Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer Information Program

Federal RegisterJun 22, 2009

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 575

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0121]

RIN 2127-AK45

Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer Information Program

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

SUMMARY:

This document proposes a broad new consumer information program for replacement tires to inform consumers about the effect of tires on fuel efficiency, safety, and durability. This consumer information program would implement a national tire fuel efficiency rating system for replacement tires, with the information provided to consumers at the point of sale and online. Fuel efficiency ratings are expected to inform consumers so that they will be better informed about replacement tire performance. This consumer information program seeks to enhance energy security and reduce costs by improving fuel economy. Information would also be provided about safety and durability.

DATES:

Comments to this proposal must be received on or before August 21, 2009. In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, NHTSA is also seeking comment on a new information collection.

See

the Paperwork Reduction Act section under Regulatory Notices and Analyses below. Please submit all comments relating to new information collection requirements on or before August 21, 2009.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by the docket number in the heading of this document, by any of the following methods:

•

Federal eRulemaking Portal:

Go to

http://www.regulations.gov

. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the electronic docket site by clicking on “Help” or “FAQ.”

•

Mail:

Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.

•

Hand Delivery:

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

•

Fax:

202-493-2251.

Regardless of how you submit comments, you should mention the docket number of this document.

You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202-366-9826.

Instructions:

For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process,

see

the Public Participation heading of the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to

http://www.regulations.gov,

including any personal information provided.

Privacy Act:

Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union,

etc.

). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the

Federal Register

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit

http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html

Docket:

For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to

http://www.regulations.gov,

or the street address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For policy and technical issues:

Ms. Julie Abraham or Ms. Mary Versailles, Office of Rulemaking, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-0846.

For legal issues:

Mr. Stephen Wood or Ms. Sarah Alves, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Overview

A. Summary

B. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

C. Proposal

1. Test Procedures

2. Proposed Rolling Resistance Rating Metric

3. Proposed Label

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

5. Consumer Education Program

D. Costs and Benefits

E. Lead Time

II. Background

A. Contribution of Tire Maintenance and Tire Fuel Efficiency to Addressing Energy Independence and Security

1. Tire Fuel Efficiency and Rolling Resistance

2. Relationship Between Tire Maintenance and Tire Fuel Efficiency and Vehicle Fuel Economy

3. 2006 National Academy of Sciences Report

4. California

5. European Union

6. Japan

B. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 Mandated Consumer Tire Information Program

1. Tires Subject to the Consumer Information Program

2. Mandate To Create a National Tire Fuel Efficiency Rating System

3. Communicating Information to Consumers

4. Specification of Test Methods

5. Creating a National Consumer Education Program on Tire Maintenance

6. Consultation in Setting Standards

7. Application With State and Local Laws and Regulations

8. Compliance and Enforcement

9. Reporting to Congress

III. Which Tires Must Be Rated?

A. Passenger Car Tires

B. Replacement Tires

C. Tires within a Tire Model

D. Tires Excluded

IV. Rolling Resistance Test Procedure

A. Rolling Resistance

B. Possible Test Procedures Available to Measure Rolling Resistance

C. NHTSA Research Results

D. Why Select a Single-Point Test Instead of Multi-Point?

E. Why Select ISO 28580 Instead of Other Tests?

V. Proposed Rolling Resistance Rating Metric

VI. Proposed Rating System

A. What Should We Convey to Consumers in a Rating System?

1. Fuel Efficiency

2. Safety

i. Potential Safety Consequences

ii. Test Procedure

3. Durability

4. Overall Rating

B. How Should We Convey the Information to Consumers in a Rating System?

1. Proposed Rating Formulas

i. Fuel Efficiency

ii. Safety

iii. Durability

2. Proposed Label Style

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

A. The Replacement Passenger Car Tire Market

B. Assumptions about the Average Tire Purchaser and the Average Tire Purchasing Process

C. What Are We Proposing To Require of Tire Retailers?

D. What Are We Proposing To Require of Tire Manufacturers?

1. Data Reporting

2. Tire Labels

E. Requirements for Tire Retailers and Tire Manufacturers With an Internet Presence

F. Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards

VIII. NHTSA's Consumer Education Program

A. Previous Tire Consumer Education Efforts

B. Potential Future Consumer Education Efforts

1. What Information Should NHTSA Convey?

2. Point of Sale

3. Interactive Mediums

4. Web Site Development

5. Paper Brochure Materials

6. Partnership Development

7. Exhibits and Conferencing

8. Local Education Programs

IX. Costs and Benefits

A. Costs

B. Benefits

X. Lead Time

XI. Compliance Tolerances

A. Fuel Efficiency

B. Safety

C. Durability

XII. Regulatory Alternatives

XIII. Public Participation

XIV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

B National Environmental Policy Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

H. Executive Order 13045

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 13211

K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

L. Plain Language

M. Privacy Act

I. Executive Overview

A. Summary

This document is being issued pursuant to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA),

which was enacted in December 2007. EISA included a requirement that NHTSA develop a national tire fuel efficiency consumer information program to educate consumers about the effect of tires on automobile fuel efficiency, safety, and durability. Consumers currently have little, if any, convenient way of determining how tire choices can affect vehicle fuel economy.

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

The collective effects of the choices consumers make when they buy tires are matters of public interest. The 240 million passenger cars and light trucks in the United States consume about 135 billion gallons of motor fuel annually.

Finding ways to reduce this energy consumption is a national goal for reasons ranging from ensuring economic and national security to improving local air quality and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Rolling resistance, or the force required to make the tires roll, differs from tire to tire and is a characteristic that indicates a tire's fuel efficiency. Consumers, if sufficiently informed and interested, could bring about a reduction in average rolling resistance of replacement tires by adjusting their tire purchases, and as a consequence, significantly reduce the amount of fuel consumed annually. While the handling, traction, and other operating characteristics of tires are of particular interest to tire buyers, they are also matters of even broader public interest in as much as they may influence the safety performance of vehicles on the nation's highways.

Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 27, Tables 4-1 and 4-2, available at

http://cta.ornl.gov/data/index.shtml

(last accessed Mar. 5, 2009).

Congress required NHTSA to establish a tire fuel efficiency consumer information program, including a replacement tire fuel efficiency rating system. This requirement is evidently a response to a market failure in the form of imperfectly informed decisions on the part of consumers; the program attempts to respond to the market failure. In the same vein, EISA requires that NHTSA develop requirements for providing this information to consumers, and a national tire maintenance consumer education program. All tires require proper inflation and maintenance to achieve their intended levels of efficiency, safety, wear, and operating performance. NHTSA has previously addressed the importance of proper tire inflation to safety and fuel efficiency in various public service campaigns. NHTSA has also mandated that tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMSs) be installed on new motor vehicles,

but TPMS is not a substitute for proper tire maintenance. Motorists must be alerted to the fact that even small losses in inflation pressure can reduce tire treadwear life, fuel efficiency, and operating performance.

See

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”).

This document proposes to require tire manufacturers to label their replacement tires for fuel efficiency, safety, and durability based on test procedures specified by the agency. These tests address three aspects of tire performance: rolling resistance, traction and treadwear life. As noted above and described in further detail below, rolling resistance is a measurement of fuel efficiency. A measurement of traction is intended to indicate a tire's ability to stop on wet pavement. Thus, traction is one metric that corresponds to safety. A treadwear rating measures a tire's wear rate compared with that of control tires. Treadwear life, therefore, corresponds to a measure of durability.

Comparing this new proposed label across potential replacement tires would enable consumers to see how different replacement tires can affect the fuel economy they are getting from their vehicle. The label would also allow consumers to see the tradeoff they may be facing between fuel efficiency, safety (

i.e.,

traction), and durability (

i.e.,

treadwear life), and how the balance of these factors may differ from tire to tire. NHTSA's research has found that while tire construction need not sacrifice traction or treadwear for improved fuel efficiency, maintaining the same traction and treadwear while increasing the fuel efficiency of a given tire often entails higher costs.

Thus, if a manufacturer seeks to improve the fuel efficiency of a given replacement tire construction while keeping cost constant, there is a substantial chance that the construction will sacrifice either traction or treadwear.

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA Tire Rolling Resistance Rating System Test Development Project: Phase 2—Effects of Tire Rolling Resistance Levels on Traction, Treadwear, and Vehicle Fuel Economy (February 2009). This Phase 2 research report will be placed in the docket.

The agency is proposing to require that tire retailers display a tire fuel efficiency consumer information program poster that NHTSA will print and provide to retailers. The poster would communicate the importance of comparing replacement tire ratings as well as the importance of proper tire maintenance. The agency is also proposing to require tire retailers and tire manufacturers that maintain Web sites to link to NHTSA's comprehensive tire Web site it will be developing as part of a national tire maintenance consumer education program. The agency seeks comments on any other information dissemination requirements that would ensure that easy-to-understand information is conveyed in a way that is most likely to impact consumers' decisions and, thus, affect their behavior and save them and our nation fuel and money.

In developing the proposal, the agency conducted tire testing research to determine which test procedure would best standardize a fuel efficiency rating and provide accurate discrimination among replacement tires. The agency is proposing the specific test procedure by which manufacturers are to measure rolling resistance for the rating system. NHTSA also conducted consumer focus group research to improve understanding of the typical tire purchaser and the tire purchasing

process for the average consumer. NHTSA's preliminary consumer research explored the type of label (including forms of rating, scales, and graphic) that best communicates the information to consumers. In this notice, we are proposing a label based on the rating scale and presentation that tested best with consumers and that promises to improve the operation of the market in terms of three factors (fuel economy, safety, and durability) that matter to consumers. We are aware that by itself, the rating scale may not make the relevant information fully meaningful to consumers; from the label alone, it is not entirely clear what a high rating, rather than a low one, will mean in terms of what matters to consumer choices. The agency is planning to do additional consumer testing, including additional types of testing such as quantitative and experimental techniques, to make the label as meaningful as possible. At this point, the agency cannot project the expected consumer reaction to this program, and it will engage in continued testing to provide such projections. The agency requests comment on the proposed rating systems, the proposed label, and potential future consumer research.

NHTSA is also publishing a companion Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) that provides an analysis on the potential economic impacts of this consumer information program. The agency seeks comment on this preliminary analysis.

B. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

The provision of EISA that mandates the consumer tire information program built on a legislative proposal originally introduced in 2006 after a NAS report was issued suggesting that a tire fuel efficiency consumer information program could increase vehicle fuel economy by an average of 1 to 2 percent.

Many factors affect a vehicle's fuel economy, including the tire's rolling resistance, or force required to make the tires roll. The 2006 NAS report estimated that 4 percent (urban) to 7 percent (highway) of the energy available from the vehicle's fuel usage is used to overcome the rolling resistance of the tires. Therefore, reducing rolling resistance can reduce a vehicle's fuel consumption. As one of many strategies to meet the Federal corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for new passenger cars and light trucks, automobile manufacturers often equip vehicles with low rolling resistance tires. However, consumers often unknowingly purchase higher rolling resistance tires when replacing their vehicle tires, because information on the comparative rolling resistance of tires and its impact on vehicle fuel economy is not readily available.

Previous attempts to establish a national tire fuel efficiency program can be found in proposed amendments to various energy bills in prior years.

See e.g.,

S. Amdt. 3083, 108th Cong., 150 Cong. Rec. S4710 (2004) (proposing to amend S. 150); S. Amdt. 1470, 108th Cong., 149 Cong. Rep. S10707 (2003) (proposing to amend S. 14). These amendments proposed regulating the fuel efficiency of tires in addition to a tire fuel efficiency grading system and consumer information program, and were not adopted.

One of the most significant of the EISA mandates is the setting of separate maximum feasible standards for passenger cars and for light trucks at levels sufficient to ensure that the average fuel economy of the combined fleet of all passenger cars and light trucks sold by all manufacturers in the U.S. in model year (MY) 2020 equals or exceeds 35 miles per gallon. In the near future, per the President's announcement, NHTSA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intend to initiate a joint rulemaking with NHTSA proposing CAFE standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended by EISA, and EPA proposing greenhouse gas emissions standards under the Clean Air Act.

It is intended that this joint rulemaking proposal will reflect a carefully coordinated and harmonized approach to implementing these two statutes.

The new standards will 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.

