[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 108 (Friday, June 5, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30695-30700]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14109]
[[Page 30695]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 575
[Docket No. 98-3866]
RIN 2127-AG96
Consumer Information Regulations: Uniform Tire Quality Grading
Standards
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposes to amend
the treadwear testing procedures under the Uniform Tire Quality Grading
Standards (UTQGS). To ensure the consistency of the treadwear grades
from one year to the next, the agency must monitor the changing
roughness of the test course, periodically calculate a base course wear
rate (BCWR), and adjust measured tire wear rates accordingly. To
monitor the test course, the agency uses special tires designated as
course monitoring tires (CMTs).
The agency is proposing to change the computation of the BCWR used
in calculating the treadwear grade of passenger car tires. Under the
proposed amendments, there would be a direct comparison of the wear
rates of course monitoring tires (CMT) used as the control standard and
candidate tires, i.e, the tires being tested for the purposes of
grading. This direct comparison would result in more consistent
treadwear ratings by compensating for any changes or variations in CMT
characteristics. NHTSA proposes to measure the wear rate of CMTs 4
times per year and using the average wear rate from the last 4
quarterly CMT tests as a basis for the BCWR. NHTSA further proposes to
require, subject to the exception in the following sentence, that CMTs
used to determine wear rate be no more than 6 months old at the
commencement of the test and that the difference in the production
dates of those tires be not greater than 3 months. If tires more than 6
months old are used in the wear rate test, their average wear rate must
be reduced by 10 percent.
DATES: Comment closing date: Comments on this notice must be received
on or before August 4, 1998.
Proposed effective date: If adopted, the amendments proposed in
this notice would become effective 60 days after the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers noted
above for this rule and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-
401, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20590. Docket room hours are
from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 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 5320F, 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:
a. Background
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 require tire manufacturers and tire brand name owners to
test and grade their tires with respect to their relative treadwear,
traction, and temperature resistance performance. Treadwear grades are
shown by numbers, such as 100, 160, and 200, while the traction grade
is indicated by AA, A, B, and C, with AA representing the highest
performance characteristics and C the lowest. The temperature
resistance grade is 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
standards.
Treadwear grades are developed first by 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.
Special tires known as ``course monitoring tires'' (CMT) are used
as the control in grading candidate tires. CMTs are specially designed
and built to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard
E1136 to have particularly narrow limits of variability. Until the
amendments to the UTQGS published in a final rule on September 9, 1996
(61 FR 4737), whenever NHTSA procured a new batch, or lot, of CMTs, the
agency established a new BCWR for that lot. The BCWR, measured in mils
per thousand miles, was 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 was 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 was then multiplied by
the CSAF to determine the adjusted wear rate (AWR) of the new CMTs.
That value then became the BCWR for the new CMTs.
Once the BCWR for the new CMTs was established, these CMTs were
used to grade candidate tires. Upon completion of the 6,400-mile test,
the BCWR was divided by the average wear rate of the CMTs to determine
the CSAF for the candidate tires. That factor was then applied to the
wear rates of the candidate tires to obtain the AWR of the candidate
tires. That AWR was then extrapolated to the point of wearout
(considered to be \1/16\th inch of remaining tread depth). The
resultant value was then converted to the treadwear rating of the tire.
The BCWR was originally 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 noted that the BCWRs of successive new lots
of CMTs steadily declined over the years. The trend has been that every
time that a fresh CMT of the next lot was tested in the same convoy
with an example of the old CMT from storage, the fresh CMT consistently
experienced a lower wear rate than the old CMT running in the same
convoy. The first lot of CMTs procured by the agency in 1975 were
commercially-available Goodyear Custom Steelguards which yielded a BCWR
of 4.44. The lot procured by the agency in 1995 produced a BCWR of
1.34. Table I shows the consistent decline in each new lot of CMTs.
[[Page 30696]]
Table I.--CMT Wear Rate and Base Course Wear Rate Adjustment Factors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measured Adj. wear
Year Manufacturer Series wear rate CSAF rate BCWR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1975.......................................... Goodyear.............................. (\1\) 4.44 1.0 4.44 4.44
1979.......................................... Goodyear.............................. (\1\) 4.08 1.09 4.44 ...........
1979.......................................... Goodyear.............................. (\2\) 3.82 1.09 4.16 4.16
1980.......................................... Goodyear.............................. (\2\) 5.29 0.79 4.16 ...........
