[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 175 (Monday, September 9, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47437-47446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22761]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 575

[Docket No. 94-30, Notice 06]
RIN 2127-AF17


Consumer Information Regulations: Uniform Tire Quality Grading 
Standards

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Uniform Tire Quality Grading 
Standards to: Revise treadwear testing procedures to maintain the base 
course wear rate of course monitoring tires at its current value of 
1.34. This revision is expected to eliminate treadwear grade inflation, 
reduce testing expenses, and reduce the environmental consequences of 
operating test convoys for the purpose of calculating the base course 
wear rate for each new batch of course monitoring tires; and add a top 
end traction grading category of ``AA'' to the current traction grading 
categories of A, B, and C. The new AA category will make possible the 
differentiation of tires with the very highest traction characteristics 
from those with lower traction characteristics.

DATES: This final rule is effective March 9, 1998.
    Any petition for reconsideration of this rule must be received by 
NHTSA not later than October 24, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket and 
notice numbers noted above for this rule and be submitted to the Docket 
Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 
Street SW, Room 5109, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-4949. 
Docket room hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Mr. Orron Kee, 
Chief, Consumer Programs Division, Office of Planning and Consumer 
Programs, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 
Street SW, Room 5307, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-0846; 
FAX (202) 493-2739. For legal issues: Mr. Walter K. Myers, Office of 
the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street SW, Room 5219, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 
366-2992; FAX (202) 366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preamble Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Background
    (a) Current Provisions
    (1) Treadwear
    (2) Traction
    (b) Request for Comments
    (c) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    (1) Treadwear
    (2) Traction
    (3) Fuel Economy
    (4) Comments
    (d) DOT Appropriations Act of 1996
    (e) Public Comments on the NPRM
    (1) Treadwear
    (2) Traction
III. Agency Decision
    (a) Treadwear
    (b) Traction
IV. Cost/Benefit Analysis
    (a) Treadwear
    (b) Traction
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
    (a) EO 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    (b) Regulatory Flexibility Act
    (c) EO 12612--Federalism
    (d) National Environmental Policy Act
    (e) Paperwork Reduction Act
    (f) Civil Justice Reform

I. Introduction

    This final rule amends the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards 
(49 CFR 575.104) to fix the base course wear rate of course monitoring 
tires at a permanent value of 1.34, and establishes an AA traction 
grade. A proposal in the agency's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking of May 
24, 1995 (60 FR 27472) to rescind the temperature resistance grade and 
substitute therefor a fuel economy grade based on low rolling 
resistance characteristics of tires is not addressed in this notice 
(see the discussion in paragraph II(d) below).

II. Background

    (a) Current Provisions. Section 30123(e) of Title 49, United States 
Code requires the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe a uniform 
system for grading motor vehicle tires to assist consumers in making 
informed choices when purchasing tires. Pursuant to that congressional 
mandate, NHTSA promulgated the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards 
(UTQGS) in 49 CFR 575.104. The UTQGS apply to new pneumatic tires for 
use on passenger cars, except deep tread, winter-type snow tires, 
space-saver or temporary-use spare tires, tires with nominal rim 
diameters of 10 to 12 inches, and limited production tires as defined 
in Sec. 575.104(c)(2).
    The UTQGS require tire manufacturers and tire brand name owners to 
grade their tires with respect to their relative treadwear, traction, 
and

[[Page 47438]]