Notice of Upcoming Joint Rulemaking To Establish Vehicle GHG Emissions and CAFE Standards; Notice of Intent To Conduct a Joint Rulemaking, 74 FR 24007 (May 22, 2009).

Id.

at 24008.

Id.

at 24009.

Section 111 of EISA added section 32304A to Chapter 323 of title 49, United States Code. This chapter codifies consumer information requirements initially established by the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-513). The new section 32304A is entitled “Consumer tire information” and specifies as follows:

• Within 24 months of the enactment of EISA, NHTSA is to promulgate rules establishing a national tire fuel efficiency consumer information program for replacement tires to educate consumers about the effect of tires on fuel efficiency, safety, and durability.

• The program must include a national tire fuel efficiency rating system for replacement tires to assist consumers in making more educated tire purchasing decisions.

• NHTSA must specify requirements for providing information to consumers, including information at the point of sale and other potential dissemination methods, including the Internet.

• NHTSA must also specify the test methods that manufacturers are to use in assessing and rating tires to avoid variation among test equipment and manufacturers.

• As a part of the consumer information program, NHTSA must develop a national tire maintenance consumer education program, which must include information on tire inflation pressure, alignment, rotation, and treadwear to maximize fuel efficiency, safety and durability of replacement tires.

C. Proposal

We solicit comment on all aspects of this proposal, including the rolling resistance test procedure, the rating system and label graphic, and the requirements for tire manufacturers and tire retailers for reporting and disseminating information. Specific areas where we request comments are identified elsewhere in this preamble and in the PRIA. Based on public comments and other information, including new data and analysis, the requirements and specifications in the final rule could differ from the specific ones proposed in this document.

1. Test Procedures

This document proposes to require tire manufacturers to rate the fuel efficiency of their tires using a test procedure currently under development by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), ISO 28580:

Tyre Rolling Resistance measurement method—Single point test and measurement result correlation—Designed to facilitate international cooperation and, possibly, regulation building.

The ISO standard is currently in Final Draft International Standard (FDIS) stage, and is expected to be balloted and finalized by October 2009. Based on this timeline, the agency expects this test procedure to be finalized before publication of the final rule.

NHTSA is proposing to specify the use of the finalized ISO 28580 test procedure. The agency is also seeking

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

If the ISO 28580 test procedure is not a finalized by the time of publication of this notice, interested parties may obtain a copy of the draft by contacting Mr. Joe Pacuit, U.S. Technical Advisory Group (TAG) Secretariat to Technical Committee (TC) 31,

Tyres, rims and valves.

Mr. Pacuit can be reached by telephone at (303) 666-8121.

The choice of which test procedure to specify for measuring rolling resistance is important because measuring rolling resistance requires precise instrumentation, calibration, speed control and equipment alignment for repeatable results. As explained in more detail in this notice, agency research shows that all of the available test procedures could meet these requirements. However, the ISO 28580 test method is unique in that it specifies a procedure to correlate results between laboratories and test equipment, which our research shows is a significant source of variation. Because other established test methods lack such a procedure, NHTSA would have to develop a new procedure to address this variation before any of those test methods could be considered. Further, the ISO 28580 test procedure is the specified test method in the proposed European Union Directive, allowing manufacturers to do one test to determine ratings for both proposed regulations.

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

The agency has been examining other metrics for safety and durability, as well as possible correlations between tire fuel efficiency and wet and dry traction, indoor and outdoor treadwear, and vehicle fuel economy.

See

49 CFR 575.104 (2008).

NHTSA's Phase 2 research tested 15 models of replacement tires, as well as the original equipment tires on a fuel economy test vehicle, to examine possible correlations between tire rolling resistance levels and vehicle fuel economy as measured on a dynometer, wet and dry traction, and indoor and outdoor treadwear.

See

2. Proposed Rolling Resistance Rating Metric

We are proposing to base a tire's fuel efficiency rating on rolling resistance force (RRF) as measured by the ISO 28580 test procedure. This is in contrast to basing a fuel efficiency rating on rolling resistance coefficient (RRC), or RRF divided by load. The agency is aware that the proposed European tire fuel efficiency rating system specifies tire ratings based on RRC.

NHTSA is proposing to base the rolling resistance rating on the RRF metric because such a rating would provide more discrimination among different tires throughout the system, and thus more information to consumers, than a rating based on RRC. RRF translates more directly to the fuel required to move a tire, and based on the goals of EISA, appears to be a more appropriate metric.

3. Proposed Label

To convey information to consumers, this document proposes a label, which contains an individual tire's ratings for fuel efficiency (

i.e.,

rolling resistance), safety (

i.e.,

traction), and durability (

i.e.,

treadwear), and which is similar to a ratings label that tested well in consumer research conducted by NHTSA. NHTSA conducted focus group studies in which it presented several labels using different graphics and scales to relay the ratings. Figure 1 shows the ratings label that NHTSA is proposing in today's notice. The graphic shows all the ratings on a scale of 0 to 100, with 100 being the best rating. Consumers expressed an understanding of this 0 to 100 scale, and reacted positively to the red and green shading, with red indicating lower/worse ratings and green indicating higher/better ratings.

Other graphics presented in NHTSA's consumer research are discussed in section VI.B.3 of this notice.

Today's proposed regulation specifies the colors on the far ends of the ratings scales as “primary red” (for lowest/worst rating box) and “primary green” (for the highest/best rating box). An example of the proposed label in color can be found in the docket for this rulemaking and on NHTSA's Web site,

http://www.nhtsa.gov

. Click on the link to this notice, which will appear under “What's New, Latest Updates, and Features on Our Site” (towards the bottom of the main page).

NHTSA is seeking comment on an alternative graphic for the traction rating scale because consumers expressed some confusion with the graphic as presented. The cloud in the symbol for traction (representing the source of the rain drops) was confusing for some consumers who could not make out what it was or thought it was a cowboy hat. NHTSA is aware that the consumers may not fully understand the meaning of certain points on the ratings scale and is taking steps, with this rule, to help to increase understanding. NHTSA is seeking comment on how that task might best be accomplished, including with changes to the label itself.

For the purposes of the final rule, the agency is also considering the concept of a combined rating of some sort, which would convert all three benefit metrics into one overall rating. The advantage of such a system for tire performance ratings would be that it would simplify the ratings, potentially relieving consumers of the task of weighing the ratings for three different metrics for one tire against the three ratings for another tire. At the same time, if the single combined rating were presented to the exclusion of individual ratings for each metric, it would obscure the relative performance of individual components that might carry different priorities with different consumers. As discussed in detail below in section VI.A.4, an example of such a system might be expressed as average overall cost per mile. As explained in greater detail later in this notice, the agency seeks comments as to whether such a combined rating could be developed and, if so, should be adopted in the final rule and implemented. The agency seeks comments on the relative advantages and disadvantages of a single combined rating, the three rating system in our proposal, and a third approach combining the first two approaches.

EP22JN09.000

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

For tire manufacturers, NHTSA is proposing that manufacturers be required to report various data to the agency. This is necessary both for enforcement of the rating system, and for development of NHTSA's tire fuel efficiency Web site, which will contain a database of tire information with a calculator tool that allows easy comparison of fuel savings between various replacement tires.

Regarding labeling, we are proposing to require tire manufacturers to print the tire fuel efficiency graphic (Figure 1) in color along with any other information manufacturers include on an existing paper label on the tire.

At the manufacturer's option they could also meet the labeling requirement by displaying the tire fuel efficiency rating graphic as a separate label in full color.

Manufacturers are required to print UTQGS information on a paper label pursuant to 49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(B). Many manufacturers include other information on this paper label as well. Note that NHTSA uses the term “paper label” in the colloquial sense; many labels on tires are actually made of plastic.

As for requirements for tire retailers, we are proposing a requirement that the paper label containing the new rating information must remain on the tire until the sale of the tire. The label refers consumers to the agency's Web site for further information about the ratings. We are further proposing a requirement that tire retailers must display a poster that NHTSA would print and distribute to them which would explain the rating system and encourage consumers to compare ratings across tires.

In addition, for tire manufacturers and retailers that maintain a Web site, the agency is proposing to require those Web sites to link to NHTSA's comprehensive tire Web site we will be developing as part of the national tire maintenance consumer education program. The agency also seeks comments on any other information dissemination requirements that would ensure that easy-to-understand information is conveyed in a way that is most likely to impact consumers' decisions and, thus, affect their behavior and save them and our nation fuel and money.

5. Consumer Education Program

This document identifies and seeks comment on various ways that NHTSA plans to implement a consumer education program to inform consumers about the effect of tire properties and tire maintenance on vehicle fuel efficiency, safety, and durability. All tires require proper inflation and maintenance to achieve their intended levels of energy efficiency, safety, wear, and operating performance. NHTSA has previously addressed the importance of proper tire inflation to fuel efficiency, treadwear, and safety in various public service campaigns. Although NHTSA has mandated tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMSs) be installed on new motor vehicles,

a TPMS is not a substitute for proper tire maintenance. Motorists must be alerted to the fact that even small losses in inflation pressure

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

See

70 FR 18136 (April 5, 2005); Docket No. NHTSA-2005-20586-1.

When a tire is under-inflated, the shape of its footprint and the pressure it exerts on the road surface are both altered. One consequence of this alteration can be a reduction in the tire's ability to transmit (or generate) braking force to the road surface. Thus, under-inflated tires may increase a vehicle's stopping distance on wet surfaces. 66 FR 38982, 38986 (July 26, 2001). Under-inflated tires also increase the rolling resistance of vehicles and, correspondingly, decrease their fuel economy.

Id.

Some of NHTSA's ideas for consumer education include informational posters or brochures that NHTSA would distribute at trade shows and other events, and which tire retailers could display at the point of sale and a centralized, expansive government Web site on tires containing a database of all tire rating information. NHTSA is also planning to develop a comparative calculator that would show the amount of money a consumer would save annually or over the estimated lifetime of the tires of varying fuel efficiency ratings. Using the calculator, a consumer could select tires to compare, enter the fuel economy of their vehicle (miles per gallon or mpg) and the average number of miles they drive each year and even the dollar amount they are paying for fuel and get a calculation of differences in fuel usage and/or money saved for the tires under comparison.

Finally, NHTSA plans to develop and form new partnerships to distribute educational messages about tire fuel efficiency and tire maintenance. NHTSA will seek to partner with any interested tire retailers, State or local governments, as well as manufacturers who share NHTSA's goal of promoting the importance of proper tire maintenance. NHTSA will also seek to partner with universities and high schools that may wish to educate students regarding tire fuel efficiency or proper tire maintenance. These various innovative tools and education measures will assist consumers in making better-informed tire purchasing and maintenance decisions.

D. Costs and Benefits

The annual cost of NHTSA's proposal is estimated to be between $18.9 and $52.8 million. This includes testing costs of $22,500, reporting costs of around $113,000, labeling costs of around $9 million, costs to the Federal government of $1.28 million, and costs of between $8.4 and $42 million to improve tires. In addition, NHTSA anticipates one-time costs of around $4 million, including initial testing costs of $3.7 million and reporting start-up costs of $280,000.

It is hoped that the proposed rule will have benefits in terms of fuel economy, safety, and durability. At the very least, the proposed rule should enable consumers to make more informed decisions about these variables, thus increasing benefits along dimensions that most matter to them. It is possible that the rule will help promote innovation that will benefit consumers along all three dimensions. Because the agency cannot foresee precisely how much today's proposed consumer information program would affect consumer tire purchasing behavior and cannot foresee the reduction in rolling resistance among improved tires, the PRIA estimates benefits using a range of hypothetical assumptions regarding the extent to which the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program affects the replacement tire market. Specifically, the PRIA develops estimates assuming that between 2% and 10% of targeted tires are improved and that the average reduction in rolling resistance among improved tires is between 5% and 10%. Under these hypothetical assumptions, the proposal is estimated to save 7.9-78 million gallons of fuel and prevent the emission of 76,000-757,000 metric tons of CO

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

E. Lead Time

Recognizing that the deadlines imposed by EISA indicate a desire to have information available to consumers as quickly as possible, NHTSA is proposing to require tire manufacturers to meet applicable requirements for all existing replacement tires within 12 months of the issuance of a final regulation. That is, within 12 months of the issuance of a final regulation tire manufacturers must submit required data to NHTSA on all existing replacement tires, and all replacement tires sold by the manufacturer or transferred to tire retailers must be labeled. For new tires introduced after the effective date of this rule, NHTSA is proposing to require reporting of information at least 30 days prior to introducing the tire for sale, as is currently required for UTQGS information.