1980.......................................... Goodyear.............................. (\3\) 4.76 0.79 3.74 3.74
1984.......................................... Goodyear.............................. (\3\) 4.22 0.89 3.74 ...........
1984.......................................... Uniroyal.............................. 4000 3.27 0.89 2.90 2.90
1987.......................................... Uniroyal.............................. 4000 5.96 0.49 2.90 ...........
1987.......................................... Uniroyal.............................. 71000 4.56 0.49 2.22 2.22
1989.......................................... Uniroyal.............................. 71000 5.01 0.44 2.22 ...........
1989.......................................... Uniroyal.............................. 91000 4.84 0.44 2.14 2.14
1991.......................................... Uniroyal.............................. 91000 6.24 0.34 2.14 ...........
1991.......................................... ASTM E1136............................ 010000 4.94 0.34 1.70 1.70
1991.......................................... ASTM E1136............................ 010000 6.96 0.24 1.70 ...........
1992.......................................... ASTM E1136............................ 110000 6.65 0.24 1.62 1.62
1992.......................................... ASTM E1136............................ 110000 5.83 0.28 1.62 ...........
1992.......................................... ASTM E1136............................ 210000 5.60 0.28 1.56 1.56
1993.......................................... ASTM E1136............................ 210000 7.21 0.22 1.56 ...........
1993.......................................... ASTM E1136............................ 310000 68.0 0.22 1.47 1.47
1995.......................................... ASTM E1136............................ 310000 6.47 0.23 1.47 ...........
1995.......................................... ASTM E1136............................ 410000 5.91 0.23 1.34 1.34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Batch 1.
\2\ Batch 2.
\3\ Batch 3.
In replacing CMTs from the original lot of CMTs procured in 1975,
it should be noted that the greatest difference in the AWR between
nominally identical CMTs of different ages was about 30 percent
occurring in 1987 when the old CMTs had been stored for about 3 years.
On the other hand, the least difference in the AWR between nominally
identical CMTs of different ages was about 4 percent occurring in the
second 1992 replacement when the old CMT had been stored less than a
year. Table I also shows that the treadwear rate disadvantage of the
aged CMTs at replacement varied considerably from a linear relationship
with age. Presumably, therefore, the rate may be exacerbated by actual
batch differences of the commercial tires used as CMTs prior to 1991.
The significance of the decrease in the BCWR rate was that as the
BCWR decreased, the treadwear grades of candidate tires increased.
Consequently, the newer treadwear grades have increased to the point
that they have become a misleading indicator of actual tread life when
compared to tires tested with higher BCWRs.
To correct this problem, the agency froze the BCWR at 1.34 mils in
the final rule of September 9, 1996. The agency believed that freezing
the BCWR at that figure would significantly reduce, if not eliminate,
any variation in the grading between lots. Further, the agency believed
that the use of ASTM E1136 tires that are produced with strict quality
control would also contribute to reduction of any lot-to-lot
variations. NHTSA stated, however, that it had requested the assistance
of the ASTM F9 committee in devising a better treadwear test and that
it would request data in a future rulemaking on the effects of tire
aging on treadwear performance and storage procedures to reduce aging.
b. Discussion
The previous computations of the BCWR as described above were based
on the unstated assumption that the tires in a lot of CMTs were not
affected by aging. Thus, it was assumed that the last-remaining old
CMTs in storage were identical in inherent treadwear performance to the
first tires of the same lot whose treadwear rates were measured when
they were fresh. NHTSA now has reason to believe that may not in fact
be true.
Treadwear tests of convoys containing tires from the same lines of
radial, bias and bias-belted tires differing in age by one year are
discussed in NHTSA research. See Brenner, et al., Establishment and
Calibration of a Tread Wear Test Course, Tire Science and Technology,
Vol. 3, No. 3, August 1975, at page 174. The purpose of the tests,
which included tires partially worn at the beginning of the tests, was
to confirm that the treadwear characteristics of tires with different
pre-test histories remained sufficiently linear to permit accurate
tread life projections after 6,400 miles of testing by comparing their
tread life after 8,000 miles of testing. The tests concluded that of
the nominally identical tires, those that had been stored approximately
one year in unspecified circumstances, presumably at the test course at
San Angelo, had an 8 to 13 percent shorter tread life than their
fresher counterparts.
The strength of an aging effect sufficient to account for all of
the decline in the BCWR since 1975 may be estimated using the following
equation in which it is assumed that all differences between CMTs are
the result of aging:
(1) New BCWR = old BCWR x [(measured wear rate of new CMTs)/(measured
wear rate of old CMTs in convoy)].