temperature resistance performance. Treadwear grades are shown by 
numbers, such as 100, 150, and 200, while traction and temperature 
resistance grades are indicated by the letters A, B, and C, with A 
representing the best performance and C indicating the minimum level of 
performance necessary to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 109, New pneumatic tires.
    (1) Treadwear. Treadwear is graded by first running the tires being 
graded, called ``candidate tires,'' over a selected 400-mile segment of 
public highway near San Angelo, Texas. After an 800-mile ``break-in'' 
run, the candidate tires are driven over the test course for a total of 
6,400 miles in test convoys composed of 4 passenger cars and/or light 
truck vehicles. Each driver remains in the same position within the 
convoy. The vehicles are rotated among the 4 positions in the convoy 
regularly as are the positions of the tires on the test vehicles so 
that the tires get equal time with each driver, each vehicle, and each 
wheel position.
    ``Course monitoring tires'' (CMT) are used as the control standard 
in grading candidate tires. CMTs are specially designed and built to 
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard E1136 to 
have narrow limits of variability. When NHTSA procures a new batch, or 
lot, of CMTs, the agency establishes a new base course wear rate (BCWR) 
for that lot. The BCWR, measured in miles per thousand miles (MPTM), is 
established by running tires from the new lot of CMTs over the 6,400-
mile test course, in the same manner as candidate tires, with tires 
from the previous batch of CMTs. A course severity adjustment factor 
(CSAF) for the CMTs is determined by dividing the BCWR for the old CMTs 
by the average wear rate of the old CMTs in the test. The wear rate of 
the new CMTs is then multiplied by the CSAF to determine the adjusted 
wear rate (AWR) of the new CMTs, which then becomes the BCWR for the 
new CMTs.
    Once the BCWR for the new CMTs is established, these CMTs are used 
to grade candidate tires. Upon completion of the 6,400-mile test, the 
BCWR is divided by the average wear rate of the CMTs to determine the 
CSAF for the candidate tires. That factor is then applied to the wear 
rates of the candidate tires to obtain the AWR of the candidate tires. 
That AWR is then extrapolated to the point of wearout (considered to be 
1/16th inch of remaining tread depth), which is then converted to the 
treadwear rating of the tire.
    The BCWR is intended to provide a common baseline by which to grade 
candidate tires by relating all new CMTs to the original lot of CMTs. 
However, NHTSA has noted that the BCWRs of successive new lots of CMTs 
have been steadily declining over the years. Specifically, the first 
lot of CMTs procured from Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (Goodyear) 
in 1975 yielded a BCWR of 4.44. The latest batch, procured by the 
agency in 1995, produced a BCWR of 1.34.
    The significance of the decrease in the BCWR rate is that as the 
BCWR decreases, the treadwear grade increases. Consequently, the newer 
treadwear grades have increased to the point that they have become a 
somewhat misleading indicator of actual tread life when compared to 
tires tested with higher BCWRs.
    (2) Traction. Traction grades are established by locked-wheel 
braking tests of traction on wet asphalt and wet concrete surfaces at 
the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Test Facility (UTQGTF), located at 
Goodfellow Air Force Base near San Angelo, Texas. A test trailer is 
equipped first with two control tires manufactured in accordance with 
ASTM standard E501. The trailer is towed over the wet asphalt surface 
at a speed of 40 miles per hour (mph) and one wheel equipped with a 
control tire is locked. The traction coefficient of that tire is 
recorded continuously and averaged for a period of 0.5 to 1.5 seconds 
after lockup. The UTQGTF is arranged so that the test trailers traverse 
both the asphalt and the concrete test surfaces in a loop. The test is 
repeated for a total of 10 times on each surface for each tire and the 
measurements taken on a surface are averaged to determine the control 
tire's traction coefficient for that surface. The purpose of testing 
the control tires is to monitor the friction properties of the asphalt 
and concrete surfaces to account for daily fluctuation due to 
environmental factors and the polishing effects of sustained use.
    The same procedure is used to measure the locked-wheel braking 
traction coefficients of candidate tires. The measured traction 
coefficients of candidate tires are adjusted by the difference between 
the nominal coefficients of the control tires on the test surfaces 
(0.50 for the asphalt surface and 0.35 for the concrete surface) and 
the actual coefficient of the control tire run simultaneously with the 
candidate tire. Using this procedure, the measured coefficients of all 
candidate tires are adjusted to a common pavement friction basis for 
each of the test surfaces.
    The grades of the candidate tires are currently designated as 
``A'', ``B'', and ``C''. A tire achieving a high level of traction 
performance on both the wet asphalt (above 0.47) and the wet 
concrete (above 0.35) surfaces is graded ``A.'' A tire 
achieving medium traction performance (above 0.38 on wet 
asphalt and above 0.26 on wet concrete) is graded ``B.'' A 
tire achieving a traction performance level of 0.38 or less on 
the wet asphalt and 0.26 or less on wet concrete is graded 
``C.''
    (b) Request for Comments. As a result of the White House Conference 
on Global Climate Change held on June 10 and 11, 1993, the White House 
issued a report announcing nearly 50 initiatives to reduce greenhouse 
gas emissions in the United States. The report, entitled ``Climate 
Change Action Plan,'' was issued on October 19, 1993 and, among other 
things, calls for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels 
by the year 2000. One such initiative called for DOT, through NHTSA, to 
issue new rules and test procedures requiring tire manufacturers to 
test and label tires relative to their fuel economy based on their 
rolling resistance. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Action #22: ``DOT, through the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, will adopt test procedures and new DOT rules 
requiring tire manufacturers to test and label (for fuel economy 
based on rolling resistance). DOT will also create a consumer-
focused publicity program and a monitoring program in order to 
realize maximum benefits. The Administration is proposing to 
obligate $0.3 million in FY 1995 for this action and $2 million 
through 2000.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the Climate Change Action Plan, NHTSA published a 
Request for Comments on April 25, 1994 (59 FR 19686) seeking responses 
to a series of questions regarding available data on rolling resistance 
and testing procedures. The notice also posed questions concerning 
whether and how the treadwear testing procedures should be changed; and 
whether a traction grade of ``AA'' should be created to identify those 
tires with clearly superior traction characteristics. NHTSA also asked 
whether the UTQGS should include peak traction, how it should be 
measured and expressed, and the cost of measuring peak traction. 2 
NHTSA noted that if peak traction performance of tires differed 
substantially from sliding traction, an alternative traction grading 
procedure might be necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Peak traction is the primary traction force in anti-lock 
braking systems in which maximum braking action is obtained while 
the tire is still rolling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. After consideration of the 34 
timely comments received in response to the Request for Comments, NHTSA 
published a Notice of Proposed

[[Page 47439]]