Regarding the poster NHTSA is proposing to require in retailers that have a display room, the agency is proposing to make this poster available within 12 months of the issuance of a final regulation. At that time NHTSA will publish a

Federal Register

notice announcing the availability of the poster. The agency is proposing that a tire retailer must have the poster on display within 60 days of the issuance of the notice of availability in the

Federal Register

. We are proposing that a tire retailer will be able to comply with the requirement of displaying the poster either by downloading and printing it, in color and with the specifications from NHTSA's Web site, or by contacting the agency and requesting that we send the retailer a copy of the poster.

For tire retailers and tire manufacturers with an Internet presence, NHTSA is proposing that those Web sites link to NHTSA's tire Web site within 12 months of the issuance of a final regulation. NHTSA will provide the direct link to the comprehensive tire Web site in that final regulation.

II. Background

A. Contribution of Tire Maintenance and Tire Fuel Efficiency to Addressing Energy Independence and Security

1. Tire Fuel Efficiency and Rolling Resistance

Without the continual addition of energy, a vehicle will slow down. This effect is due to many forces, including aerodynamic drag, driveline losses, brake drag, and tire rolling resistance. The first three of these are vehicle properties; they will not be discussed further. Rolling resistance is the effort required to keep a given tire rolling. That is, rolling resistance is the energy loss during the continuation of rotational movement of the tire. As such, it always opposes the vehicle's longitudinal, or forward/backward, movement. Since this rolling resistance force (RRF) opposes the direction of travel of the rotating tire, it directly reduces the efficiency of a vehicle in converting the chemical energy in the fuel to motion of the vehicle. Therefore, tire rolling resistance is the most effective metric for rating the “fuel efficiency” of a tire.

In general, vehicle efficiency affects the conversion of chemical energy in motor fuel into mechanical energy and the transmission of energy to the axles to drive the wheels. Figure 2 illustrates the energy uses and losses for a midsize passenger car. Part of the energy supplied to the wheels of the vehicle is lost due to energy converted to heat within the structure of the tire as well as friction between the tire and the road,

which creates resistance, decreasing fuel efficiency.

EP22JN09.001

A tire's

rolling resistance is the energy consumed by a rolling tire, or the mechanical energy converted into heat by a tire, moving a unit distance on the roadway.

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

; 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, thereby increasing rolling resistance. Therefore, properly inflated tires achieve less rolling resistance and higher fuel efficiency than under-inflated tires. Moreover, all tires require proper inflation and proper maintenance to achieve their intended levels of efficiency, safety, wear, and operating performance. Thus, a strong message urging vigilant maintenance of inflation must be a central part of communicating information on the fuel efficiency performance of tires to motorists.

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 secure energy future.

EISA will help reduce America's dependence on oil by reducing U.S. demand for oil by setting a national fuel economy standard of at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020—which will increase fuel economy standards by 40 percent and save billions of gallons of fuel. In the near future, per the President's announcement, NHTSA and EPA intend to initiate a joint rulemaking, with NHTSA proposing CAFE standards under EPCA, as amended by EISA, and EPA proposing greenhouse gas emissions standards under the Clean Air Act.

This notice proposes a tire fuel efficiency rating system and consumer education program that will contribute to increases in actual on-road fuel economy achieved, even for vehicles currently in service.

See

73 FR 24352, 24360 (May 2, 2008).

Notice of Upcoming Joint Rulemaking To Establish Vehicle GHG Emissions and CAFE Standards; Notice of Intent to Conduct a Joint Rulemaking, 74 FR 24007 (May 22, 2009).

Further, improving fuel economy reduces the amount of tailpipe emissions of 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). A copy of this report will be placed in the docket.

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 proposed in today's notice begins this undertaking.

Id.

at 2, 4.

Id.

Other countries have also begun working towards increasing on-road fuel economy by reducing average rolling resistance. These countries include those of the European Union and Japan. In addition, the State of California has also initiated a program to increase vehicle fuel economy using tire efficiency ratings.

4. California

In 2001, California Senate Bill 1170 authorized the California Energy Commission (CEC) to conduct a study to investigate opportunities for increasing usage of low rolling resistance tires in California.

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. 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 specifies testing and reporting requirements for manufacturers, and describes the database the CEC will maintain. The draft regulation defines a “fuel efficient tire” as a tire with “a declared fuel efficiency rating value no higher than 1.15 times the lowest declared fuel efficiency rating value for all tires in its

combined tire size designation and load index.”

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

(last accessed June 15, 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 June 15, 2009).

5. European Union

Europe is approaching the issue of tire fuel efficiency from two directions. On March 10, 2009, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union adopted the European Commission Proposal for a regulation concerning new type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles.

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.

See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2009-0092+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN#top

(last accessed Mar. 11, 2009).

On April 22, 2009, the European Parliament adopted another Commission proposal, “Fuel Efficiency: Labeling of Tyres.” The new regulation will require original equipment and replacement tires to be rated for rolling resistance, wet grip and noise.

The rolling resistance rating is determined using the same test procedure as in ISO 28580:

Tyre Rolling Resistance measurement method—Single point test and measurement result correlation—Designed to facilitate international cooperation and, possibly, regulation building.

The ratings must be provided to consumers in a label on the tire, and also in technical promotional literature, while the measured value for RRC as determined for the type-approval regulation must be molded onto the tire sidewall.

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

(last accessed Mar. 4, 2009). Mandatory requirements are also proposed to begin in October 2010 for wet grip and external rolling noise.

The label design is the same A to G scale as that used to rate the energy efficiency of household appliances in Europe.

It will apply to tires fitted to passenger cars as well as light and heavy duty vehicles. Tire manufacturers are required to have a “fuel savings calculator” on their Web sites, while the European Commission is required to establish a “EU tyre labeling Web site” by September 2010. The new regulation will go into effect in 2012, but tire manufacturers are encouraged to comply earlier.

See

Council Directive 1992/75/EEC, 1992 O.J. (L 297) 16-19 (on the indication by labeling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by household appliances).

6. Japan

In late 2008 the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) announced a decision to establish a fuel efficient tire program.

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 Mar. 10, 2009).

B. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 Mandated Consumer Tire Information Program

The legislation that eventually became section 111 of EISA mandating the tire fuel efficiency consumer education program was originally introduced by itself in the U.S. House of Representatives as H.R. 5632

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. We request comment on how effectively our proposal is likely to be in achieving the goals of EISA. For example, what methodologies and assumptions should be used in establishing and implementing the new rating system? What is the most effective way to engage and educate consumers regarding the proposed rating system?

1. Tires Subject to the Consumer Information Program

The national tire fuel efficiency consumer information program mandated by EISA and proposed in this notice is applicable “only to replacement tires covered under section 575.104(c) of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations” (CFR), as that regulation existed on the date of EISA's enactment.

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).

Title 49 CFR, section 575.104 applies only to “new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars * * * [but] * * * does not apply to deep tread, winter-type snow tires, space-saver or temporary use spare tires, tires with nominal rim diameters of 12 inches or less, or to limited production tires as defined in [49 CFR 575.104(c)(2)].”

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

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 promulgated 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 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 rate 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 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 proposal.

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).

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 to establish a national tire fuel efficiency consumer information program include “specifications for test methods for manufacturers to use in assessing and rating tires to avoid variation among test equipment and manufacturers.”

See

section IV of this notice for a discussion of NHTSA's research and rationale regarding today's proposal of ISO 28580.

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). The research reports from this Phase 1 research will be placed in the docket.

5. Creating a National Consumer Education Program on Tire Maintenance

Section 111 of EISA further directs NHTSA to establish in this rulemaking “a national tire maintenance consumer education program including, information on tire inflation pressure, alignment, rotation, and treadwear to maximize fuel efficiency, safety, and durability.”

NHTSA already has some information regarding tire maintenance on its

http://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.

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 developing today's proposal and seeks comment on the best way to make the information in this program both of interest to consumers and easy to understand. The 2006 NAS Report further noted that “industry cooperation is essential in gathering and conveying tire performance information that consumers can use in making tire purchases.”

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 and EPA will fulfill 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

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

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) developed the EnergyGuide label to enable consumers to compare the energy use of different models as consumers shop for an appliance.

See http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/homes/rea14.shtm

(last accessed June 3, 2009). Section 321(b) of EISA directs the FTC to consider the effectiveness of current lamp disclosures and to consider whether alternative labeling disclosures would be more effective in helping consumers make purchasing decisions.

7. Application With State and Local Laws and Regulations

Section 111 of EISA contains both an express preemption provision and a savings provision that address the relationship of the national tire fuel efficiency consumer information program to be established under that section with State and local tire fuel efficiency consumer information programs. Section 111 provides:

Nothing in this section prohibits a State or political subdivision thereof from enforcing a law or regulation on tire fuel efficiency consumer information that was in effect on January 1, 2006. After a requirement promulgated under this section is in effect, a State or political subdivision thereof may adopt or enforce a law or regulation on tire fuel efficiency consumer information enacted or promulgated after January 1, 2006, if the requirements of that law or regulation are identical to the requirement promulgated under this section. Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt a State or political subdivision thereof from regulating the fuel efficiency of tires (including establishing testing methods for determining compliance with such standards) not otherwise preempted under this chapter.

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

NHTSA seeks public comment on the scope of Section 111 generally, and in particular on whether, and to what extent, Section 111 would or would not preempt tire fuel consumer information regulations that the administrative agencies of the State of California may promulgate in the future pursuant to California's Assembly Bill 844.

8. Compliance and Enforcement

Section 111 of EISA added a new sub-provision to 49 U.S.C. 32308 (General prohibitions, civil penalty, and enforcement) which reads as follows:

Any person who fails to comply with the national tire fuel efficiency information program under section 32304A is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 for each violation.

9. Reporting to Congress

EISA also requires that NHTSA conduct periodic assessments of the rules promulgated under this program “to determine the utility of such rules to consumers, the level of cooperation by industry, and the contribution to national goals pertaining to energy consumption.”

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. Which Tires Must Be Rated?

A. Passenger Car Tires

As explained above in section II.B.1 of this notice, EISA specifies that the tire fuel efficiency requirements are to “apply only to replacement tires covered under [NHTSA's UTQGS regulation].”

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 statute or in 49 CFR part 571,

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

(FMVSS).

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.”

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.

Accordingly, today's proposed tire fuel efficiency consumer information program applies only to replacement passenger car tires, or tires intended for use on passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, that have a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. These tires often have a tire size designation beginning with a “P,” indicating that they are for use on passenger cars. However, they may be designated without the P, sometimes referred to as “hard metric” sizes. Note that even though they are classified as light trucks by NHTSA, many smaller sport utility vehicles (SUVs), pickups, and vans are equipped with passenger car tires.

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.

2006 NAS Report,

supra

note 4, at 14.

Id.

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

NHTSA's research included testing of LT tires even though we are not authorized to regulate them through this tire fuel efficiency consumer information program because NHTSA's Phase 1 research was initiated in July 2006, subsequent to the release of the 2006 NAS Report.

LT tires represented approximately 16.7 percent of the U.S.

replacement tire market in 2007,

and the LT tires studied had nearly twice the rolling resistance as the group of passenger car tires studied.

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.

Specifically, of the 25 different models of tires tested in NHTSA's Phase 1 research, 16 tire models were passenger, 9 were light truck tire models; one of the passenger car tires was the ASTM F2493-06 P225/60R16 97S Standard Reference Test Tire (SRTT).

Rubber Manufacturers Association, Preliminary 2008 Factbook,

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

See

NHTSA Rolling Resistance Rating System Test Development Project: Phase 1—Evaluation of Laboratory Test Protocols (October 2008). A copy of this report and other research reports relied on in this proposal will be placed in the docket.

B. Replacement Tires

Another issue is how to define “replacement tire” for purposes of this program. While most UTQGS requirements apply to all passenger car tires, whether sold as original equipment with a new automobile (OE tires) or as a replacement tire, some apply only to replacement tires. For example, the requirement for a paper label on the tire tread excludes tires “sold as original equipment on a new vehicle.”

