[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 5, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34961-34964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-16462]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 575

[Docket No. 94-30, Notice 3]
RIN 2127-AF17


Consumer Information Regulations Uniform Tire Quality Grading 
Standards

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

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of 
comment period; notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: On May 24, 1995, NHTSA published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards 
(UTQGS). Pursuant to requests from several tire manufacturers, NHTSA 
announces an extension of the period for submitting written comments on 
the NPRM from July 10, 1995 to August 14, 1995. The agency also 
announces the holding of a public meeting to supplement the written 
comments. Finally, NHTSA proposes an additional calculation to 
supplement the proposed rolling resistance regression equation so that 
the equation can be used to calculate a specific rolling resistance 
coefficient.

DATES: Public meeting and copies of oral testimony: The public meeting 
will be held July 24, 1995, beginning at 9 a.m. Those wishing to make 
oral presentations should contact Mr. Orron Kee at the address or 
telephone number listed below, and submit copies of their planned 
testimony by July 20, 1995.
    Written comments: Written comments on the May 24, 1995 NPRM and 
this SNPRM must be received on or before August 14, 1995.
    Proposed Effective Date: If adopted, the amendments proposed in 
this notice would become effective one year after date of publication 
of the final rule in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Public Meeting: The meeting will be held in Room 2230 Nassif 
Building, 400 Seventh Street, S.W, Washington, D.C.
    Written Comments: Comments on the NPRM and SNPRM should refer to 
Docket No. 94-30; Not. 2 or the docket and notice number shown above, 
and be submitted to: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 5111, Washington, DC 
20590. Docket room hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 
Friday.
    Written copies of oral testimony: Written copies of oral testimony 
for the meeting should be provided to Mr. Orron Kee at the address 
below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Orron Kee, Office of Market 
Incentives, Office of the Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, 
Room 5320, Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 366-0846.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In the May 24, 1995 Federal Register, NHTSA published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the Uniform Tire Quality Grading 
Standards (UTQGS)(49 CFR 575.104) to: Revise the 

[[Page 34962]]
treadwear testing procedures to maintain the base course wear rate of 
course monitoring tires at its current value; create a new traction 
grade of ``AA'' in addition to the current traction grades of A, B, and 
C; and replace the temperature resistance grade with a rolling 
resistance/fuel economy grade. (60 FR 27472)

Requests for Extension of Comment Period and for Public Meeting

    Subsequent to the May 1995 NPRM, NHTSA received requests for 
extension of the period for submitting written comments on the NPRM and 
for a public meeting on the NPRM from the Goodyear Tire and Rubber 
Company, the Kelly Springfield Tire Company, Multinational Business 
Services, Inc., Cooper Tire and Rubber Company, and Bridgestone/
Firestone, Inc. A copy of each letter has been placed in NHTSA's docket 
at Docket No. 94-30, Notice 2. NHTSA has decided to grant these 
requests. A public meeting will be held on July 24, 1995 in Room 2230, 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC. The meeting 
will begin at 9 a.m. Although NHTSA wishes to hear as many views as 
possible, it reserves the right to limit the number of witnesses and 
the time allotted to each speaker. The period for submitting written 
comments, originally scheduled to end July 10, is extended to August 
14, 1995.

Topics for Public Meeting

    To focus the discussion at the public meeting, NHTSA asks those 
testifying at the meeting to address one or more of the following 
topics:
    1. Effect of rolling resistance improvements on traction under each 
of the following conditions: wet road surface, dry road surface, and 
low temperatures.
    2. Effect of rolling resistance improvements on cornering and 
handling performance.
    3. Differences in the rolling resistance, traction, and handling 
characteristics of original equipment tires and replacement passenger 
car tires.
    4. Costs of:
    (A) Testing for rolling resistance grading instead of temperature 
resistance grading;
    (B) Revising tire molds, tread labels, and brochures to include 
rolling resistance grades;
    (C) Improving the rolling resistance performance of replacement 
tires so that it equals that of original equipment passenger cars; and
    (D) Leadtime necessary before commencing to test and label tires 
for rolling resistance.
    5. Carbon dioxide reduction and fuel economy improvement benefits 
from low rolling resistance tires.
    6. Suggestions and supporting data for other test procedure 
revisions to improve treadwear test consistency and repeatability.
    7. Cost of regrading tires under existing regulation when treadwear 
rating increases due to changes in the base course wear rate.
    8. Cost of labeling for higher traction grade:
    (A) Cost if that higher grade is the only change made to the UTQGS 
regulation; and
    (B) Additional cost if higher grade is added at same time as 
rolling resistance grade.
    Oral testimony is not limited to the topics listed above. NHTSA 
welcomes additional comments at the meeting on any other issue raised 
in the May 24, 1995 NPRM or this SNPRM to amend the UTQGS Standard.