Rulemaking (NPRM) on May 24, 1995 (60 FR 27472), with a comment closing 
date of July 10, 1995.
    (1) Treadwear. The agency proposed to freeze the BCWR of the CMTs 
used in treadwear grading at its then-current value of 1.47 MPTM in an 
attempt to reduce treadwear grade creep.
    The agency explained in the NPRM that it had considered many 
possible explanations for the consistent decrease in the BCWR of the 
CMTs, such as differences in climatic variations, changes in course 
severity, non-uniformity of wear rates among tires in the same lot, 
effects of aging and storage of CMTs, and errors in the BCWR 
calculation. To minimize the aging/storage factor, the agency now wraps 
CMTs in polyethylene bags for storage in a facility in which, although 
not temperature controlled, the temperature varies only between 50 deg. 
and 90 deg. Fahrenheit throughout the year. The agency then proposed 
fixing the BCWR at 1.47 MPTM to address the possibility of an error in 
the BCWR calculation. The agency believed that in addition to reducing, 
if not eliminating, the treadwear grade inflation, fixing the BCWR at a 
single figure would eliminate the time and expenditure of scarce 
resources required for operating test convoys for each new lot of CMTs, 
as well as eliminating the environmental impacts of operating those 
convoys.
    (2) Traction. The agency further proposed to create a traction 
grade of ``AA'' to distinguish those tires with superior traction 
characteristics from those with lower traction performance 
characteristics.
    NHTSA noted in the NPRM that analysis of traction data since 1989 
revealed that traction performance has improved to the extent that the 
current grading system does not adequately differentiate between tires 
with varying levels of traction performance, particularly the tires 
showing the highest levels of traction performance. To address that 
situation, the agency solicited comments in the Request for Comments on 
whether the traction grading rules should be amended to differentiate 
more clearly between the highest performing tires. After considering 
the responses to the Request for Comments, NHTSA proposed to establish 
a new traction grading category of ``AA'' for tires achieving traction 
coefficients of more than 0.54 on wet asphalt and more than 
0.41 on wet concrete 3. NHTSA stated that since the 
``AA'' category would be optional, manufacturers would incur no 
additional costs beyond modifying paper labels and sales brochures to 
reflect 4 traction grades instead of three. On the other hand, an 
``AA'' category might provide an incentive to manufacturers to improve 
the traction performance of their tire lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The preamble in the NPRM erroneously discussed a traction 
coefficient value of 0.41 for the wet concrete surface. The 
correct value should have been 0.38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the peak traction data solicited in the Request for 
Comments, NHTSA decided, based on the comments received, not to propose 
inclusion of peak traction in the traction ratings at this time. NHTSA 
noted that the majority of vehicles currently on the road are not 
equipped with ABS. The significance of that fact is that those vehicles 
continue to depend on sliding traction rather than peak traction for 
maximum stopping action. In addition, several tire manufacturers 
commented that peak traction performance is highly correlated with 
sliding traction performance.
    (3) Fuel Economy. The agency proposed in the NPRM to rescind the 
temperature resistance grade and substitute therefor a fuel economy 
rating based on low rolling resistance characteristics of the tire.
    (4) Comments. The NPRM generated 120 comments, all of which 
addressed the fuel economy proposal, while 10 commented on the traction 
proposal and 12 on the treadwear proposal. Commenters to the fuel 
economy proposals included several members of the U.S. Congress; the 
Secretary of Energy; tire manufacturers, wholesalers, and retail 
dealers, including their foreign plants and subsidiaries; 
environmental, safety, and consumer advocates; educators; and members 
of the public. Except for a certain few tire manufacturers, the 
majority of the tire industry and certain members of Congress strongly 
opposed the fuel economy proposal. The Secretary of Energy, on the 
other hand, along with most advocacy groups and most members of the 
public, supported it.
    In response to a number of requests, the agency extended the NPRM 
comment period to August 14, 1995 (60 FR 34961, July 5, 1995) and 
hosted a public meeting on the UTQGS proposals on July 28, 1995. 
Twenty-five representatives of the groups enumerated above made oral 
presentations at the meeting while a number of others, including 
several members of Congress, filed written submissions. Nearly all the 
statements presented at the meeting, whether oral or written, addressed 
the fuel economy issue, expressing positions on both sides of the 
issue. Thereafter, in response to further requests, the agency again 
extended the NPRM comment period to September 1, 1995 to permit 
participants at the public meeting an opportunity to file written 
responses to matters presented at the public meeting (60 FR 42496, 
August 16, 1995).
    Although the comment period closed on September 1, 1995, NHTSA 
continued to receive correspondence on both sides of the rolling 
resistance issue, including letters from various members of the 
Congress.
    (d) DOT Appropriations Act of 1996. In early November, 1995, while 
NHTSA was still evaluating the comments and data from the NPRM and the 
public meeting, the Transportation Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 
1996 was enacted. Amendment number 66 to that Act prohibited the 
obligation or expenditure of any funds

[T]o plan, finalize, or implement any rulemaking to add to section 
575.104 of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations any 
requirement pertaining to a grading standard that is different from 
the three grading standards (treadwear, traction, and temperature 
resistance) already in effect.