NHTSA is proposing a definition of replacement tires for the purposes of the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program using this language. The agency believes the definition needs to be in terms of the actual sale of the tire, not the intention when manufactured. NHTSA understands that some tires that are manufactured for the OE tire market could be sold as replacement tires, either because the vehicle manufacturer does not purchase all that are manufactured for that purpose, or because the vehicle manufacturer sells excess stock.

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

C. Tires Within a Tire Model

Tire manufacturers may have different brands, and within each brand different tire models (or tire lines),

and tire models are often available in different sizes. For example, Michelin is the manufacturer for the Michelin, BFGoodrich and Uniroyal brands. A popular Michelin brand model is the Pilot, but other models include the Energy or the HydroEdge. And each of these brands is available in different tire sizes, for example a 185/65R14 or a 215/70R15.

See

Figure 3. The model of tire (Pilot) then may be available in several performance levels. In the case in Figure 3 there are 3 different speed ratings for the Pilot model. Performance ratings may also include All-Season, Competition, Touring, Grand Touring,

etc.

Each of these tires may also have different treadwear, traction, temperature and warranty ratings. These models are then available in different tire sizes, for example an Exalto A/S is available in 185/60R14 to 235/40R17. Whereas a Pilot Sport A/S Plus is available in sizes 205/55R16 to 245/45R20, and the Pilot Sport PS2 is available in sizes 225/55R16 to 295/25R22.

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.

EP22JN09.002

In passenger car tire sizes (

e.g.,

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

i.e.,

width in millimeters from sidewall edge to sidewall edge (185). In general, the larger the nominal width, the wider the tire. The second two numbers in the size designation indicate the ratio of tire height to tire width, or the aspect ratio (65). For aspect ratio, numbers of 70 or lower indicate a short sidewall for improved steering response and better overall handling on dry pavement. The “R” indicates that this particular tire is a radial tire, as opposed to bias ply construction, which is indicated by a “D” in the size specification. Radial ply construction of tires has been the

industry standard for the past 20 years. The last two numbers in the size designation indicate the rim diameter code (14), or the wheel or rim diameter in inches. A change in any of these three numbers indicates a different size specification for a replacement tire.

Research done for the California Energy Commission (CEC) to evaluate test facility capacity to conduct rolling resistance testing indicated that there are well over 20,000 different brand/model/size combinations (or SKUs)

of replacement passenger car tires sold in the United States.

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

Additionally, a tire manufacturer has the ability to estimate with relative accuracy the rolling resistance test value of a tire with a given size specification if it knows the rolling resistance test value of a tire in the same model line (

i.e.,

the ability to extrapolate test values for certain SKUs from knowing the actual test values of other SKUs). Tire manufacturers have this same ability to extrapolate for UTQGS traction test values and UTQGS treadwear test values by having actually traction and treadwear test values of other, similar tires of different SKUs. For these reasons, NHTSA tentatively concludes that it is not reasonable or necessary to require a physically-tested value of rolling resistance, traction, or treadwear test value for every combination of tire model, construction, and size (SKU).

An SKU, or stock keeping unit, is a specific market brand and tire design and size combination. A different SKU can also be indicated by a different specified load rating or speed rating for a particular tire. Specifically, NHTSA is proposing to define stock keeping unit as “the alpha-numeric designation assigned by a manufacturer to uniquely identify a tire product. This term is sometimes referred to as a product code, a product ID, or a part number.”

See

section XIII (Regulatory Text) of this notice.

The CEC research estimated 20,708 different replacement passenger car tire SKUs and 3,296 replacement LT tire SKUs. This research was done by Smithers Scientific Services, Inc. (Smithers) and was presented at a CEC staff workshop on February 5, 2009. This presentation is available through the CEC's Web site and also will be available in this docket.

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

(last accessed Feb. 11, 2009).

The Smithers' research conducted for CEC was estimating various scenarios for testing three of each different replacement passenger

and

LT tire SKU (because California's tire fuel efficiency program covers passenger car and LT replacement tires). The eight different scenarios varied workdays per year, percent capacity available, and hours per day of test operation. Based on estimates of test capacities, the CEC research estimated average test years required to test three tires of each SKU to be between 0.7 and 8.2 years. Thus, for the purposes of testing one of each different replacement passenger car tire SKU, we estimate this would take a maximum of 8.2/3 years, or 2.7 years.

However, consumers researching tires should be able to compare tire models and sizes with some reliability. In NHTSA's testing, tires of a size 225/60R16, but manufactured by different companies, and having various performance ratings (

e.g.,

speed rating, all-season specification) had rolling resistance values ranging from 9.8 to 15.2 pounds.

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

See

To examine California's rolling resistance test data, please contact Ray Tuvell of the California Energy Commission.

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

(last accessed Feb. 13, 2009).

For these reasons, NHTSA is proposing to require each SKU, or each size within each model of each brand, to be

rated

separately for fuel efficiency (using a rolling resistance test value), safety (using a UTQGS traction test value), and durability (using a UTQGS treadwear test value). Tire manufacturers may use their judgment to determine how many and which tires they must test to be able to accurately report rolling resistance ratings. A tire manufacturer will be responsible for the accuracy of the ratings they place upon the tire label and otherwise communicate to consumers. That is, for compliance purposes, NHTSA will test any rated tire according to the test procedures specified in the regulation (regardless of whether or not the tire manufacturer has tested this tire), and if the rolling resistance, traction, or treadwear test value falls outside of NHTSA's specified tolerance range, the agency will consider that rating a noncompliance.

See

discussion of tolerances in section XI of this notice.

For data reporting purposes, a manufacturer must calculate a test procedure value for rolling resistance, traction, and treadwear, although it is not required to conduct the specific test in the regulation. The proposed specified test procedures merely indicate the procedures NHTSA will use to test and rate a replacement tire for compliance purposes. A tire manufacturer is free to reasonably estimate the test values it reports. NHTSA requests comment on the appropriateness of using interpolated values (for instance a rating for a P215/60R16 value calculated from tested values for a P205/60R16 and a 225/60R16) and extrapolated values (for instance the effect of changes in tread pattern for a specific tire construction of known rating) to provide tire ratings.

D. Tires Excluded

NHTSA's UTQGS regulation excludes “deep tread, winter-type snow tires, space-saver or temporary use spare tires, tires with a nominal rim diameter of 12 inches or less, [and] limited production tires.”

49 CFR 575.104(c)(1). Since EISA specifies that the tire fuel efficiency requirements are to “apply only to replacement tires covered under [NHTSA's UTQGS regulation],” these exclusions are included in today's proposed regulation.

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).

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

NHTSA's research included testing of two different snow tire models.

The two snow tire models tested were within the range of rolling resistance force values of all-season and summer-only passenger tires of the same size. Therefore the specific exclusion of winter-type tires, which represented 4.5 percent of the U.S. replacement tire market in 2007

should not impede the effectiveness of the rating system in reducing U.S. passenger vehicle fuel consumption.

See

Rubber Manufacturers Association, Preliminary 2008 Factbook,

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

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

see

section VII.D.1) a requirement that each manufacturer include with its reports a list of all tire models and sizes that it is claiming are excluded from today's proposed requirements (49 CFR 575.106). In particular, the limited production exclusion is not obvious just by examining the tire, and this would allow NHTSA to quickly verify whether or not the lack of a label was an enforcement concern. The agency may include such a reporting requirement in the final regulation.

IV. Rolling Resistance Test Procedure

A. Rolling Resistance

As explained above, rolling resistance is simply the manifestation of all of the energy losses associated with the rolling of a tire under load.

Accordingly, in a laboratory, rolling resistance is measured by running a tire under load on a test wheel (referred to as “roadwheel”). The energy consumed in driving the tire is measured and the energy recovered from the tire is measured by the test equipment. The difference is the heat energy lost which is the measure of rolling resistance. The smaller the difference, the more fuel efficient the tire. NHTSA is only interested in the force required to maintain a steady state of movement,

i.e.,

speed. Therefore the steady state, or constant, speed test methods are the only ones considered by NHTSA.

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

B. Possible Test Procedures Available To Measure Rolling Resistance

As mentioned previously, subsequent to the recommendations for Congressional action issued in the 2006 NAS Report, NHTSA began a research program to evaluate five existing or proposed test methods to measure the rolling resistance of light vehicle tires, and to examine correlations between tire rolling resistance levels and tire safety performance (Phase 1 Research).

100

The five test methods examined in NHTSA's Phase 1 Research included four established and one draft tire rolling resistance test procedure. The five test methods were as follows:

100

See

• Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J1269—Sep 2006-09;

Rolling Resistance Measurement Procedure for Passenger Car, Light Truck and Highway Truck and Bus Tires

(Multi Point).

• SAE J1269—Sep 2006-09;

Rolling Resistance Measurement Procedure for Passenger Car, Light Truck and Highway Truck and Bus Tires

(Single Point).

• SAE J2452—Jun 1999;

Stepwise Coastdown Methodology for Measuring Tire Rolling Resistance

(Multi Point).

• ISO 18164:2005(E);

Passenger car, truck, bus and motorcycle tyres—Methods of measuring rolling resistance

(Multi Point).

• ISO 28580;

Tyre Rolling Resistance measurement method—Single point test and measurement result correlation—Designed to facilitate international cooperation and, possibly, regulation building

(Single Point).

The SAE is an international standards organization providing voluntary industry standards.

101

The ISO is a worldwide federation of national standards bodies that prepares standards through technical committees comprised of international organizations, governmental and non-governmental, in liaison with ISO.

102

The standards and test methods published by these bodies are proprietary and protected under U.S. copyright law. Parties who need to or wish to conduct the actual tests themselves may obtain a copy of the standards by contacting either SAE or ISO.

101

SAE International, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001, Tel (877) 606-7323,

http://www.sae.org.

102

ISO Central Secretariat, 1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, Case postale 56, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland, Telephone +41 22 749 01 11, Fax +41 22 733 34 30,

http://www.iso.org.

NHTSA's Phase 1 Research used 600 tires of 25 different model/size combinations to evaluate the five rolling resistance test methods at two different laboratories.

103

Tires of each model were purchased with identical or similar build dates and were tested multiple times in each test method, and multiple times at each laboratory.

103

This study looked at both Passenger car (P) tires and Light Truck (LT) tires. However, EISA limits the applicability of this rulemaking to P tires only.

Figure 4 shows a typical laboratory test machine (used for all five test methods evaluated) for measuring rolling resistance. In this test a tire and rim are mounted on the machine. The tire is held against the roadwheel by an actuating cylinder aligned with the center of the roadwheel. A drive motor coupled to the roadwheel rotates the roadwheel. Consequently, the roadwheel drives the tire through friction at the contact patch. The tire's rolling resistance retards the roadwheel's rotation speed. This effect is then measured using any combination of the forces, torques, speeds, or acceleration of the roadwheel. Then the rolling resistance is calculated from the measured quantities.

104

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

A tire's rolling resistance is the energy consumed by a rolling tire, or the mechanical energy converted into heat by a tire, moving a unit distance on the roadway.

105

The magnitude of rolling resistance depends on the tire used, the nature of the surface on which it rolls, and the operating conditions—inflation pressure, load, and speed.

106

105

106

Id.

EP22JN09.003

Four measurement methods of energy loss are in common use and prescribed in test procedures, although not all of the methods are included in every standard.

107

The methods described in the test standards include the following: measurement of the resistive force at the tire spindle while rolling at constant speed (force method), measurement of the resistive torque on the roadwheel hub at constant speed (torque method), measurement of the electrical power used by the motor to keep the roadwheel rotating at a constant speed (power method), and measurement of deceleration when the driving force at the roadwheel is discontinued (deceleration method).

108

The two methods evaluated in NHTSA research were the force and torque methods. Therefore deceleration and power methods are not discussed further in this notice.

107

The proposed test procedure, ISO 28580, has provisions to use all four methods to measure the energy loss.

108

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

Force Method

The force method measures the force at the tire spindle.