Procedural Matters for the Public Meeting

    Persons wishing to speak at the public meeting should contact Mr. 
Orron Kee, whose address and telephone number appear in the beginning 
of this notice. Please contact Mr. Kee by July 20, 1995, so that NHTSA 
can determine the need for any special equipment, and can make any 
other special arrangements. NHTSA asks that, if possible, each 
participant provide Mr. Kee with a copy of his or her oral presentation 
by July 20, 1995, and limit the presentation to 30 minutes. If the 
presentation will include slides, motion pictures, or other visual 
aids, please bring at least one copy of each such aid to the meeting so 
that the agency can include them in the public record.
    To facilitate communication, NHTSA will provide auxiliary aids 
(e.g., sign language interpreter, braille materials, large print 
materials and/or a magnifying device) to participants as necessary, 
during the meeting. Any person desiring auxiliary aids should contact 
Ms. Barbara Carnes, NHTSA Office of Safety Performance Standards, 
telephone (202) 366-1810, by July 12, 1995.
    If the number of requests for oral presentations exceeds the 
available time, NHTSA will ask prospective speakers and organizations 
with similar views to combine or summarize their presentations. If time 
permits at the end of the scheduled presentations, NHTSA will permit 
unscheduled speakers to make statements.
    The NHTSA presiding officials at the meeting may ask questions of 
any speaker. Further, any attendee at the meeting may submit written 
questions for the agency panel, at its discretion, to address to 
presenters of testimony. However, there will be no opportunity for 
attendees to directly question any presenter of testimony.
    A schedule of persons making oral presentations will be available 
at the designated meeting room. Please be aware that NHTSA will place a 
copy of any written statement provided by those persons in the docket 
for this notice. A verbatim transcript of the meeting will be prepared 
and placed in the docket as soon as possible following the hearing.
    Any interested person can submit written comments on the issues set 
out in this notice, for inclusion in the docket. Unless a person is 
requesting confidential treatment for information in his or her 
submission, the person need not submit more than three copies of the 
comments. NHTSA asks however, that if possible, 10 copies be provided. 
Any written testimony submitted will be considered as comments to the 
NPRM.

Supplemental Proposal

    Among the proposals in the May 24, 1995 NPRM was a proposal to 
replace the UTQGS' temperature resistance grade with a rolling 
resistance/fuel economy grade. On page 27481 of the NPRM, NHTSA 
explained that the substitution was proposed because NHTSA tentatively 
concluded that fuel economy information is more understandable and more 
meaningful to the tire-buying public than the temperature resistance 
rating. Further, adding the fuel economy grade furthers the initiatives 
in the Climate Change Action Plan issued by the Clinton Administration 
in October 1993 in a national effort to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions.
    NHTSA proposed to base the new fuel economy rating on a rolling 
resistance coefficient instead of rolling resistance itself since doing 
so would partially normalize rolling resistance variations by tire size 
within a tire line. The rolling resistance coefficient (Cr) is 
calculated by dividing the rolling resistance by the load on the tire 
when tested in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J-1269, Rolling 
Resistance Measurement Procedure for Passenger Car, Light Truck, and 
Highway Truck and Bus Tires, revised March, 1987 (SAE J-1269). One tire 
manufacturer, Michelin, commented in response to the agency's April 25, 
1994 Request for Comments on UTQGS that the rolling resistance 
coefficient ranges from 0.0073 to 0.0156, while other tire 
manufacturers, Goodyear, assessed the range as being between 0.0067 and 