NHTSA discontinued rulemaking activity on the fuel economy issue, but 
continued to assess the comments on the treadwear and traction 
proposals. Accordingly, this final rule addresses only the latter two 
proposals.
    (e) Public Comments on the NPRM.
    (1) Treadwear. Some commenters supported the proposal to fix the 
BCWR at the current figure, others supported the proposal as better 
than nothing, and still others opposed it. Regardless of their support 
for fixing the BCWR at a single figure, all commented that the present 
treadwear test procedure is inadequate and a new test procedure should 
be devised.
    Michelin, The Cooper Tire Company (Cooper), Continental General 
Tire, Inc. (CGT), and the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) 
supported the proposal to fix the BCWR at its current value so that 
further grade inflation will not occur. RMA and CGT agreed that the 
BCWR should be fixed immediately at 1.34 to prevent any further 
deterioration of the treadwear grades. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (BF) 
supported fixing the BCWR, although it regards the BCWR itself as 
invalid in view of the consistency of the quality of modern tires. 
Similarly, Hercules Tire and Rubber Company (Hercules) supported 
freezing the BCWR at its current value ``or simply scrapping the system 
and starting over.'' Goodyear commented that the treadwear grade itself 
should be removed from the UTQGS because as manufacturers' treadwear 
warranties continue to improve, the treadwear labels under the UTQGS 
become less

[[Page 47440]]

significant for tire consumers. If the grade is not eliminated, 
however, Goodyear supports freezing the BCWR at its current value. 
Nevertheless, the company, like some other commenters, believes the 
treadwear test to be unreliable, inaccurate, cumbersome, costly, and 
environmentally unfriendly.
    The Kelly Springfield Tire Company (Kelly) and Multinational 
Business Services, Inc. (MBS) oppose fixing the BCWR at a single 
figure. The European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation (ETRTO) stated 
that changing the BCWR would be misleading to consumers because too 
many factors have an influence on the test results. Kelly stated that 
the treadwear grade should be eliminated and that freezing the BCWR 
would not make the treadwear rating any less confusing to consumers. 
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), MTS Systems 
Corporation (MTS), and Herzlich Consulting, Inc. (Herzlich) expressed 
no opinion on freezing the BCWR, but commented at length on the 
inadequacy of the treadwear test. Advocates stated that using CMTs to 
determine the treadlife of all candidate tires creates test conditions 
that are arguably much less demanding than actual operating conditions 
on the road. MTS stated that the treadwear test should be conducted in 
an indoor test lab under controlled, repeatable conditions.
    (2) Traction. Ten commenters, including 8 tire manufacturers, 
submitted comments on the ``AA'' traction proposal. Two supported the 
proposal, while the rest opposed it.
    In support of the proposal, Michelin stated that creation of an 
additional traction grade would provide more differentiation between 
tires with superior traction characteristics without having to redefine 
the current A, B, and C levels. ETRTO stated that the present traction 
grades are generally acceptable and should be maintained, but if NHTSA 
wants to add a grade to indicate higher traction characteristics, ETRTO 
would prefer to maintain the present grades as they are and add an 
``AA'' grade.
    In opposing the addition of an ``AA'' grade to the traction 
category, Goodyear, Cooper, Dunlop, and CGT all stated that the 
traction test procedures were flawed and should be revised to reflect 
more accurately the true traction characteristics of tires. Goodyear, 
Dunlop and Kelly stated that the test procedure does not allow tires 
designed for hydroplane resistance to demonstrate that feature. 
Goodyear asserted that the average water depth of 0.02 inches used in 
the UTQGS test procedure is less than half the industry standard depth 
of 0.05 inches. Thus, the water depth used in traction grading favors 
tires with less void area. Dunlop suggested that a hydroplaning test be 
conducted in water depths of up to 15 millimeters (0.6 inches). 
Finally, Goodyear repeated its assertion made in earlier comments that 
the new test pads used at the UTQGTF caused traction grades to go down, 
and adding an ``AA'' grade would only accentuate the flaws in the test 
procedure.
    Cooper asserted that the current test procedure is not repeatable 
or sensitive enough to detect the real differences between tires. For 
example, the ASTM ``standard'' tire is a straight-ribbed bias tire 
designed to be specially sensitive to differences in road surfaces, 
while candidate tires are commercial radial tires designed to yield 
good traction performance over a wide range of road surfaces and 
weather conditions.
    Dunlop stated that the traction test is an insufficient basis for a 
traction grade because it is only a straight-ahead test on a damp 
surface. Dunlop and CGT suggested that, to be more accurate, the test 
should include accelerating traction, cornering traction, and traction 
testing under varying ambient conditions. Dunlop also suggested that if 
the current traction test procedures were not eliminated, a wet lateral 
braking test should be conducted over 2 different friction surfaces 
where deceleration Gs are measured and stopping distances calculated. 
Finally, Dunlop suggested adding the word ``wet'' to traction labels 
because the current straight-ahead test renders the traction rating 
``inconclusive'' as a benefit to consumers whose vehicles are equipped 
with ABS.
    MBS stated that the traction rating, based solely on sliding 
traction, is not helpful because it indicates nothing about other 
traction characteristics. MBS asserted that the traction rating should 
include peak traction performance for consumers with vehicles equipped 
with ABS. Kelly, however, stated that although there is a correlation 
between peak and sliding traction and that both values can be 
considered for grading purposes, the results are dependent on the 
differences among the various types of ABS systems. Thus, since a 
significant majority of vehicles in service are not equipped with ABS, 
sliding traction values rather than peak traction values should be 
retained for the traction ratings.
    MBS and Dunlop argued that adding an AA grade could confuse 
consumers and mislead them because straight-ahead, sliding traction may 
not be best for ABS-equipped vehicles. Kelly stated that consumers 
could be confused by the limited amount of differentiation within the 
AA category. MBS and Cooper stated that the traction test should be 
redesigned and improved to be repeatable, sensitive, and relevant, and 
that research and testing should be conducted to ascertain the 
correlations among the different tire traction characteristics.
    Advocates strongly opposed adding an AA rating to the UTQGS. 
Rather, Advocates favored increasing the minimum requirements for the 
existing grades. Advocates argued that adding an AA grade would not be 
as much of an incentive for tire manufacturers to improve the traction 
characteristics of their tires as would increasing minimum grade 
requirements. Advocates further asserted that adding an AA grade would 
only give manufacturers an excuse to charge higher prices for more 
highly-rated tires, thereby providing them larger profits.
    Finally, Kelly stated that although the cost of tire mold reworking 
would be minimal, the costs associated with the proposed change would 
not be insignificant. Kelly stated that the 6,750 paper labels used in 
the Kelly production scheme would have to be changed to reflect the 4-
grade traction rating system when only a very small number of higher 
grade changes would occur. Kelly asserted that the cost of changing 
those labels would be significant due to the necessity for new artwork, 
production of new labels, and subsequent destruction or other disposal 
of obsolete labels. CGT estimated that adding an AA grade would incur 
costs of $48,000 for new labels and required point-of-sale information. 
Like Kelly, Dean Tire & Rubber Company argued that adding an AA rating 
to the UTQGS would increase costs with no commensurate benefit.