See

Figure 5. The roadwheel is brought up to the specified test speed and the tire is warmed up (warm-up) to an equilibrium temperature. The tire is then lightly loaded

109

to measure the losses caused by the spindle holding the tire and aerodynamic losses from the tire spinning. This force measurement is referred to as the skim load value. The tire is then loaded to the test load and successive readings of the resistive force at the tire spindle while rolling at constant speed are taken until consistent force values are obtained.

110

109

Lightly loaded is not a specific number of pounds, but just enough load to keep the tire in contact with the roadwheel, so that the speed of the tire is equal to the speed of the roadwheel surface so there is no slippage.

110

As the machinery ramps up the tire speed to the specified test speed, the force values measured bounce around at first. An accurate measurement can only be taken when the tire is moving at a constant speed and is a constant temperature. Thus, there is a slight delay from ramping up to the specified test speed, and the measurement of an accurate and steady force reading.

EP22JN09.004

The reported force value is equal to the measured force at the spindle minus the skim load value, thereby determining the actual Rolling Resistance Force (RRF) value of the tire. This force is trying to slow down the rotation or travel of the roadwheel due to the energy loss.

Torque Method

The torque method measures the energy, or torque, required to maintain the rotation of the roadwheel. The roadwheel is connected to the motor through a “torque cell.”

See

Figure 6.

111

The roadwheel is brought up to speed and the tire is warmed up (warm-up) to an equilibrium temperature. The tire is then lightly loaded to measure the losses caused by the spindle holding the tire and aerodynamic losses from the tire spinning (skim load value). The tire is then loaded to the test load and successive readings of the resistive torque on the roadwheel hub at constant speed are taken until consistent force values are obtained.

111

A color version of Figure 6 will be placed in the docket.

EP22JN09.005

The values measured for skim and loaded torque must be processed to determine the force (RRF). The skim must be subtracted from the loaded torque value divided by the radius of the roadwheel to determine the tire's contribution to the total loss. The result is Rolling Resistance Force (RRF).

C. NHTSA Research Results

Some of the technical challenges involved in selection of a test procedure to measure rolling resistance include specifying a test method that avoids variation among laboratories/machines. NHTSA also sought to examine possible tradeoffs between improved rolling resistance and tire safety. The purposes of the NHTSA Phase 1 Research was to:

• Benchmark the current rolling resistance levels in modern passenger vehicle tires in terms of actual rolling force, rolling resistance coefficient, as well as indexed against the ASTM F1493-06 Standard Reference Test Tire (SRTT).

• Analyze the effect of the input variables on the testing conditions for non-linear response.

• Select a test procedure that would be best for a regulation.

• Examine the variability of the rolling resistance results from lab to lab, machine to machine.

• Evaluate the effects of first test on a tire versus second test on the same tire.

As discussed above, there can be up to four methods specified for measurement of tire rolling resistance: force method, torque method, power method, and deceleration method. Of these, the force and torque methods are the most commonly used. One test laboratory used in NHTSA's Phase 1 Research evaluated all five rolling resistance procedures on one “force measurement method” test machine. The second test laboratory evaluated SAE J2452 on one “torque measurement method” test machine and the other four methods on a second “force measurement method” test machine. In NHTSA's Phase 1 Research, all work was done using machines with 1.707 meter (67.23 inch) roadwheels with grit surface, which is typical for the United States.

112

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

An analysis of variance (ANOVA)

113

was carried out on the data using the General Linear Models procedure of SAS software to evaluate the effects on measured rolling resistance of tire type, lab-to-lab variability, inflation maintenance, and repeat testing on the same tire. For all of the variables analyzed, individual tire type had the most significant effect on the statistical model.

113

The term analysis of variance refers to the method of determining if an independent variable, such as tire type, has a significant effect on the dependent variable (rolling resistance) by comparing the magnitude of the variation between the means for different groups of independent variables to the variation estimated for random error.

NHTSA's evaluation indicated that all five of the rolling resistance test methods had very low variability and could be cross-correlated to provide the same information about individual tire types.

114

The rank ordering of tire types was essentially the same for each of the test methods evaluated. There was a significant and consistent difference in the data generated by the two laboratories/machines used in this study. Therefore, development of a method to account for lab-to-lab variability is required, either by (1) the use of lab-to-lab correlation equation, based on a reference laboratory, or (2) the use of a Standard Reference Test Tire (SRTT), to normalize data across labs.

114

For this program, each manufacturer will “self-certify” the ratings for its tires. The test procedure specified in this proposal is what NHTSA will use for compliance testing, using the proposed tolerance bands as discussed later in this notice (section XI). Even if rolling resistance test data were gathered using other test methods, NHTSA's research shows that equations can translate the data to the test procedure specified in this rule.

NHTSA also examined differences resulting from the method of inflation maintenance, specifically whether inflation pressure was capped

115

or regulated.

116

The pressure rise in the tire during testing using a capped inflation procedure reduced the rolling resistance compared to maintaining the pressure at a constant pressure during the test. Therefore, the choice of a test that uses capped inflation pressure for some or all of the test points should provide a more accurate representation of in-service behavior.

115

Capped inflation is achieved by inflating the tire to the required pressure prior to testing, while the tire is at ambient temperature of the test area, and then sealing the air in the tire during testing with a valve, cap or some other seal.

116

Regulated inflation pressure is achieved by inflating the tire to the required pressure independent of its temperature, and maintaining this inflation pressure during testing. This is usually performed by using a regulated air (gas) supply external to the spindle, or axle, and connected with a low friction rotary union.

Finally, NHTSA analyzed the effect of repeating tests on the same tire and found that this had little to no effect on test results. Therefore, repeat testing of the same SRTT for lab-to-lab data alignment appears to be viable.

To minimize variability when evaluating the five test methods, tires of each model were purchased with identical or similar build dates. Therefore, the variability of an individual tire model's rolling resistance over a long duration of build dates, or for a single model built at different plants, has not been evaluated by NHTSA.

D. Why Select a Single-Point Test Instead of Multi-Point?

The term “multi-point” refers to a method that uses more than one set of conditions to test a tire, usually varying speed, pressure, and/or load. Passenger car and light truck tires generally have different test conditions and can have even a different number of test points in the set of conditions. The goal of multi-point testing is to allow the use of statistical techniques to reduce rolling resistance force measurement variability and to allow prediction of the effect of changes in inflation pressure, tire load and speed on rolling resistance force. The term “single-point” refers to a method that uses a single set of test conditions. These conditions are designed to be near the average conditions that a tire would see in its intended service.

NHTSA's evaluation showed that all of the rolling resistance test methods have very low variability and all methods can be cross-correlated to provide the same information about individual tire types. The rank ordering of tire types was essentially the same for each of the rolling resistance test methods evaluated. Equations were derived to accurately convert data from any one test to the expected data from any other test. NHTSA's research has shown that both types of tests essentially produce the same rating if results are normalized as a percentage of RRF measured at each lab for the 16-inch SRTT.

117

Single-point tests are less expensive and shorter than multi-point test methods. Additionally, with single-point tests, data from any method can be correlated to data from any other method. Accordingly, NHTSA tentatively concludes that a single-point, rather than a multi-point, test will better serve the purposes of this program. The agency seeks comments, however on the benefits or drawbacks of using single-point versus multi-point test methods.

117

See

E. Why Select ISO 28580 Instead of Other Tests?

Between the two single-point tests, NHTSA is proposing to specify the ISO 28580 test procedure. The ISO 28580 is a draft test method that is now at the final draft international standard (FDIS) stage, and is expected to be balloted and finalized by late April or early May 2009. Since the ISO test is currently being balloted for a final standard, we anticipate only editorial changes at this stage. The differences between the single-point ISO 28580 draft test procedure and the SAE 1269 single-point test procedure are detailed in documents available in the docket.

118

the ISO 28580 test procedure is not a finalized ISO standard by the time of publication of this notice, interested parties may obtain a copy of the draft by contacting Mr. Joe Pacuit, U.S. TAG Secretariat to TC 31,

Tyres, rims and valves.

Mr. Pacuit can be reached by telephone at (303) 666-8121.

118

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Tire Rolling Resistance for Light Vehicles, I: Selection of Tires and Tests for Rating

System Development, presented to California Energy Commission (Feb. 5, 2009) (also available at

http://www.energy.ca.gov/transportation/tire_efficiency/documents/2009-02-05_workshop/presentations/index.php

One significant difference between the ISO and SAE single-point tests is that ISO 28580 includes a procedure which uses two reference tires to correlate any laboratory/machine to a master laboratory. NHTSA's research showed significant difference between the two laboratories used, and therefore addressing this variation is a significant advantage for the draft ISO standard. Use of the SAE J1269 single-point test would require NHTSA to develop its own procedure to address lab-to-lab variation, and there is insufficient time to complete that work before December 2009, the Congressionally-mandated deadline for this program.

While there are larger numbers of tires tested using the SAE J1269 procedure in the databases NHTSA had access to, NHTSA does not see this as an impediment to adopting the ISO test. NHTSA's research shows that the results from either method can be cross-correlated to provide the same information. Specification of the ISO 28580 single-point test may also allow manufacturers to do one test to comply with both European and U.S. regulations.

Additionally, the ISO 28580 single-point test uses capped inflation pressure, which NHTSA believes will provide a more accurate representation of in-service behavior. NHTSA seeks comment on the specification of the ISO 28580 single-point test, as opposed to the SAE single-point test and all other rolling resistance test methods.

Two optional parameters must be specified for the ISO 28580 single-point test: the method(s) of measurement, and the type of surface on the roadwheel (

i.e.,

textured or bare steel). NHTSA is proposing to allow only the force or torque method during the test procedure, as they are the only two types of machines available to NHTSA in the U.S.

The agency is proposing to specify the use of an 80-grit surface on the roadwheel, instead of a bare steel roadwheel, to avoid potential problems with slippage. The grit surface is the most common surface used in the laboratories available to NHTSA. NHTSA in its research found that the use of the 80-grit surface produced a slightly higher test measurement than using the bare steel surface. The lab correlation (alignment) procedure may account for this difference and correlate results from the two different test conditions. However, there was some evidence of potential problems for smooth steel-surfaced roadwheels in NHTSA Phase 1 testing.

119

In that testing, the rolling resistance of deep-lug tires exhibited a relatively linear behavior on grit surfaces over a range of test loads but dropped off consistently at high loads on smooth steel roadwheels. This was attributed to slippage of the deep lug tires on the smooth surface. Since the discrepancy in results between a smooth and steel roadwheel could lead to rating compliance disputes, we are proposing the grit surface since it is more repeatable.

119

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

NHTSA seeks comment as to whether the lab correlation (alignment) procedure will, in fact, account for differences between measurements made using an 80-grit surface on the roadwheel and a properly micro-textured steel-surfaced roadwheel.

V. Proposed Rolling Resistance Rating Metric

The output of the rolling resistance test machines is used to calculate the rolling resistance force (RRF) in pounds of force (lbf) or Newtons (N) at the interface of the tire and drum, or the force at the axle in the direction of travel required to make a loaded tire roll. Rolling resistance is often expressed and reported in terms of Rolling Resistance Coefficient (RRC) (N/kN, kg/tonne, lbf/kip), which is the rolling resistance force divided by the test load on the tire.

120

Since rolling resistance changes with the load on the tire, this makes direct comparisons between the tires tested at different loads difficult. The pending European rating system uses RRC as the metric for a rolling resistance rating/score. However, NHTSA is proposing to base the U.S. tire fuel efficiency rating on the RRF metric. NHTSA has tentatively concluded that a rating based on RRF is more descriptive and would provide more information to consumers, than a rating based on RRC. We request comment on the differences between basing a rolling resistance rating system on RRF versus on RRC, and which is more appropriate for the purposes of our statutory mandate under EISA.

120

Most test procedures specify test load as a percentage of the maximum load rating of the tire being tested. For example, the ISO 28580 test procedure specifies a load of 80% of the maximum sidewall load.

One application of rolling resistance information is a vehicle manufacturer selecting which tires to use for original equipment (OE) fitment. This has been the primary application to date, in large part because information on rolling resistance has been less available to consumers. RRC is appropriate to this application, as a specific vehicle model will be operated with a nominal vertical load on a tire, but a range of tire sizes with varying load capacities are available for OE fitment. Another application, and the one under consideration in this proposed rule, is a consumer looking to replace the tires on their vehicle.

