-53-P

[[Page 47445]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE96.023

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 47446]]

Figure 2--[Part I]--DOT QUALITY GRADES

TREADWEAR

TRACTION AA A B C

TEMPERATURE A B C

(Part II) All Passenger Car Tires Must Conform to Federal Safety

Requirements In Addition To These Grades

* * * * *

TRACTION

The traction grades, from highest to lowest, are AA, A, B, and

C. Those grades represent the tire's ability to stop on wet pavement

as measured under controlled conditions on specified government test

surfaces of asphalt and concrete. A tire marked C may have poor

traction performance. Warning: The traction grade assigned to this

tire is based on straight-ahead braking traction tests, and does not

include acceleration, cornering, hydroplaning, or peak traction

characteristics.

* * * * *

Issued on August 30, 1996.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96-22761 Filed 9-6-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P