[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 130 (Thursday, July 8, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36807-36816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-17402]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 574

[Docket No. 99-5928]
RIN 2127-AH10


Tire Identification and Recordkeeping; Tire Identification 
Symbols

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA's tire identification and recordkeeping regulation 
requires new tire manufacturers and tire retreaders to mark a tire 
identification number on one sidewall of each tire they produce. The 
number is composed of the manufacturer's or retreader's identification 
code, a tire size symbol, an optional descriptive code, and the date of 
manufacture, which includes the date of retreading. The date is 
reflected in the last 3 digits of the number.
    In response to petitions for rulemaking, the agency is amending the 
regulation to require the date to be expressed in 4 digits instead of 
the currently required 3, and to reduce the minimum size of the digits 
from the currently required minimum of 6 millimeters (mm) (\1/4\ inch) 
to 4 mm (\5/32\ inch). The 4-digit date code will permit better 
traceability of tires during recalls and allow easier identification of 
older tires. Reducing the size of the date code from 6 mm to 4 mm will 
relieve manufacturers and retreaders of the burden they might otherwise 
incur by having to redesign their tire molds to accommodate the 
additional digit, without significantly affecting the readability of 
the date code digits. Finally, these amendments will enhance 
harmonization by bringing the U.S. tire date code requirements into 
harmony with the new United Nations' Economic Commission for Europe 
regulation and the International Organization for Standardization 
recommended practice.

DATES: Effective date: The amendments in this final rule become 
effective July 2, 2000. Optional early compliance is permitted, 
commencing on the date of publication of this final rule in the Federal 
Register.
    Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must be received 
by this agency not later than September 7, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should be submitted to the 
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400

[[Page 36808]]

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Joseph Scott, Safety Standards 
Engineer, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590; 
telephone (202) 366-8525; fax (202) 493-2739.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background.

    Section 574.5 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Tire 
identification requirements, sets forth the methods by which new tire 
manufacturers and new tire brand name owners identify their tires for 
use on motor vehicles. The section also sets forth the methods by which 
tire retreaders and retreaded tire brand name owners identify tires for 
use on motor vehicles. The purpose of these requirements is to 
facilitate the notification of tire purchasers if their tires were 
found to be defective or not in compliance with applicable Federal 
motor vehicle safety standards.
    Section 574.5 requires each new tire manufacturer and each tire 
retreader to mold a Tire Identification Number (TIN) into or onto one 
sidewall of each tire produced, in the manner and location specified in 
the section and as depicted in the regulation. The TIN is composed of 
four groups of letters and/or numbers:
    (1) The first group of two or three symbols, depending on whether 
the tire is new or retreaded 1, represents the 
manufacturer's identification mark assigned to such manufacturer by 
NHTSA in accordance with Sec. 574.6;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ New tire manufacturers are assigned a 2-digit identification 
mark, while tire retreaders are assigned a 3-digit identification 
mark.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) The second group of no more than two symbols represents the 
tire size for new tires or, for retreaded tires, the retread matrix in 
which the tire was processed. If no matrix was used, the second group 
represents a tire size code;
    (3) The third group, consisting of no more than four symbols, may, 
at the option of the manufacturer, be used as a descriptive code for 
identifying significant characteristics of the tire. If the tire was 
produced for a brand name owner, the third grouping must identify such 
brand name owner; and
    (4) The fourth group, composed of three symbols, identifies the 
week and year of manufacture. The first two symbols identify the week 
of the year, starting with ``01'' to represent the first full week of 
the calendar year, and the third symbol represents the year. For 
example, ``218'' would represent the 21st week of 1998.
    NHTSA originally proposed the requirement for a TIN in response to 
the May 22, 1970 amendments to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act) 2. Those amendments 
required, among other things, that manufacturers and brand name owners 
of new and retreaded motor vehicle tires maintain records of the names 
and addresses of the first retail purchasers of tires in order to 
facilitate notification of those purchasers if the tires were found to 
be defective or noncompliant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 
Pub. L. 89-563, was originally codified at 15 U.S.C. 1581 et seq. 
However, it was recodified in 1995 and is now found at 49 U.S.C. 
30101 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency believed that an essential element of an effective 
defect or noncompliance notification system for tire purchasers was an 
effective method of tire identification. Accordingly, on July 23, 1970, 
we published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (35 FR 11800) 
proposing to establish a tire identification system. The proposed 
system provided a means of identifying the manufacturer of the tire, 
the DOM, the tire size and, at the option of the manufacturer, 
additional information to further describe the type or other 
significant characteristics of the tire. The proposed TIN was composed 
of four groups of symbols: the first group contained the manufacturer's 
identification mark which would be assigned by NHTSA; the second group 
identified the tire size by a two-symbol code; the third group of four 
symbols identified the tire's DOM, the first two symbols of which would 
indicate the week, and the last two the year; and the fourth grouping 
reflected the manufacturer's optional description of the tire. The 
symbols were to be a minimum of 1/4 inch high and were to appear on 
both sidewalls of the tire.
    In a final rule published on November 10, 1970 (35 FR 17257), the 
agency revised the requirements proposed in the NPRM in response to the 
suggestions of various commenters. We reversed the order of the 
manufacturer's optional information and the DOM, so that the latter 
would appear in the fourth grouping and the manufacturer's optional 
information would appear in the third grouping. We also provided that 
the TIN need only appear on one sidewall, and that the symbols need 
only be \5/32\ inch high on tires with a bead diameter of less than 13 
inches or less than 6 inches cross section width. Many commenters 
requested that the date code be expressed in alpha-numeric form in 
order to reduce the date symbol to two digits. NHTSA declined to adopt 
the alpha-numeric system because it could be confusing to the public 
and because retreaders may not be able to easily determine the age of 
the casing to be retreaded. In order to shorten the stencil plate, 
however, we reduced the date code group from four digits to three.