121

NHTSA is concerned about the use of RRC for consumers who are looking to replace tires on their vehicle.

121

What we will be talking about is the majority of purchases, which are for the same size tire that is currently on the vehicle. This discussion does not address the situation where a consumer has decided to change the size of their tires and/or change from P metric tires to LT tires for other purposes.

A rating system based on either RRC or RRF would allow a consumer to rank order tires for their vehicles based on their fuel efficiency, and the relative ranking stays the same under either RRF or RRC. Since RRF is a measure of the energy consumed by the tire near the normal operating conditions of the tire in its intended use, numerical differences in RRF correlate well to amount of fuel used. By contrast, because conversion to RRC compresses the range of data, numerical differences in RRC do not correlate as well to the amount of fuel used. Since reducing fuel use is the purpose of this program, we are proposing to use the metric that best correlates to fuel use.

Specifically, when NHTSA compared some possible tire choices for three different vehicles (a Chevrolet Impala, a Chevrolet Silverado, and a Toyota Corolla), we found that a 10 point improvement in a 0 to 100 rating system based on RRF corresponds to a similar amount of fuel saved, no matter what tire size is being selected. By contrast, a 10 point improvement in a 0 to 100 rating system based on RRC results in a small amount of fuel savings for a small car and a larger amount of fuel savings for a large car. Thus, a consumer would not be able to place the same value on a specific level of improvement when purchasing tires for different vehicles in a rating system based on RRC. The details of the agency's examination of low, high, and midrange rolling resistance tires for these three vehicles

is provided in Appendix A of this notice.

The goals of the tire fuel efficiency rating system may fail to be met if the overall system is not intuitive to consumers. Consumers would presumably use the system to purchase tires for their current and subsequent vehicles, and consumers may have multiple vehicles in their family for which they purchase tires. Consumers may be confused by a tire fuel efficiency rating system where differences between ratings for different tire sizes represent different quantities of fuel saved, as they would in a rating system based on RRC. NHTSA is concerned that, under a rating system based on RRC, a consumer who purchases tires for different vehicles would notice these differences in fuel savings for the same difference in ratings, and as a result, question the validity of the ratings.

In contrast a rating system based on RRF preserves the concept that differences in ratings correspond to the same amount of fuel savings across tire sizes. Thus, consumers would find a rating system based on RRF more intuitive since a given change in rating will consistently relate more closely to an amount of fuel saved. For a rating system based on RRF, the agency would be able to state a general rule of thumb that,

e.g.,

for every 10,000 miles you drive a difference of 20 on the rating scale equates to X gallons of fuel saved, which could easily be converted into dollars saved by a better rated tire. NHTSA believes that such direct expressions of money saved are likely to be more effective in informing consumer purchasing decisions. A rating system based on RRC would not be able to have such an understandable and useful rule of thumb because it would differ depending on the test load of the tire. For the foregoing reasons, the agency is proposing that the tire fuel efficiency rating be based on RRF.

VI. Proposed Rating System

A. What Should We Convey to Consumers in a Rating System?

1. Fuel Efficiency

As explained above in section II.A.1, NHTSA is proposing to communicate tire fuel efficiency information in the form of a rolling resistance rating, because rolling resistance corresponds to the amount of fuel used in the form of mechanical energy dissipated to move the tire. Tire rolling resistance is the most effective metric for rating the “fuel efficiency” of a tire because rolling resistance force (RRF) measures the energy loss that opposes the direction of travel of the rotating tire and, thus, it directly reduces the efficiency of a vehicle in converting the chemical energy in the fuel to motion of the vehicle.

Based on the rolling resistance force test value measured using the ISO 28580 test procedure, the fuel efficiency rating of a given replacement passenger car tire is calculated using the formula specified by NHTSA, which is discussed in section VI.B.1 below.

2. Safety

i. Potential Safety Consequences

There is a growing appreciation but still a limited understanding of how tire traction, wear resistance, and rolling resistance relate to the practical outcomes of vehicle fuel consumption, crash incidence, and tire service life. One of the past concerns about rolling resistance is that traction and/or treadwear are negatively impacted by changes made to improve rolling resistance.

As part of the research in support of this rulemaking, NHTSA performed and analyzed additional testing with the tires that were used to evaluate the rolling resistance test methods. This testing included UTQGS traction and treadwear testing, additional wet and dry traction testing on an outdoor track, indoor dry traction and treadwear testing, and EPA dynamometer fuel economy testing.

122

This research, with one exception discussed below, did not show that this tradeoff is a given and must occur. However, it may cost more to maintain traction or treadwear with an improvement in rolling resistance.

122

See

NHTSA Tire Rolling Resistance Rating System Test Development Project: Phase 2—Effects of Tire Rolling Resistance Levels on Traction, Treadwear, and Vehicle Fuel Economy (February 2009). The research reports from this Phase 2 research will be placed in the docket.

By putting information on all three parameters on a label, a consumer would factor any possible tradeoffs between rolling resistance, traction, and treadwear, and/or cost differences between tires. That is, with all three ratings on one label, a consumer could see whether they were opting for a decrease in traction and treadwear to gain improved rolling resistance.

Technical literature extensively indicates that the tradeoff between fuel economy and safety performance can be significantly reduced or eliminated with advanced compounding technologies, which are usually more expensive and proprietary. However, many aspects of the tire's construction and manufacture affect how much tradeoff remains, and the results of implementing silica tread technology will vary between manufacturers (which ranges from manufacturers who have decades of experience with the technology to manufacturers who have none). It is hoped that increased consumer awareness may help to spur technological innovation to promote simultaneous improvements along several dimensions. At least for the near future, however, the agency cannot guarantee that there will not be a tradeoff between fuel efficiency and safety.

Therefore, NHTSA is concerned about the potential negative safety consequences that may occur if consumers, motivated by potential fuel savings, begin to purchase tires with better rolling resistance ratings but are unwilling to spend additional money to also maintain wet traction levels. Despite having the wet traction rating on the same sticker, some manufacturers may defer the use of the more expensive silica tread technologies and instead optimize tires to lower rolling resistance and treadwear (another important purchase motivator) at the expense of wet traction in order to gain a price advantage. This may be especially prevalent in the lower-cost segments of the market.

A survey of the current marketplace was undertaken to estimate what information consumers currently have for choices in wet traction, price, and, where available, rolling resistance performance of tires. From the NHTSA ratings in

http://safercar.gov

and tires available at TireRack.com, approximately 20 percent of tires currently have traction ratings of AA, 70 percent have ratings of A, and 10 percent have ratings of B. There were no C-rated tires for on-road passenger vehicle use. From the NHTSA data and the data from the California Energy Commission and Consumer Reports magazine, it appears that tire makers design most tires with AA wet traction rating for flag-brand and high-performance tires with correspondingly high average selling prices. Data for rolling resistance, wet traction, and list price performance indicate that tires with both A-traction rating and low rolling resistance performance are available at all list price levels.

ii. Test Procedure

Whereas rolling resistance is a standard measurement for characterizing and comparing tire energy performance, less comprehensive data exist in the public domain for accurate characterizations of tire traction. There are different methods of evaluating traction. For example, the UTQGS rating and the European wet

grip rating use different test procedures which do not evaluate the same elements.

The test procedure specified in the UTQGS rating systems for traction is the only metric for which consistent data are widely available for a range of tires. Accordingly, NHTSA is currently proposing to use the traction test procedure specified in the agency's UTQGS regulation to rate tires for safety on the same scale and label as fuel efficiency via rolling resistance rating.

See

49 CFR 575.104(f). The UTQGS traction test procedure measures a tire's coefficient of friction when it is tested on wet asphalt and concrete surfaces. The subject tire is placed on an instrumented axle of a skid trailer, which is pulled behind a truck at 40 miles per hour (mph) on wet asphalt and concrete surfaces. The trailer's brakes are momentarily locked, and sensors on the axle measure the longitudinal braking forces as it slides in a straight line. The coefficient of friction is then determined as the ratio of this sliding force to the tire load.

The UTQGS traction rating procedure specifies that the traction coefficients for asphalt and for concrete are to be calculated using the locked-wheel traction coefficient on the tire, or sliding coefficient of friction. Because it uses the sliding coefficient of friction, this test procedure indicates the traction or wet pavement behavior for a vehicle that is not equipped with anti-lock brakes (ABS) or electronic stability control (ESC). A vehicle equipped with ABS or ESC reacts to braking and sliding in a more sophisticated way. ABS prevents wheel lock-up by pumping the vehicle's brakes repeatedly during braking events. ESC may automatically perform activation of the brakes on individual wheels in an attempt to slow down a vehicle and point it in a different direction if the system senses a directional loss of control. NHTSA's tire testing research showed that for a tire with a given rolling resistance, vehicles equipped with ABS or ESC will exhibit safer behavior on wet pavement (

i.e.,

better traction) than the sliding coefficient of friction traction measurement would indicate in the UTQGS traction test procedure.

The peak coefficient of friction is a metric that would better indicate traction performance for vehicles equipped with these advanced braking and handling systems. This is because as soon as ABS causes the vehicle to reapply the brakes (and also during ESC system activation), the tires are constantly operating at or near peak coefficient of friction. Thus, since most new cars offer ABS as either standard or optional equipment, and ESC is being mandated on new light vehicles via a phase-in, NHTSA is proposing to base the traction rating for purposes of the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program on the peak coefficients of friction as measured on the asphalt and concrete surfaces specified in the UTQGS traction test procedure.

123

The machinery that conducts this test already measures peak coefficient of friction, so there is no new measurement that needs to be taken.

123

The phase-in electronic stability control (ESC) requires 100 percent of the fleet to be equipped with ESC by model year 2011,

i.e.,

by September 2010. 72 FR 17236, 17291. Since an anti-lock braking system (ABS) provides many of the components necessary for ESC, NHTSA believes that most manufacturers will likely equip vehicles with ABS as they equip them with ESC.

See id.

at 17256, n. 49.

However, recognizing that the median age for the U.S. passenger car fleet is 9.4 years,

124

NHTSA requests comments on whether it is premature to suggest moving to an ABS-ESC focused rating based on new vehicles. Within the agency's Phase 2 data, tires of the same size had as much as 30 percent difference in wet slide numbers over the range of rolling resistance values. From the 40 mph wet slide friction numbers, a 30 percent difference in wet slide number translates into an increase of 27 feet (13 percent) in calculated wet stopping distance for a non-ABS equipped vehicle. Therefore, it may be necessary to address both peak and slide friction numbers, at least for the near term. The agency has considered a safety rating taken from the average of the four friction numbers (peak & slide on asphalt & concrete), all of which can be collected during the same test. The agency requests comments on whether it should instead consider a composite test, and if the four friction numbers should be weighted equally or differently.

124

See http://usa.polk.com/News/LatestNews/News_20080215_scrappage.htm

(last accessed Mar. 10, 2009).

The tire label mandated by Europe in ECE Regulation 117 includes the wet grip test. However, NHTSA would need to do its own evaluation of that test before specifying it in our regulation. NHTSA seeks comments on other ways to rate replacement tires for safety.

3. Durability

The rolling resistance, traction, and wear characteristics of tires are not independent of one another. The tread has a major influence on rolling resistance because it contains much of the rubber in the tire that causes energy loss. The same tread deformation contributes to the tire's traction capabilities. A loss in traction capability because of treadwear is the main reason for tire replacement.

125

2006 NAS Report,

supra

note 4, at 58.

NHTSA tentatively concludes that the durability of a tire refers to how long a tire is going to last, that is, how long it is going to maintain sufficient tread depth for the safe operation and maintain the strength the tire had when it was initially purchased. A treadwear rating measures a tire's wear rate compared with that of control tires. Treadwear life, therefore, corresponds to treadwear durability of a tire. NHTSA seeks comments, however, on other potential ways to communicate durability.

The UTQGS rating systems for treadwear is the only metric for which consistent data are widely available for a range of passenger car tires. Accordingly, NHTSA is proposing to specify the UTQGS treadwear procedure to rate tires for durability on the same scale and label as fuel efficiency via rolling resistance rating.