This produces a gross estimation that does not take into account the
different storage lengths of the aged CMTs.
Equation (2) designates BCWRs of different generations of CMTs with
subscripts m and n, with subscript of 1 referring to the original 1975
CMT and a subscript of 11 referring to the latest generation:
(2) BCWRm = BCWRn x [(wear rate of fresh CMT)/
(wear rate of aged CMT)]m-n
Let m=11 and n=1 to account for all the observed change in BCWR.
Therefore:
1.34 = 4.44 x [(wear rate of fresh CMT)/(wear rate of aged
CMT)](10)
Solving for the wear rate ratio yields:
[(wear rate of fresh CMT)/(wear rate of aged CMT)] = 0.887 or
[[Page 30697]]
[wear rate of aged CMT)/(wear rate of fresh CMT)] = 1.127
Thus, an average of 12.7 percent degradation of tread life during an
average storage period of approximately 2 years would account for
nearly all the change in BCWR during the existence of the UTQGS
program. This would be consistent with the earlier agency observations
of 8 to 13 percent degradation during about 1 year of storage. It
should be noted, however, that year-to-year variations in BCWR could
have been affected by actual batch differences and/or real changes in
treadwear characteristics when the brand and line of tires used as CMTs
were changed.
To confirm NHTSA's previous test data, the agency contracted with
Texas Test Fleet, Inc. to conduct a 52,000 mile test in eight 6,400
mile cycles between November 7, 1996 and February 28, 1997 under
guidelines set forth by the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance (see Texas Test Fleet, Critical Evaluation of UTQG Treadwear
Testing & Methodology, DOT HS 808-701, March 10, 1997). The test was
conducted on the UTQGS test course near San Angelo, Texas. The
objective of the test was to determine the real wear rate of CMTs by
running a tightly-controlled UTQGS specification test to wearout or
near wearout. The break-in phase sought to include all the rapid
changing, fast wearing, early wear of the tire and prepare it for a
constant wear period in which a straight-line wear rate could be
established from which the mileage could be projected, the effects of
aging could be measured, and the treadwear grade established. In making
the treadwear projection, the agency assumed that CMT wear rates during
the test period may not be truly linear because modern radial tires
have such a long tread life that the 6,400 mile UTQGS treadwear test
may involve only 10 percent or less of the tire's tread life.
A set of 4 ASTM E1136 CMTs manufactured during the 26th week of
1996 (26-6) was used to run the entire 52,000 miles of the test and
were designated the control standard for the other tires that started
at the beginning of the test. Two sets of tires on 2 cars started the
test and ran half way (26,000 miles). Different tires were installed on
those 2 cars at the halfway point for the second half of the test, and
a fifth car was started at the same time with 26-6 controls for the
remainder of the test. The 26-6 and the 45-5 (45th week, 1995) tires
were not stored in the San Angelo warehouse as were the 30-5 (30th
week, 1995) and 09-4 (9th week, 1994) tires, but in a cave in Missouri
that has a constant temperature. The 26-6 tires used in the second half
of the test wore more rapidly (7.060 MPTM) than the 26-6 tires used in
the first half of the test, which wore at 6.364 mils. 09-4 CMTs also
exhibited a relatively high wear rate of 7.773. The wear rates at 6,400
miles for the tires used in the test are shown in Table II.
Table II
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wear rate @
Manufacture date Test start date 6,400 miles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
26th Week of 1996 (26-6) (Cave)... 11/11/96 6.364
45th Week of 1995 (45-5) (Cave)... 11/11/96 6.547
30th Week of 1995 (30-5) (San
Angelo).......................... 11/11/96 6.968
09th Week of 1994 (09-4) (San
Angelo).......................... 1/25/97 7.733
26th Week of 1996 (26-6) (Cave)... 1/25/97 7.060
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The effect on aging on 45-5 (cave), 30-5 (San Angelo), and 09-4 (San
Angelo) CMT tires compared to the 26-6 (cave) control standard are
shown in Table III.
Table III
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ave. WR/confidence Cumul. W.R./ Ave. WR/confidence Ave. WR/confidence
Tires Ave. WR/confidence interval 6,400-12,800 confidence interval interval 12,800- interval 19,200-
interval 0-6,400 miles miles to 12,800 miles 19,200 miles 25,600 miles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
45-5 Cave.......................... 3% Higher/0.871....... 6% Higher/0.999....... 5% Higher/0.996...... 1.2% Higher/0.714.... 1.5% Higher/0.531.