III. Agency Decision

    (a) Treadwear. NHTSA does not disagree that the treadwear grading 
procedure could be further improved. NHTSA does disagree, however, with 
Goodyear and Kelly that the treadwear grade should be eliminated. As 
the agency noted in the NPRM, 74 percent of consumers are familiar with 
the treadwear rating and 29 percent consider it in purchasing tires. 
Thus, the solution is not to eliminate the treadwear rating, but to 
improve the grading procedure to make the rating as meaningful and 
helpful as possible to the tire-buying public.
    As stated above, when the NPRM was published on May 24, 1995, the 
then-current BCWR was 1.47 MPTM. Since that time, a new lot of CMTs was

[[Page 47441]]

procured and calibrated with a BCWR of 1.34. Thus, the BCWR continues 
its steady decline. To control that decline, this final rule announces 
the freezing of the BCWR at 1.34. Nothing in the comments has dissuaded 
NHTSA from believing that freezing the BCWR at 1.34 will significantly 
reduce, if not eliminate altogether, any variation in the grading 
results between lots. The agency also believes that the use of ASTM-
specification tires with strict quality control will also contribute to 
controlling any lot-to-lot variations. NHTSA notes that the changes in 
the BCWRs have been consistently in the downward direction. If tire 
performance were changing appreciably due to production variables, the 
BCWR could be expected to change randomly in either direction.
    NHTSA also disagrees with the commenters that stated that 
manufacturers' treadwear warranties have progressed to the point that 
they can supplant the UTQGS treadwear ratings. One manufacturer 
acknowledged that manufacturers' treadwear warranties are not always 
based on test results. Further, not all tires carry manufacturers' 
warranties and the terms of such warranties are not uniform. 
Accordingly, NHTSA believes that the UTQGS treadwear ratings are more 
accurate, consistent, and meaningful to consumers than manufacturers' 
warranties because the UTQGS ratings are based on uniformly applicable 
criteria.
    The commenters' suggestions for changing the treadwear grading 
procedure fall into 2 basic categories: Revising the road test and 
developing a laboratory test. The commenters favoring the revised road 
test stated that the San Angelo test course is too mild and that, with 
the great improvement in treadwear in recent years, a test of only 
6,400 miles does not provide sufficient tread wear on which to base 
reliable projections to wearout. The commenters that favored the 
laboratory test argued that a lab test would eliminate the need for 
CMTs and test convoys and would provide consistent, repeatable test 
results. In neither case did commenters suggest any specific test 
procedures nor offer any data that could form the basis for development 
of revised tests. NHTSA believes that adoption of either of these 
alternatives could entail considerable expenditure of funds and 
resources. Expansion of the road test to more closely approximate full-
life testing of treadwear would increase the test duration and 
significantly increase costs and environmental impact. NHTSA's 
experience has shown that laboratory test machines lose repeatability 
because the abrasive surfaces of the test wheels tend to fill up with 
rubber particles. Accordingly, NHTSA does not believe that either of 
these alternatives is practicable at this time. The agency has, 
however, requested the assistance of the ASTM F9 committee in devising 
a better treadwear test. In addition, the agency intends to request 
data on the effects of aging on treadwear performance and storage 
procedures to reduce aging in a future Federal Register notice.
    NHTSA believes, therefore, that until a better treadwear grading 
procedure can be devised, the BCWR should be fixed at its present value 
of 1.34 MPTM. The establishment of a BCWR for a new lot of CMTs does 
not normally need to be promulgated by rulemaking action published in 
the Federal Register. In this case, however, since the agency solicited 
public comment on its proposal to change the procedure for calculating 
the BCWR by fixing it at a permanent value, the agency deems it 
appropriate to announce this decision in the Federal Register.
    (b) Traction. As noted above, Goodyear again commented that the new 
skid pads at the UTQGTF are more severe than the old pads in traction 
rating. NHTSA notes that the skid pads were changed in December 1991, 
and acknowledges that there may be a statistical difference in test 
results between the new pads and the old pads. Since the old pads no 
longer exist, however, the agency is not able to make a comparison for 
the purpose of devising a possible correction factor. Nevertheless, the 
agency believes that any differences in the test results do not 
significantly affect the traction ratings of tire lines and in any 