See

49 CFR 575.104(e). Based on the UTQGS rating for treadwear as calculated under 49 CFR 575.104(d)(2)(i), the durability rating of a given replacement passenger car tire on a scale of 0 to 100 is calculated by dividing the UTQGS treadwear rating by ten, as explained in further detail below.

NHTSA acknowledges the limits of the existing UTQGS system.

126

Very few participants in the focus groups were aware of these ratings. In a roundtable discussion sponsored by the California Energy Commission dealers uniformly dismissed the system as not providing valuable or reliable information. In fact, those dealers expressed skepticism about tire fuel efficiency ratings if they were “just another UTQGS rating.” However, given the statutory deadline for NHTSA to establish this program, NHTSA believes that modified UTQGS ratings for traction and treadwear are the only viable options at this time to fulfill the statutory requirement that this consumer information program educate consumers about tires' relationships to fuel efficiency, safety, and durability.

126

The UTQGS is discussed in more detail later in this notice.

NHTSA seeks comment, however, on other test methods that could be easily used to establish metrics for safety or durability ratings. As noted above, as part of the research in support of this rulemaking, NHTSA performed and analyzed additional testing with the tires that were used to evaluate the rolling resistance test methods. NHTSA

did some indoor treadwear testing in our research program, but merely to provide some comparative information, not to substitute a different test protocol. NHTSA will, however, consider future revisions if information suggests those revisions would enhance the program.

4. Overall Rating

For the purposes of the final rule, the agency is also considering the concept of a combined rating of some sort, which would convert all three benefit metrics into one overall rating. NHTSA notes that in considering how to revise and improve its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), it sought public comment on the roughly parallel notion of simplifying inter-vehicle comparisons and purchase decision making by consumers by combining the individual safety ratings for different crash modes into a single overall rating. Ultimately, the agency adopted plans to develop and implement such a summary rating.

The advantage of such a system for tire performance ratings would be that it would simplify the ratings, potentially relieving consumers of the task of weighing the ratings for three different metrics for one tire against the three ratings for another tire. At the same time, if the single combined rating were presented to the exclusion of individual ratings for each metric, it would obscure the relative performance of individual components that might carry different priorities with different consumers.

Ideally, the goal would be to express the combined rating in terms that are readily understandable and of practical value to the average consumer. The following example attempts to do this by combining the three ratings into a single absolute (as opposed to relative) cost per mile figure reflecting the full cost of buying and using a tire. The in-use costs of a tire would be based on each of the ratings and the useful life of the tire, reflecting the real-world significance of each of the ratings.

• The in-use cost of the fuel efficiency rating would reflect money spent on fuel consumed.

• The in-use cost of the durability rating would reflect money spent on purchasing replacement tires more or less frequently.

• The in-use cost of the safety rating would reflect money spent on traction-related crashes.

Implementing such a combined rating would face several hurdles, especially regarding the safety rating. For example, how would the safety of any particular tire be measured and what baseline would it be measured against? Further, in order to attempt to convert the safety (traction) rating into stopping distance, potentially costly and time consuming testing for the wide variety of tires would be necessary. An example of such a combined rating for tires might be one expressed in terms of average overall cost/mile.

The agency seeks comments as to whether such a combined rating could be developed and, if so, should be adopted in the final rule and implemented. The agency seeks comments on the relative advantages and disadvantages of a single combined rating, the three rating system in our proposal, and a third approach combining the first two approaches.

B. How Should We Convey Ratings Information to Consumers?

In support of this rulemaking, NHTSA contracted with a strategic communications firm to conduct consumer focus groups to review possible labels and other informational materials. Two focus groups were conducted in three locations, with a total of 54 participants. During the focus groups the participants discussed vehicle safety and fuel economy in general, their tire purchase process, their interest in information about tire fuel efficiency and how they might use it in the tire purchase decision process, and their reaction to five possible label designs.

127

NHTSA anticipates conducting additional consumer testing. The agency seeks comment on our focus group consumer testing and the scope, content, and methodology of future consumer testing.

127

See

NHTSA Rolling Resistance Focus Group Report (January 2008). A copy of this report and other research reports relied on in this proposal will be placed in the docket. In reviewing these findings, it is important to remember that qualitative research, by design, is not meant to be projectable within accurate statistical ranges. Focus groups allow for the understanding and investigation of group consensus, not individual reactions. Qualitative research offers insight into the thematic and directional information of the participants.

The tested label designs consisted of different combinations of elements of existing vehicle and/or energy rating schemes. Specifically the designs were developed as different combinations of a red-to-green shaded color scheme as in the European energy labels, stars, numbers, and/or letter grades. One design had a vertical orientation of the rating scale similar to the European label. One design used a 3-axis radar chart. Based on the feedback in the focus groups, NHTSA is proposing to express ratings for tire fuel efficiency (

i.e.,

rolling resistance), safety (

i.e.,

traction), and durability (

i.e.,

treadwear) on a scale of 0 to 100, with 100 being the best rating, and zero being the worst rating.

NHTSA's proposal differs from the European tire fuel efficiency rating system. The European tire label divides the fuel efficiency rating into seven bins, or seven ranges of rolling resistance scores, each range (or bin) represented by a letter, A through G. This is the same letter rating the system used in Europe for rating the energy efficiency of household appliances,

128

and is already well known by consumers in Europe. In contrast, U.S. consumers do not have a preexisting association between letter grades and energy efficiency ratings. Thus, NHTSA is proposing the ratings scales that tested best in the agency's consumer research.

128

See

Council Directive 1992/75/EC, 1992 O.J. (L 297).

NHTSA's proposal also differs from manufacturer suggestions that NHTSA develop a rating based on five bins, similar to NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP).

129

In the focus groups, most of the label designs showed ratings based in bins. The reason for NHTSA's proposal is that participants overwhelmingly preferred the design that showed a numerical rating on a scale of 0 to 100.

129

See http://www.safercar.gov/

; 73 FR 40016 (July 11, 2003).

Last, NHTSA's proposal differs from the EPA's Energy Star program. In large part this is because of participants' preference for greater discrimination in the rating. In addition, NHTSA's proposal to require manufacturers to report actual test data will allow for the use of such test data to provide additional useful comparative information as discussed later in this notice when NHTSA discusses its planned consumer education program.

See

section VIII.

In consumer testing, NHTSA used both stars (as in the NCAP program) and letter grades (as in the European proposal) representing fuel efficiency grades given based on which range of rolling resistance values, or bin, the tire fell within. While both of these were understood by the participants, the numerical scale giving an individual score for a tire in each category of rating was preferred. Most consumers indicated that they preferred the greater precision of the 0 to 100 rating scale than a 5-point grading scale.

130

A specific score gives consumers a greater ability to discriminate between tires.

130

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

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

treadwear ratings appear on identical scales,

i.e.,

they expressed distaste for the sample ratings graphic that displayed fuel efficiency on a 0 to 100 scale, traction using letter grades, and treadwear on a different scale. It is true that consumer preferences are not necessarily conclusive on appropriate design. What matters is what design is most helpful in facilitating choice, and judgments in focus groups may not be conclusive on that question. But with reference to the goal of ensuring both simplicity and transparency, NHTSA is proposing to require all three ratings be expressed on a scale of 0 to 100. As noted, NHTSA invites comments on how to ensure that these ratings are as meaningful as possible to consumers.

One of the labels tested included an overall rating, which was generally well-received. Some participants raised their concern that the overall rating was an average of the three factors (fuel efficiency, traction and tread wear), treating them as if they were equally important when in fact few consumers consider them equally important in their own purchase decision. In the end, most felt the overall rating was still useful, as long as each dimension on the label had a rating, as then consumers could separately weigh the factors that were important to them, if necessary.

As noted above, NHTSA is not proposing any regulatory text for an overall rating in today's notice; however we are considering how we might do this for the final rule. NHTSA shares the focus group participants' concern that an overall rating not just be an average, but instead somehow reflect the relative value on some common scale of the three ratings. As discussed above in section VI.A.4, an example of such a system might be expressed as average overall cost per mile. The advantage of such a system would be that it would simplify the ratings. However, at the same time, it would obscure the relative performance of individual components which might carry different priorities with different consumers.

In addition, the agency is uncertain as to whether such a combined rating would be practicable. Developing a cost-per-mile estimate would require addressing the myriad of complications expressed in the Fuel Economy, Safety, and Durability sections above. For example, how would the safety of any particular tire be measured and against which baseline would it be measured? The agency cannot identify poor tire traction as the cause of a crash, but may be able to estimate potential benefits or disbenefits from modified stopping distances that result with different traction ratings. How would potential safety impacts be valued? Should values include estimates of the value of life and degradation in quality of life, or just the economic impacts that result from death and injury and property damage? Since these estimates would represent average impacts spread across society, would they be meaningful to individual tire purchasers?

As noted above, the agency requests comments as to whether such a combined rating could be developed and, if so, should be adopted in the final rule and implemented. The agency seeks comments on the relative advantages and disadvantages of a single combined rating, the three rating system in our proposal, and a third approach combining the first two approaches. NHTSA requests comments on the concept of an overall rating, including the more detailed discussion of how to value these ratings later in this notice or other ideas of how to combine ratings for an overall rating.

1. Proposed Rating Formulas

i. Fuel Efficiency

As explained above, based on the feedback in the focus groups, NHTSA is proposing to express a tire fuel efficiency rating on a scale of 0 to 100, with 100 being the lowest rolling resistance or best rating, and zero being the highest rolling resistance or worst rating. This integer fuel efficiency rating from 0 to 100 (R

) can be calculated from an ISO 28580 test value of rolling resistance force (RRF) as follows:

= (RRF

max

− RRF) * 100/(RRF

max

− RRF

min

)

where RRF

max

is the highest rolling resistance the agency believes should be represented on the fuel efficiency rating scale and where RRF

min

is the lowest rolling resistance the agency believes should be represented on the fuel efficiency rating scale.

Regarding these minimum and maximum RRF values that define the bounds of the fuel efficiency scale, NHTSA's testing research combined with a RRF dataset that California shared with the agency showed RRF test values of replacement passenger car tires ranging from 7.5 to 22.8 pounds-force (lbf). We are, therefore, proposing a rolling resistance force scale ranging from 5 lbf to 25 lbf, where 25 is the highest rolling resistance and thus, the replacement tire with the worst fuel efficiency,

131

representing a zero on the fuel efficiency rating scale. The agency is proposing this range because the high end of the rolling resistance scale range should be set at close to the level of the current worst performing tires, since we should not expect tires developed subsequent to this program to get worse fuel efficiency. Allowing for the existence of some tires with higher rolling resistance test values than the selection of replacement tires tested by NHTSA and California, we moved up the estimate of highest rolling resistance force to 25 (from 22.8).

131

Note that higher rolling resistance force measurements indicate a greater amount of energy lost through the tires and converted to heat. This indicates a lower fuel efficiency of a tire.

Regarding the low rolling resistance end of the rating scale, even though the combined dataset had tires with an RRF as low as 7.5 lbf, NHTSA is proposing to set this 100 end of the scale based on an RRF of 5.0 lbf, because we believe it is possible to construct tires with improved rolling resistance and the rolling resistance scale should allow sufficient room to express that improvement. NHTSA's research has found that while tire construction need not sacrifice traction or treadwear for improved rolling resistance, maintaining the same traction and treadwear while increasing the fuel efficiency of a given tire typically entails higher costs.

See

safety discussion above in section VI.A.2 of this notice. The agency wants to allow for such future technological innovation in the fuel efficiency rating scale.

132

If future technology made improvements possible that would allow tires to exceed the range of this or the other two scales, NHTSA would consider future rulemaking to adjust the scales.

Based on NHTSA's proposed rolling resistance force scale of all replacement passenger car tires, a tire fuel efficiency rating would be calculated by the following formula:

= (25 − RRF) * 100/(25 − 5) = (25 − RRF) * 5

Using this fuel efficiency rating formula, the tires tested by NHTSA and California would fall between 11 and 88 on the 0 to 100 fuel efficiency rating scale. NHTSA seeks comments on this and other possible constructions of the fuel efficiency rating.