30-5 SA............................ 10% Higher/0.997...... 10% Higher/0.999...... 10% Higher/0.999..... 5% Higher/0.993...... 3.8% Higher/0.927.
09-4 SA............................ 9% Higher/0.998....... 8.5% Higher/0.999..... 8.8% Higher/0.999.... 4% Higher/0.93....... 10% Higher/0.999.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency found from this series of tests that compared with the 26-6
CMTs (19 weeks old), the 45-5 cave-stored tires (34 weeks older than
the 26-6) displayed about 3 percent higher wear rate at 6,400 miles
with marginal statistical significance because of scatter of the 26-6
group. However, those 45-5 tires displayed over 6 percent higher wear
in the 6,400-12,800 mile interval with high statistical significance
and 5 percent higher cumulative wear to 12,800 with high statistical
significance, but the effect diminished for intervals after 12,800
miles. The 30-5 San Angelo-stored tires (about 1 year older) displayed
about 10 percent higher wear at 0-6,400 and 6,400-12,800 mile intervals
with high statistical significance, but the effect reduced to about 5
percent at the 12,800-19,200 mile interval. Finally, the 09-4 San
Angelo-stored tires, over 2 years older than 26-6, displayed about 10
percent higher wear to 25,600 miles with no sign of diminishing.
The agency concluded from the tests that tires typical of the
remaining CMTs at batch changeover exhibited about 10 percent greater
wear rates than reasonably fresh ASTM tires. Thus, the 11 batch
changeovers with this systemic error could explain most of the BCWR
variations to date, although some real changes in test pavement and
control tire properties have undoubtedly occurred. The test also
revealed that every comparison between a newer tire and an older tire
favored the newer tire, usually with high statistical significance.
Further, cave storage appears to have a big advantage over open storage
considering the 0-6,400 mile interval.
Previous tire manufacturer suggestions to change the treadwear test
were based at least in part on the belief that, for modern tires, the
San Angelo test course is too mild, making the tread wear during the
6,400 mile test insufficient to make reliable projections to wearout.
The Texas Test Fleet test established, however, that tread life
projections for the commercial tires
[[Page 30698]]
based on the usual UTQGS procedure at 6,400 test miles fell within
about 10 percent of projections made at mileages of up to 25,600 test
miles and even 52,100 test miles for two of the tested tire lines.
Therefore, increasing the UTQGS procedure from 6,400 to 26,400 miles
would not appreciably change any projections. To demonstrate this
conclusively, the agency would need additional extended testing with a
variety of commercial tires to make a statistically valid decision on
whether the 6,400 mile test is adequate. The results of the Texas Test
Fleet tests, however, would not justify more testing since the
projections for the four commercial tire lines at higher mileages are
within 10 percent of the 6,400 mile projections and vary somewhat
randomly around those projections. The tread life projections at
different mileages are shown in Table IV.
Table IV.--Tread Life Projections
[% of 6,400 Mile Projections]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase I Phase II
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26-6 CMT 45-5 26-6 CMT
(Cave) (Cave) 30-5 (SA) Brand A Brand B (Cave) 09-4 (SA) Brand C Brand D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected From Linear Regression at 6,400 Miles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
47,100..... 45,532 42,693 55,900 72,800 46,650 42,825 32,500 32,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected From Linear Regression at 12,800 Miles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
47,026..... 44,420 42,009 51,824 72,127 46,239 42,207 32,510 32,653
(99.8%).... (97.5%) (98.3%) (92.7%) (99.0%) (99.0%) (98.5%) (100%) (100%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected From Linear Regression at 19,200 Miles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
47,982..... 46,071 43,847 52,701 68,818 47,833 44,481 33,851 33,747
(101%)..... (101%) (102%) (94.2%) (94.5%) (102%) (103%) (104%) (102%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected From Linear Regression at 25,600 Miles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50,300..... 48,419 46,012 54,000 67,200 49,964 46,439 35,169 34,907
(106%)..... (106%) (107%) (96.6%) (92.3%) (107%) (108%) (108%) (107%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected From Linear Regression at 32,000 Miles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
52,880..... 55,902 64,995
(112%)..... (100%) (89.2%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected From Linear Regression at 38,400 Miles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
54,690..... 58,219 68,513
(116%)..... (104%) (94.1%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected From Linear Regression at 44,800 Miles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
56,598..... 60,018 69,766
(120%)..... (107%) (95.8%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected From Linear Regression at 51,200 Miles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
58,190..... 61,190 70,562
(123%)..... (109%) (96.9%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Proposal
As previously stated, in the final rule of September 9, 1996, NHTSA
froze the BCWR at 1.34 mils for ASTM E1136 tires used as CMTs. The need
to consider batch-to-batch variations in CMT properties is greatly
reduced, if not eliminated, by use of the ASTM E1136 tires which are
specifically constructed to avoid variations between batches.