case, new tire lines should by now, after nearly 5 years, have replaced 
those tested on the old skid pads. Thus, most tires should by now be 
graded on a common basis.
    Several commenters proposed other types of traction testing, 
including the testing of hydroplaning, cornering, acceleration, and 
peak traction characteristics, and testing in various water depths, 
ambient conditions, and road surfaces. While the agency regards these 
suggestions as worthy of consideration, they go beyond the scope of the 
proposals in the NPRM. Those traction factors could, however, be the 
subject of future agency research.
    While Dunlop's suggestion that the traction grade be labeled ``wet 
traction'' on the tire sidewall and on other required labels may be 
somewhat more informative to the public, such a change would require 
the modification of tire molds, tread labels, and point-of-sale 
brochures. NHTSA believes that the costs associated with such a subtle 
change could not be justified by any perceived benefit.
    NHTSA does not agree with Advocates' suggestion for raising the 
cutoff values for the existing traction grades rather than establishing 
a new grading category. The agency believes that considerable public 
confusion could be generated during the transition to the higher cutoff 
values where tires bearing the same grade but with significantly 
different traction characteristics are available side-by-side on store 
shelves. Such a transition could be lengthy because changing tire molds 
could take as long as 2 to 3 years and some tires may remain in 
dealers' stocks for a year or more. Further, since the UTQGS are only 
consumer information and do not establish minimum traction performance 
levels, the agency believes that simply adding an ``AA'' grade to the 
UTQGS traction ratings is the simplest, least confusing, least 
burdensome, and most cost effective way of differentiating between 
those few tire lines with the highest traction performance 
characteristics and those tire lines with lower levels of performance.
    Advocates expressed concern that manufacturers would increase their 
prices for AA rated tires to the detriment of consumers. NHTSA 
acknowledges that manufacturers may choose to increase the prices of 
their AA traction-rated tires. However, the agency regards that as the 
type of marketing decision that manufacturers, distributors, and 
dealers are free to make in response to any product rating program. 
NHTSA believes that a tire rated AA for traction identifies that tire 
as one with superior traction performance and even if it costs slightly 
more, the consumer is advised of the specific characteristics of the 
tire from which he or she can make an informed purchasing decision.
    NHTSA believes that while there may be some costs associated with 
the preparation and printing of tread labels and point-of-sale 
brochures, such costs can be minimized with adequate lead time. 
Manufacturers typically revise their labels and brochures annually, 
presumably not printing them in unlimited quantities. Thus, a lead time 
of 18 months should permit new labels and brochures to be prepared and 
printed in accordance with the normal business cycle, without undue 
scrappage of obsolete material. With respect to changing tire molds, 
the agency notes that since an AA rating is optional, tire 
manufacturers have an unlimited time in which to change molds on 
qualifying tire lines, if they decide to rate their tires with a 
traction

[[Page 47442]]

grade of AA at all. Accordingly, NHTSA believes that the minor costs 
associated with this rulemaking are well justified by the value of this 
rulemaking to consumers (see detailed discussion of costs and benefits 
in Section IV, below).
    The agency proposed the AA rating criteria in the NPRM based on the 
statistical distribution of traction test results of 254 tire lines 
tested on the new skid pads at the UTQGTF. The distribution of the 
traction coefficients of the tested tires showed a mean, or average, 
value of 0.516 on wet asphalt and 0.364 on wet concrete, with a 
standard deviation of 0.029 on the wet asphalt and 0.017 on the wet 
concrete. Since those calculations were made, NHTSA has tested 40 
additional tire lines. The mean plus one standard deviation for the 
entire population of 294 tires is 0.548 for asphalt and 0.387 for 
concrete. This compares to the values of the mean minus one standard 
deviation of 0.484 for asphalt and 0.341 for concrete, which are close 
to the current threshold values for the A grade. The agency believes 
that the proposed AA traction grade threshold is statistically 
compatible with the ranges for the A grade and the combined ranges of 
the B and C grades since, of the 294 tires tested, only 34 (12 percent) 
would qualify for the AA traction grade while 213 (72 percent) would 
qualify for the A grade. Thus, there should be approximately the same 
number of tire lines graded AA as are graded B and C.