[[Page 34963]]
0.0152, and Standard Testing Laboratories (STL), assessed it as being 
between 0.005 to 0.015. (59 FR 19686)
    In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed two alternative ways of calculating the 
tire's fuel economy based on the rolling resistance coefficient. In the 
final rule, one of the two alternatives may be adopted. The first 
method begins by using 0.010 as the midpoint of all the rolling 
resistance coefficient ranges suggested by Michelin, Goodyear, and STL 
in their comments on the April 1994 Request for Comments. The first 
method would rate tires with a coefficient of less than 0.010 as ``A'' 
for fuel economy. Tires with a coefficient of 0.010 to 0.015 would be 
rated ``B,'' while tires with a rolling resistance coefficient greater 
than 0.015 would be rated ``C.'' The first method would be consistent 
with the views of those commenters that stated that if a rolling 
resistance/fuel economy rating were established, the A, B, and C 
ratings would be simpler, and therefore preferable.
    The second method of calculating the tire's fuel economy favors a 
more differentiated, quantitative expression of the amount of potential 
fuel savings than would be provided by a general indication as in the 
case of the letter ratings. For example, a tire with rolling resistance 
coefficient of 0.0080 would be graded as achieving a 9 percent increase 
in fuel savings (100(0.0150-0.0080)/(0.0150)(5)). (The number (5) in 
the preceding calculation represents a 5 percent change in rolling 
resistance.) Similarly, a tire with a rolling resistance coefficient of 
0.0150 would be graded as achieving a 1 percent increase in fuel 
economy.) A tire with a rolling resistance coefficient of 0.0150 or 
greater would be graded as 0 percent, indicating no fuel savings.
    After publishing the NPRM containing these two alternative 
calculation methods, NHTSA determined that the SAE J-1269 calculation 
results not in a specific coefficient, but in a regression equation 
that specifies the rolling resistance coefficient as a function of tire 
load and pressure. In order to compare different tires, a specific 
combination of tire load and pressure must be specified. To compare 
fuel economy ratings of tires, it is more meaningful to compare 
coefficients against coefficients, rather than (as proposed in the 
NPRM), equations against equations.
    NHTSA therefore proposes that variables (tire load and pressure) in 
the SAE J-1269 equations be calculated using the test load and pressure 
specified for the high speed performance test in Table II of Standard 
No. 109 New Pneumatic Tires (49 CFR 571.109). That test has the same 
values for test load and pressure as those in the temperature 
resistance test presently specified in the UTQGS. NHTSA proposes to use 
the high speed performance test values because the values specified in 
Table II are close to the test points specified in SAE J-1269.
    Standard No. 109's high speed performance test procedures specify a 
test load of 88 percent of the tire's maximum load with a pressure 
somewhat less than the maximum pressure, in accordance with the value 
provided in Table II of Standard No. 109. The pressures specified in 
Table II are not reduced by the same amount for the higher pressure 
300, 340, and 350 kPa tires as they are for the 240 and 280 kPa tires. 
Stamping a tire as 300, 340, or 350 kPa signifies that the pressures 
are available if needed, not that the tires must be inflated to the 
maximum pressures. Standard load conventional tires all reach their 
maximum load capacity at 240 kPa or 280 kPa (for P-metric tires). Tires 
stamped with 300 kPa or 350 kPa maximum pressure have the same maximum 
load capacity as tires stamped 240 kPa maximum pressure. Standard load 
conventional tires stamped with 340 kPa maximum pressure have the same 
maximum load capacity as tires stamped 280 kPa. 300, 340 or 350 kPa-
stamped tires may have an additional 60 or 110 kPa inflation pressure, 
when needed for specific uses.
    Public comment is sought on the proposed method for calculating a 
specific rolling resistance coefficient using the SAE J-1269 rolling 
resistance regression equation. Comment is also sought whether there 
are alternative methods of selecting the load and pressure values to 
calculate a specific coefficient, using the SAE J-1269 equation.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

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

    This notice has not been reviewed under E.O. 12866, Regulatory 
Planning and Review. The agency has considered the impact of this 
rulemaking action and has concluded that it is not ``significant'' 
under the DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The amendments 
proposed in this notice are intended to make the UTQGS more meaningful 
and helpful to consumers in selecting tires to meet their needs. 
Adoption of the new calculation method proposed in this notice would 
not inherently increase the costs, either to manufacturers or to 
consumers, of replacing the temperature resistance grade with the 
rolling resistance grade. Discussion of the impacts of the NPRM is 
contained in the agency's Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation, a copy of 
which has been placed in NHTSA's Docket No. 94-30, Notice 2.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has considered the impacts of this rulemaking action under 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that the proposed 
amendment would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Accordingly, the agency has not prepared a 
preliminary regulatory flexibility analysis. The agency believes that 
no passenger car tire manufacturers qualify as small businesses. 
Further, as noted above, adoption of the proposed calculation method 
would not impose any additional costs.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking for purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act and has determined that implementation of the 
proposal in this document would have no significant impact on the 
quality of the human environment.
D. Federalism

    NHTSA has analyzed this proposal in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in E.O. 12612 and has determined that the 
proposals in this notice do not have sufficient federalism implications 
to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment. No state laws would 
be affected.

E. Civil Justice Reform

    The proposed amendment in this notice would not have any 
retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), whenever a Federal motor 
vehicle safety standard is in effect, a state or political subdivision 
thereof may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to 
the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle only if the state's 
standard is identical to the Federal standard. However, the United 
States government, a state or political subdivision of a state may 
prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment 
obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement 
than that required by the Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth 
a procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending 
or revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. A petition for 
reconsideration or other administrative proceedings is not required 
before parties may file suit in court. 