As mentioned above, one of the reasons the agency is basing the fuel efficiency rating on RRF rather than RRC is because it allows the program to readily provide consumers with a statement such as “a difference of X on the fuel efficiency rating scale equates to Y gallons of fuel saved.” We have calculated that for the proposed fuel efficiency rating scale, a general rule of thumb is that for every 10,000 miles you drive, a difference of five on the scale equates to three gallons of fuel saved when you purchase four tires and a difference of ten on the scale equates to six gallons of fuel saved.

ii. Safety

As explained above, NHTSA is proposing to specify that the safety (

i.e.,

traction) rating, for purposes of the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program, be calculated using the peak coefficients of friction, which are friction coefficient numbers that are also recorded by the test equipment used in UTQGS traction rating procedure. The agency is proposing to specify the measurement of the peak coefficients of friction on both asphalt and on concrete, as opposed to the sliding coefficients of friction, as specified in the UTQGS traction test procedure. These measurements of peak coefficient of friction on asphalt and peak coefficient of friction on concrete must be “adjusted,” or correlated to a standard reference test tire, because asphalt and concrete surfaces can vary from day to day. Thus, there must be some standardized tire to which the test can calibrate. This is true for the sliding coefficients of friction measured as well.

For the safety (

i.e.,

traction) rating, the agency is proposing to require tire manufacturers to report the Adjusted Peak Coefficient of Friction for Asphalt (μ

APA

) and the Adjusted Peak Coefficient of Friction for Concrete (μ

APC

) by testing in accordance with 49 CFR 575.104(f) and recording the average peak coefficients of friction and then adjusting the measured average peak coefficients of friction for asphalt and concrete, respectively, using the following formulae:

APA

= (Measured Candidate Tire Average Peak Coefficient of Friction for Asphalt + 0.75) − (Measured Standard Tire Average Peak Coefficient of Friction for Asphalt)

APC

= (Measured Candidate Tire Average Peak Coefficient of Friction for Concrete + 0.60) − (Measured Standard Tire Average Peak Coefficient of Friction for Concrete)

The two constants, 0.75 and 0.60, are based on agency test data for the adjustment of the average peak coefficients of friction for asphalt and concrete pavements, respectively. The agency might change these two numbers if the repaving of the skid pad surfaces at the agency's San Angelo Test Facility results in a shift of these numbers on each surface. NHTSA is seeking comments and proposals on this approach, including the use or change of these constants.

In addition to the adjusted peak coefficients of friction, the agency is also proposing to require tire manufacturers to report the traction rating using the following formula:

= Adjusted Peak Traction Rating = {(μ

APA

+ μ

APC

) {1 − [(μ

APA

− μ

APC

)/(μ

APA

+ μ

APC

)]

} − 0.6} * (100/2.0)

The agency proposes this formula as a convenient way to obtain a single rating for both asphalt and concrete, and normalizing the expected range to a scale of 0 to 100.

133

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

The “(μ

APA

+ μ

APC

) {1− [(μ

APA

− μ

APC

)/(μ

APA

+ μ

APC

)]

}” portion of the R

formula has been developed with the intention of encouraging tire manufacturers to design tires with little disparity between μ

APA

and μ

APC

. That is, if μ

APA

= μ

APC

, “(μ

APA

+ μ

APC

) {1 − [(μ

APA

− μ

APC

)/(μ

APA

+ μ

APC

)]

}” would be equal to (μ

APA

+ μ

APC

) and thus the highest rating possible is achieved for a given set of coefficients of friction since no deduction to the rating is assessed due to the disparity of the coefficients of friction between asphalt and concrete. This approach is consistent with the current traction rating philosophy of UTQGS which penalizes a tire's rating if either the asphalt or concrete coefficients are in a lower relative category than the other adjusted coefficient.

Based on data available to date at the agency's San Angelo Test Facility, NHTSA estimates the minimum Adjusted Peak Coefficient of Friction for Asphalt is 0.4, the maximum Adjusted Peak Coefficient of Friction for Asphalt is 1.2, the minimum Adjusted Peak Coefficient of Friction for Concrete is 0.3, and the maximum Adjusted Peak Coefficient of Friction for Concrete is 1.1, for an additive range spanning from 0.7 (

i.e.,

0.4 + 0.3) to 2.3 (

i.e.,

1.2 + 1.1). For the purpose of allowing future tire traction improvement, the agency is proposing to expand the estimated Adjusted Peak Coefficient of Friction range of 0.7 to 2.3 to a range of 0.6 to 2.6, where 0.6 would represent a zero on the traction rating scale and 2.6 would represent a 100 on the traction rating scale. The agency proposes this range because we believe it is technically possible to construct tires with improved traction and the traction rating scale should allow sufficient room to express that improvement.

The agency then shifts and normalizes “(μ

APA

+ μ

APC

) {1−[(μ

APA

−μ

APC

)/(μ

APA

+ μ

APC

)]

}” from the range of 0.6 to 2.6 to a 0 to 100 rating scale and arrives at the aforementioned R

formula.

134

Using the R

traction rating formula, NHTSA's estimated range of additive Adjusted Peak Coefficient from 0.7 to 2.3 would fall between 5 and 85 on the 0 to 100 safety (wet traction) rating scale. NHTSA is seeking comments and proposals on this approach.

134

The agency notes that the formula for R

reduces to a simpler form than that which is specified above. For the NPRM we have not reduced the formula so that the public can see where maximum and minimum peak coefficients are used in the equation and to make it clear that it includes a “rating penalty” for tires with different coefficients for asphalt and concrete. We believe this is important since these values may change based on additional data and on retesting after our test track has been repaved.

As mentioned above, our safety (traction) rating formula and supporting equations were developed based on limited test data and in advance of traction test resurfacing at our San Angelo Test Facility. Consequently, it is difficult to precisely predict the probable range of adjusted peak coefficients across all replacement tires and, therefore, to calculate the resultant expected safety (wet traction) rating range for existing tires. We plan to update the formula and supporting equations in the final rule with additional data and with test data gathered after the track is resurfaced in order to bring the rating scale to a range that can be expected for state of the art tires. We also request comments on how much to amend the rating formula for the final rule to expand the rating scale at the minimum and/or maximum ends of the scale to allow for future potential wet traction improvements.

In terms of what this scale would mean to consumers, a traction rating is difficult to quantify. That is, it is not as straight forward as it is for a fuel efficiency rating to develop a rule of thumb for the safety rating scale such as “each difference of X on the safety rating scale equates to Y percent fewer crashes and Z dollars less in resultant economic damages.” NHTSA would have to try and correlate a rating with a set stopping distance, and then that distance with crashes. These calculations are complicated by the fact that they depend on other factors (in addition to the traction rating of the tires) such as the handling characteristics of the vehicle on which they are mounted, the force with which the brakes are applied, and the loading of the vehicle. To put a tire's safety rating information on an economic scale, all of these characteristics would have to be assumed for all tires. But in reality, there is not a single vehicle that all replacement tires can be mounted on. Therefore, we are concerned that the difference between two such tire safety ratings would not reflect the same economic difference in terms of safety, where the tires were mounted on two different types of vehicles. What we can communicate with the proposed rating

is that tires with better traction ratings stop in less distance than tires with worse ratings.

iii. Durability

Existing treadwear grades in UTQGS range up to 800. Therefore, NHTSA is requiring that the UTQGS treadwear grade be divided by 10 and that number placed on the 1 to 100 scale. This treadwear rating scale will allow for the possible technological development of replacement tires with higher treadwear ratings in the future. Accordingly, if TW

UTQGS

is the UTQGS rating for treadwear as calculated under 49 CFR 575.104(d)(2)(i), then NHTSA is proposing the treadwear rating for purposes of the tire fuel efficiency rating program (R

) be calculated according to the following formula:

= TW

UTQGS

/10

In terms of what this scale would mean to consumers, the treadwear conversion is straightforward, as the treadwear rating is a relative rating compared to a control tire, which would be rated 10 on our scale. A tire rated 20 should last twice as long as a tire rated a 10. Similarly, a tire rated a 75 on the proposed traction scale would last three times longer than a tire rated 25 on the proposed traction rating scale.

2. Proposed Label Style

NHTSA is proposing to require tire manufacturers to affix a paper label with the fuel efficiency, safety, and durability ratings in the form illustrated in Figure 7.

135

This label is based upon the ratings presentation that tested best with consumers in focus groups conducted by the agency. In NHTSA's consumer focus group research the agency considered and presented consumers with five different ratings graphics containing ratings for fuel efficiency, traction, and treadwear. The ratings graphics were presented in various colors, with various picture icons, and experimented with horizontal rating scales as well as vertical rating scales.

See

Figure 8 through Figure 12.

136

135

136

Color versions of Figures 8-12 will be placed in the docket and on NHTSA's Web site,

http://www.nhtsa.gov

EP22JN09.006

EP22JN09.007

EP22JN09.008

EP22JN09.009

EP22JN09.010

EP22JN09.011

NHTSA is proposing that the rating scales be oriented horizontally, that the scales be shaded red (0) to green (100), and that each scale be marked by an icon in addition to the title, similar to Label B shown to the focus groups (Figure 9). This label design was the clearly preferred concept. Participants intuitively understood that red was poor and green was good and liked this color scheme. The vertically-oriented label (Label C, illustrated in Figure 10) was difficult to understand for many participants in the focus groups.

NHTSA is proposing to modify the Label B as shown to consumers (Figure 9) as described here.

See

Figure 7. First, NHTSA is proposing to add a heading that reads, “Government Tire Ratings,” similar to the heading on the vehicle label that shows the new car assessment program (NCAP) ratings. The focus group participants indicated that they would prefer to know that it was a government program.

We are also proposing to have the fuel efficiency rating appear topmost on the label, followed by safety and durability. The ratings appeared in different order in the designs shown and participants did not express a preference. NHTSA has chosen to place fuel efficiency on top as that is the emphasis of EISA, however we request comment on the order of ratings. Participants did indicate that safety would be a more important consideration in their purchase decision, so the agency seeks comment on this rating appearing at the top.

Further, we are proposing to change the labels on the rating scales to read as follows: “Fuel Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Rating,” “Safety (Wet Traction),” and “Durability (Treadwear).” This language more closely mirrors the language in EISA. The agency is proposing that “Greenhouse Gas Rating” appear on the fuel efficiency rating scale because section 105 of EISA mandates a consumer information program that will establish a rating system reflecting the fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions over the life of automobiles.

137

For consistency across fuel economy-related consumer information programs, we are proposing that the fuel efficiency rating in the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program indicate that fuel efficiency ratings also signify relative performance in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

137

See

49 U.S.C. 32908(g).

As for the safety and durability rating scale labels, NHTSA is aware that safety and durability can refer to more characteristics than those rated in the program we are proposing today, and therefore has included “wet traction” and “treadwear” to clarify what is being rated on the safety and durability scales.

The agency is also proposing to change the language at the bottom of the label by replacing the word “highest” with the word “best.” This is to because the data behind the rating is not uniformly “higher” when the rating improves. While this would not be apparent to all consumers, some may wish to research the data behind the rating and this language would more accurately reflect the data.

NHTSA is proposing to include an additional sentence at the bottom of the label indicating where consumers should go to learn more about the information: “For more information visit

http://www.nhtsa.gov.”

This sentence appears more prominent than the other reference sentences at the bottom of the label because the agency seeks to encourage consumers to learn about the ratings, which they can do most completely on NHTSA's Web site. The Web address could be replaced if the new tire information Web site NHTSA intends to develop has a simple domain name.

NHTSA is proposing to place the rating on each scale in a white box, as opposed to within one of the colored shaded boxes comprising the scale. This allows the rating score to be printed in slightly larger text than if it were limited to inside each box. Placing each rating in a white box also allows the rating to appear in a more accurate location on the scale, as opposed to being limited to appearing within a shaded box. NHTSA is further proposing to move the arrows pointing to the score to the bottom of each rating scale, as opposed to the top. This is to avoid potentially obscuring the rating scale titles with the arrow on

the top of the scale pointing to a lower rated tire.

NHTSA is also proposing a minimum font size of 14 point for the heading on the label, and 12 point for the labels on each of the rating scales. NHTSA is also proposing to require the label to be at least 4.5 inches high by 5.5 inches wide. The agency tentatively concludes that this is approximately the smallest size the label could be and still be legible. This is slightly larger than the Stars on Cars label required on vehicles. NHTSA requests comments on these size requirements for the label.

Finally, NHTSA is

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.