1 The agency believes that any errors introduced by ASTM
tires would remain randomly distributed and smaller than that for
commercial tires because of the rigidly-controlled manufacturing
process. Thus, the use of fresh ASTM tires constructed under a
controlled procedure effectively eliminates systematic differences
between lots. They are subject only to random differences which, if
any, should average to zero over repeated tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The designation E1136 refers to the standard specification
of materials and construction practices codified by ASTM as suitable
for control tires for scientific experimentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA believes that the use of a BCWR determined by using fresh
ASTM tires with aged ASTM tires is inappropriate. Rather, the BCWR
should reflect the yearly mean wear rate imposed on fresh CMTs by the
test course pavement and driving conditions. The conclusion that aging
increases the wear rate of tires implies that comparing the wear rate
of fresh candidate tires to the wear rate of aged control tires
inflates the treadwear rating because, as discussed above, CMTs one
year old have experienced significant degradation in treadwear
properties. Thus, the use of CMTs no more than 6 months old in test
convoys should limit systematic effects. The agency believes that fresh
ASTM tires should be run seasonally, that is, 6,400 miles 4 times per
year, then define the
[[Page 30699]]
BCWR as the average treadwear rate of the last 4 tests of the E1136
tires. Thus, the aging effect would be eliminated by using only fresh
CMTs.
Finally, NHTSA wants to develop a valid CMT replacement procedure
in case ASTM tires become subject to changes in ASTM design
specifications or become unavailable. Such a procedure would also
enable the agency to test the assumption of batch uniformity of ASTM-
specification tires.
NHTSA proposes, therefore, that treadwear ratings should be
determined by using ASTM E1136 CMTs produced not more than 6 months
prior to the beginning of the test. Further, there should be no more
than 3 months difference in production dates between those CMTs. If
CMTs older than 6 months are used, their average wear rate must be
reduced by 10 percent, based on test experience. This latter option
permits older tires to be used for the convenience of the tester, but
not as a means of achieving higher treadwear ratings for candidate
tires. Finally, the agency further proposes to test fresh CMTs 4 times
per year over the standard 6,400 mile test course and define the BCWR
as the average treadwear rate of the last 4 tests of the E1136 tire.
The BCWR will be updated quarterly.
To implement the proposals discussed above, the formula for
determining the UTQGS grade would be changed and the grade (P) of the
NHTSA nominal treadwear value for each candidate tire computed using
the following formula:
P = projected mileage x 100 x BCWRn/30,000 x 1.34
Where BCWRn = New BCWR, i.e. average treadwear of last 4
quarterly CMT tests done by NHTSA
or
P = projected mileage x BCWRn/402
This simplified equation eliminates the ``30,000'' figure that is no
longer accurate as a treadwear mileage estimate after the years of BCWR
drift. This new grade calculation also preserves the current grade
numbers to avoid any discontinuity.
In view of NHTSA's proposals discussed above, it would appear
unnecessary to restrict manufacturers to NHTSA's storage facility for
the procurement of CMTs. It would be faster, easier, more efficient,
and possibly more economical for testers to procure ASTM tires directly
from the manufacturer. It would benefit NHTSA also by permitting the
agency to discontinue the practice of warehousing and distributing
CMTs. To ensure that testers are using CMTs that are less than 6 months
old, NHTSA personnel at the San Angelo test site will review the
production dates of CMTs used by testers to verify that test fleets are
using fresh tires.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
a. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This document was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review.
NHTSA has analyzed the impact of this rulemaking action and has
determined that it is not ``significant'' under the DOT's regulatory
policies and procedures. This proposed action would change the equation
for determining the base course wear rate for course monitoring tires
used in the testing of tires for compliance with the Uniform Tire
Quality Grading Standards. This proposed action, if finalized, would
not impose any additional costs on tire manufacturers, distributors, or
dealers. Rather, it would permit tire manufacturers greater flexibility
in their testing programs and could result in slightly lower costs by
permitting them to procure course monitoring tires directly from the
manufacturer rather than from NHTSA. Further, it could save NHTSA the
time, trouble, and expense of warehousing such tires and selling them
to manufacturers for use by the latter in their testing programs.