[[Page 34964]]


Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the 
amendments proposed in this rulemaking action. It is requested but not 
required that any comments be submitted in 10 copies.
    Comments must not exceed 15 pages in length (49 CFR 553.21). This 
limitation is intended to encourage commenters to detail their primary 
arguments in concise fashion. Necessary attachments, however, may be 
appended to those comments without regard to the 15-page limit.
    If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim 
of confidentiality, 3 copies of the complete submission including the 
purportedly confidential business information should be submitted to 
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA at the street address shown above, and 7 
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been 
expunged should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for 
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth 
the information specified in 49 CFR 512, the agency's confidential 
business information regulation.
    All comments received on or before the close of business on the 
comment closing date indicated above for the proposal will be 
considered, and will be available to the public for examination in the 
docket at the above address both before and after the closing date. To 
the extent possible, comments received too late for consideration in 
regard to the final rule will be considered as suggestions for further 
rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal will be available for 
public inspection in the docket. NHTSA will continue file relevant 
information in the docket after the closing date, and it is recommended 
that interested persons continue to monitor the docket for new 
material.
    Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their 
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed stamped 
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the 
comments the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 575

    Consumer protection, Motor vehicle safety, reporting and 
recordkeeping, Tires.

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

PART 575--CONSUMER INFORMATION REGULATIONS

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

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. Secs. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

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


Sec. 575.104  Uniform tire quality grading standards.

* * * * *
[Alternative 1 to paragraph (g)]:
    (g) Fuel economy grading. The fuel economy grade is calculated as 
follows:
    (1) The tire's rolling resistance coefficient is determined in 
accordance with the procedures of SAE Recommended Practice J-1269, 
Rolling Resistance Measurement Procedure for Passenger Car, Light 
Truck, and Highway Truck and Bus Tires, revised March, 1987 (SAE J-
1269). In evaluating the rolling resistance coefficient (using the 
regression equation from the SAE J-1269 procedure), use the load value 
specified in Standard No. 109 New Pneumatic Tires (49 CFR 571.109) for 
the tire and its corresponding test pressure specified in Table II of 
Standard No. 109, for the high speed performance test.
    (2) The rolling resistance coefficient (Cr) is the ratio of 
rolling resistance force (Fr) to the normal load (Fn) on the 
tire: or
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP05JY95.002

    Example No 1: Fn = 1,100 pounds of force (lbf); Fr = 8 
lbf; then
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP05JY95.015

    A rolling resistance coefficient of 0.00727 would result in a grade 
of ``A'' for fuel economy.
    Example No. 2: Fn = 1,100 lbf, and Fr = 18 lbf, then
    [GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP05JY95.016
    
    A rolling resistance coefficient of 0.01636 would result in a grade 
of ``C'' for fuel economy.

[Alternative 2 to paragraph (g)]:
    (g) Fuel economy grading. The fuel economy grade is calculated as 
follows:
    (1) The tire's rolling resistance coefficient is determined in 
accordance with the procedures of SAE Recommended Practice J-1269, 
Rolling Resistance Measurement Procedure for Passenger Car, Light 
Truck, and Highway Truck and Bus Tires, revised March, 1987 (SAE J-
1269). In evaluating the rolling resistance coefficient (using the 
regression equation from the SAE J-1269 procedure), use the load value 
specified in Standard No. 109 New Pneumatic Tires (49 CFR 571.109) for 
the tire and its corresponding test pressure specified in Table II of 
Standard No. 109 for the high speed performance test.
    (2) The rolling resistance coefficient (Cr) is the ratio of 
rolling resistance force (Fr) to the normal load (Fn) on the 
tire: or
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP05JY95.003

    Example No. 1: Fn = 1,100 pounds force (lbf); Fr = 8 lbf; 
then
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP05JY95.017

    Example No. 2: Fn = 1,100 lbf, and Fr = 18 lbf; then
    [GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP05JY95.018
    
    (3) Determine the tire's fuel economy grade by subtracting its 
rolling resistance coefficient from 0.0150, then multiply by 1,333. The 
resulting number, rounded to the nearest whole number, is the fuel 
economy grade, expressed as a percentage.
    (i)(A) Using the numbers in Example No. 1 in paragraph (g)(2) of 
this section, given the rolling resistance coefficient (Cr) of 
0.00727, the fuel economy grade (Fg) would be calculated as 
follows:

Fg = (0.0150 - 0.00727) x 1,333
    = (0.00773) x 1,333 = 10.30 percent, rounded to 10 percent.
    (B) This would represent an increase of 10 percent in fuel economy, 
expressed as a fuel economy grade of ``10%''.
    (ii) Using the numbers in Example No. 2 in paragraph (g)(2) of this 
section: If Fn = 1,100 lbf, and Fr = 18 lbf, then
Fg = (0.0150 - 0.01636) x 1,333
    = (-0.00136) x 1,333 = -1.82 or 0 percent

    A negative value represents a 0 percent increase in fuel economy, 
and would be expressed as a fuel economy grade of ``0%''.

    Issued on: June 29, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-16462 Filed 6-29-95; 4:12 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P