IV. Cost/Benefit Analysis

    (a) Treadwear. The fixing of the BCWR at a permanent value of 1.34 
MPTM will not cause the Federal government or tire manufacturers to 
incur any additional costs. Instead, it will substantially reduce the 
cost of CMTs to tire testers and remove the necessity for the 
government to contract for one test convoy each year.
    Tire manufacturers routinely purchase CMTs from lots procured by 
the government for testing of their tire lines. Prior to September 1, 
1995, NHTSA charged $304.50 per tire. A DOT Inspector General audit, 
however, concluded that NHTSA was not recovering the full cost of 
purchasing, storing, and testing the CMTs. By final rule published on 
August 2, 1995 (60 FR 39269) NHTSA started charging $379.00 per tire, 
effective September 1, 1995. That charge included the government's 
purchase price of $250.00, $45.00 in testing costs to establish the 
BCWR, $34.00 for storage costs, and $50.00 for general facility costs 
and related salaries.
    NHTSA estimates that fixing the BCWR at a permanent value will 
eliminate the need to calibrate new lots of CMTs, perhaps even 
eliminating the need for the government to purchase and store CMTs for 
resale. The savings to the government realized by not having to procure 
and store CMTs for resale and by not having to operate at least one 
test convoy per year is difficult to quantify. However, manufacturers 
purchasing CMTs from the government, even though they would no longer 
need to, could realize savings of from $45.00 to $95.00 per tire. At 
least the $45.00 testing cost could be saved, as well as perhaps some 
or all of the storage and/or facility costs.
    Although the specific benefits of this change are also difficult to 
quantify, it is expected to reduce or eliminate the treadwear grade 
inflation experienced in the past, thereby relieving manufacturers of 
the possible need to retest certain tire lines and providing consumers 
more consistent and reliable treadwear grade information.
    (b) Traction. The addition of an AA traction grade will not require 
any additional testing by manufacturers. Further, as previously noted, 
the assessing of an AA traction grade is optional for manufacturers. 
Accordingly, any costs associated with changing tire molds to show an 
AA grade can be phased in at the manufacturers' convenience and during 
the regular course of reworking the molds for their tire lines. In any 
case, only a very few tire lines will be affected. Accordingly, NHTSA 
estimates that there should be no additional mold or testing costs to 
manufacturers as a result of this change.
    The only additional costs required by this change will be to 
indicate the existence of a new traction grade on tread labels and 
point-of-sale brochures. CGT estimated this cost to be $48,000. Pirelli 
estimated the cost of new artwork for labels to be $12,000 and the cost 
of brochures and dealer price books at $104,000. Kelly stated that 
6,750 label designs would need to be changed, but gave no cost figure. 
Goodyear estimated that it would cost $26,000 for new labels and 
$120,000 for new point-of-sale brochures. MBS estimated that the costs 
of new labels and brochures would be $15 million for the tire industry.
    None of the commenters specified whether the costs they quoted were 
additional annual costs or whether those were one-time costs associated 
with adding a description of the AA grade for the first time. Tire 
manufacturers update and reissue their labels and brochures 
periodically, normally annually, to account for new tire lines and 
improvements or changes in existing tire lines. It follows, therefore, 
that once a description of the AA grade is printed on/in the labels and 
brochures, that description can be repeated without change on 
subsequent labels and brochures without adding any additional costs to 
those printings. Accordingly, the agency assumes the figures quoted 
above are one-time costs only.
    The MBS estimate of $15 million appears to be very high, compared 
to the figures estimated by the manufacturers themselves. Even so, 
NHTSA regards $15 million as a maximum figure applicable to the entire 
tire industry that, as previously pointed out, would be a one-time 
expenditure only.
    This change will substantially benefit consumers by allowing them 
to identify those tire lines with the highest traction performance 
characteristics, thereby providing them even greater tire selectivity 
and allowing them to make even more-informed choices. In addition, 
NHTSA believes that introduction of an AA traction rating will provide 
an incentive to tire manufacturers to improve the traction performance 
of new tire lines, thereby contributing to motor vehicle safety.

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

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

    This document was reviewed under Executive Order No. 12866, 
Regulatory Planning and Review. NHTSA has analyzed the impact of this 
rulemaking action and has determined that it is ``significant'' under 
the DOT's regulatory policies and procedures because the proposal which 
preceded it contained an issue of substantial public and congressional 
interest. That issue, the substitution of a fuel economy grade for the 
existing temperature resistance grade, is not addressed in this final 
rule.
    The Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation prepared by this agency for 
the 1995 NPRM remains valid as to the amendments adopted in this final 
rule. See section IV, Cost/Benefit Analysis, above for a full 
discussion of cost savings, additional costs, and proposed anticipated 
benefits of this rulemaking.

(b) Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that the amendments 
promulgated by this final rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, a regulatory 
flexibility analysis has not been prepared.
    The agency believes that few, if any, tire manufacturers qualify as 
small

[[Page 47443]]

businesses. Small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental units may be affected by this rulemaking action only to 
the extent that they could possibly pay slightly more for tires that 
are graded AA for traction performance characteristics.

(c) Executive Order 12612, Federalism

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action in accordance with the 
principles and criteria of Executive Order 12612 and has determined 
that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

(d) National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act and has determined that 
implementation of this rulemaking action will not have any significant 
impact on the quality of the human environment.

(e) Paperwork Reduction Act

    The provisions of this final rule requiring manufacturers to mold 
certain information into or onto the sidewalls of tires and to affix 
labels to tires explaining the tire quality grades for the benefit of 
consumers are considered to be third-party information collection 
requirements as defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 
5 CFR part 1320. The information collection requirements for 49 CFR 
575.104 have been submitted to and approved by OMB pursuant to the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3501, et seq. 
This collection of information authority has been assigned OMB control 
number 2127-0519, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards, 49 CFR Part 
575.104, and has been approved for use through September 30, 1998.