Nevertheless, the agency believes that any net cost savings would be
minimal, therefore not warranting preparation of a full regulatory
evaluation.
b. Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 601, et seq. I hereby
certify that this notice of proposed rulemaking would not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The following is the agency's statement providing the factual basis
for the certification (5 U.S.C. Sec. 605(b)). The amendments proposed
herein would primarily affect manufacturers of passenger car tires. The
Small Business Administration (SBA) regulation at 13 CFR part 121
defines a small business in part as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)).
SBA's size standards are organized according to Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes. SIC code No. 3711, Motor Vehicles and
Passenger Car Bodies, has a small business size standard of 1,000 or
fewer employees. SIC code No. 3714, Motor Vehicle Parts and
Accessories, has a small business size standard of 750 or fewer
employees.
The amendments proposed in this rulemaking action merely change the
testing procedure for and calculation of the treadwear grade under the
Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards. The purpose of this new
procedure is to arrest the treadwear grade inflation that has been
experienced over the past several years. The amendments, if adopted,
would possibly require NHTSA to conduct additional testing to determine
the base course wear rate from which treadwear grades are calculated by
tire manufacturers. The amendments, however, would not impose any
additional requirements or burdens on tire manufacturers, the great
majority of which would not qualify as small businesses under SBA
guidelines. Thus, the proposed new procedures, if adopted, would not
result in any increase in costs for tire manufacturers, small
businesses, or consumers. Accordingly, there will be no significant
impact on small businesses, small organizations, or small governmental
units by the amendments proposed herein. Thus, the agency has not
prepared a preliminary regulatory flexibility analysis.
c. Executive Order No. 12612, Federalism
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action in accordance with the
principles and criteria of E.O. 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 would not have any significant
impact on the quality of the human environment.
e. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub.L. 96-
511, NHTSA states that there are no information collection requirements
associated with this rulemaking action.
f. Civil Justice Reform.
The amendments proposed herein 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 standard is
identical to the Federal standard. However, the United States
government, a state or political
[[Page 30700]]
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.
Section 30161 of Title 49, U.S. Code 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.
Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the amendments
proposed herein. It is requested but not required that any such
comments be submitted in duplicate (original and 1 copy).
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 noted above, and 1 copy
from which the purportedly confidential information has been deleted
should be submitted to Docket Management. A request for confidentiality
should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth the information
called for in 49 CFR Part 512, Confidential Business Information.
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 after the closing date will be
considered. Comments received too late for consideration in regard to
the final rule will be considered as suggestions for further rulemaking
action. Comments on today's proposal will be available for public
inspection in the docket. NHTSA will continue to file relevant
information in the docket after the comment 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 rule 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 information, Labeling, Motor vehicle safety, Motor
vehicles, Rubber and rubber products, 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
(e)(2)(ix)(C) and by revising paragraph (e)(2)(ix)(F) to read as
follows:
Sec. 575.104 Uniform tire quality grading standards.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(ix) * * *
(C) Determine the course severity adjustment factor by assigning a
base course wear rate to the course monitoring tires (see note to this
paragraph) and dividing the rate by the average wear rate for the four
course monitoring tires.
Note to paragraph (e)(2)(ix): The base wear rate for the course
monitoring tires will be obtained by the government by running fresh
ASTM E1136 course monitoring tires for 6,400 miles over the San Angelo,
Texas, UTQGS test route 4 times per year, then using the average wear
rate from the last 4 quarterly tests for the base course wear rate
calculation. Each new base course wear rate will be filed in the DOT
Docket Management section. This value will be furnished to the tester
by the government at the time of the test. The course monitoring tires
used in a test convoy must be no more than 6 months old at the
commencement of the test and no more than 3 months different from each
other in production dates at the commencement of the test. If course
monitoring tires more than 6 months old are used in the test, their
calculated average wear rate must be reduced by 10 percent.
* * * * *
(F) Compute the grade (P) of the NHTSA nominal treadwear value for
each candidate tire by using the following formula:
P = Projected mileage x base wear raten/402
Where base wear raten = new base wear rate, i.e., average
treadwear of the last 4 quarterly course monitoring tire tests
conducted by NHTSA.
Round off the percentage to the nearest lower 20-point increment.
* * * * *
Issued on May 21, 1998.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 98-14109 Filed 6-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P