(f) Civil Justice Reform

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

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 575

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

    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 575 is amended as 
follows:

PART 575--CONSUMER INFORMATION REGULATIONS

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

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

    2. Section 575.104 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B); 
(d)(1)(iii); (d)(2)(i); the introductory text of (d)(2)(ii); 
(e)(2)(ix)(C); Figure 1; Part I and the introductory text of Part II of 
Figure 2; and the paragraph entitled ``Traction'' in Part II of Figure 
2; by adding paragaph (d)(2)(ii)(D); and by removing paragraphs (i), 
(j), (k), and (1), to read as follows:


Sec. 575.104  Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards.

* * * * *
    (d) Requirements--(1) Information.
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (B) Each tire manufactured on and after the effective date of these 
amendments, other than a tire sold as original equipment on a new 
vehicle, shall have affixed to its tread surface so as not to be easily 
removable a label or labels containing its grades and other information 
in the form illustrated in Figure 2, Parts I and II. The treadwear 
grade attributed to the tire shall be either imprinted or indelibly 
stamped on the label containing the material in Part I of Figure 2, 
directly to the right of or below the word ``TREADWEAR.'' The traction 
grade attributed to the tire shall be indelibly circled in an array of 
the potential grade letters AA, A, B, or C, directly to the right of or 
below the word ``TRACTION'' in Part I of Figure 2. The temperature 
resistance grade attributed to the tire shall be indelibly circled in 
an array of the potential grade letters A, B, or C, directly to the 
right of or below the word ``TEMPERATURE'' in Part I of Figure 2. The 
words ``TREADWEAR,'' ``TRACTION,'' AND ``TEMPERATURE,'' in that order, 
may be laid out vertically or horizontally. The text of Part II of 
Figure 2 may be printed in capital letters. The text of Part I and the 
text of Part II of Figure 2 need not appear on the same label, but the 
edges of the two texts must be positioned on the tire tread so as to be 
separated by a distance of no more than one inch. If the text of Part I 
and the text of Part II of Figure 2 are placed on separate labels, the 
notation ``See EXPLANATION OF DOT QUALITY GRADES'' shall be added to 
the bottom of the Part I text, and the words ``EXPLANATION OF DOT 
QUALITY GRADES'' shall appear at the top of the Part II text. The text 
of Figure 2 shall be oriented on the tire tread surface with lines of 
type running perpendicular to the tread circumference. If a label 
bearing a tire size designation is attached to the tire tread surface 
and the tire size designation is oriented with lines type running 
perpendicular to the tread circumference, the text of Figure 2 shall 
read in the same direction as the tire size designation.
* * * * *
    (iii) In the case of information required in accordance with 
Sec. 575.6(a) to be furnished to the first purchaser of a new motor 
vehicle, each manufacturer of motor vehicles shall, as part of the 
required information, list all possible grades for traction and 
temperature resistance and restate verbatim the explanation for each 
performance area specified in Figure 2. The information need not be in 
the format of Figure 2, but it must contain a statement referring the 
reader to the tire sidewall for the specific tire grades for the tires 
with which the vehicle is equipped.
    (2) Performance.--(i) Treadwear. Each tire shall be graded for 
treadwear performance with the word ``TREADWEAR'' followed by a number 
of two or three digits representing the tire's grade for treadwear, 
expressed as a percentage of the NHTSA nominal treadwear value, when 
tested in accordance with the conditions and procedures specified in 
paragraph (e) of this section. Treadwear grades shall be expressed in 
multiples of 20 (for example, 80, 120, 160).
    (ii) Traction. Each tire shall be graded for traction performance 
with the word ``TRACTION,'' followed by the symbols AA, A, B, or C, 
when the tire is tested in accordance with the conditions and 
procedures specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
* * * * *
    (D) The tire may be graded AA only when its adjusted traction 
coefficient is both:
    (1) More than 0.54 when tested in accordance with 
paragraph (f)(2) of this section on the asphalt surface specified in 
paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section; and
    (2) More than 0.38 when tested in accordance with 
paragraph (f)(2) of this

[[Page 47444]]

section on the concrete surface specified in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ix) * * *
    (C) Determine the course severity adjustment factor by assigning a 
base course wear rate of 1.34 to the course monitoring tires and 
dividing that rate by the average wear rate for the four course 
monitoring tires.
* * * * *
    (i) Removed.
    (j) Removed.
    (k) Removed.
    (l) Removed.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-53-P
      

[[Page 47445]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE96.023



BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 47446]]

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

TRACTION  AA  A  B  C

TEMPERATURE  A  B  C

    (Part II) All Passenger Car Tires Must Conform to Federal Safety 
Requirements In Addition To These Grades
* * * * *
TRACTION
    The traction grades, from highest to lowest, are AA, A, B, and 
C. Those grades represent the tire's ability to stop on wet pavement 
as measured under controlled conditions on specified government test 
surfaces of asphalt and concrete. A tire marked C may have poor 
traction performance. Warning: The traction grade assigned to this 
tire is based on straight-ahead braking traction tests, and does not 
include acceleration, cornering, hydroplaning, or peak traction 
characteristics.
* * * * *
    Issued on August 30, 1996.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-22761 Filed 9-6-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P