B. The Petitions

    (1) Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA). The RMA is the primary 
national trade association for the finished rubber products industry in 
the U.S. The RMA petitioned the agency to amend 49 CFR 574.5 to permit 
a 4-digit date code and to reduce the size of the lettering from 6 mm 
(\1/4\ inch) to 4 mm (\5/32\ inch).
    The RMA explained that the ISO Technical Committee 31 on tires 
recommended the approval of a 4-digit DOM code, beginning in January 
2000. RMA further stated that the United Nations' Economic Commission 
for Europe (ECE) has also authorized the use of a 4-digit date code 
commencing in January 2000. RMA suggested that if a 4-digit date code 
were adopted, the first 2 digits would represent the week and the last 
2 the year of manufacture. For example, 0100 would mean the first full 
week of January 2000. RMA further suggested that an appropriate phase-
in period be allowed during which use of either the 3 or 4 digit date 
code would be permitted. In order to avoid having to modify existing 
molds, RMA suggested that the addition of the fourth digit be offset by 
reducing the minimum size of the digits from 6 mm (\1/4\ inch) to 4 mm 
(\5/32\ inch), regardless of tire size. Finally, RMA stated that such 
modification would bring the U.S. requirements into harmony with the 
ECE regulation and the recommendation by the committee of the 
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and would allow 
better traceability and identification of older tires.
    (2) European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation (ETRTO). Based in 
Brussels, Belgium, the ETRTO is the European standardization authority 
for the establishment and promulgation of interchangeability standards 
for pneumatic tires, rims, and valves. The ETRTO submitted a petition 
for rulemaking, nearly identical to that of the RMA, which cited the 
ECE regulations and the ISO recommendations and suggested amending 
Sec. 574.5 to permit a 4-digit date code effective in January 2000. The 
first 2 digits would represent the week and the last 2 would represent 
the year of manufacture. Again, in order to avoid modification of 
existing tire molds, ETRTO requested reduction of the

[[Page 36809]]

height of the digits from 6 mm (\1/4\ inch) to 4 mm (\5/32\ inch), 
regardless of tire size. ETRTO also asserted that the requested 
amendments would bring U.S. requirements into line with the ECE 
regulations and ISO recommendations, and that the amendments would 
allow better traceability of tires and identification of old tires.

C. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    NHTSA granted the petitions and published an NPRM on October 19, 
1998 (63 FR 55832), proposing to amend the date of manufacture grouping 
in the TIN to increase the digits in the group from 3 to 4. We also 
proposed to reduce the minimum size of the numbers in the date code 
from 6 mm (\1/4\ inch) to 4 mm (\5/32\) inch. An effective date of 
January 1, 2000 was proposed. We stated in the NPRM that we believed 
that these proposed amendments to the date code would permit better 
traceability of tires in the event of a recall and would enhance 
harmonization of the date code with the ECE and ISO regulation and 
practice.

D. Comments on the NPRM

    The agency received comments from CIMS of Akron, OH, which provides 
tire identification services to the tire and retread industries; 
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), of Washington, DC; 
Consumer Federation of America (CFA), also of Washington, DC; two 
comments from the International Tire and Retreaders Association, Inc. 
(ITRA), of Louisville, KY, a member organization representing companies 
in the tire and transportation industries; and the Oliver Rubber 
Company for the Tread Rubber and Tire Repair Materials Manufacturer's 
Group (TRMG), a trade association composed of companies that 
manufacture tread rubber for use in retreading tires, repair materials 
for use in repairing tires, and related products and services. 
Significant issues submitted by the commenters are summarized as 
follows:

(1) Increasing the DOM Digits From 3


to 4

    All commenters on this issue supported adding a fourth digit to the 
date code. CIMS stated that this would help eliminate some confusion in 
trying to determine the actual date of manufacture of a tire. ITRA and 
TRMG both fully supported the proposal to increase the number of digits 
from 3 to 4. ITRA stated that the new markings would give a clear 
understanding of the actual decade in which the tire was produced and 
eliminate any confusion that was brought about as a result of the old 
markings. TRMG also fully supported the proposal to increase the number 
of digits from 3 to 4, stating that the new markings would clearly show 
the decade in which the tire was produced and eliminate any confusion 
that has occurred with the present system.

(2) Reducing the Size of the Numbers

    ITRA was concerned about the reduction in the size of the numbers 
insofar as assuring that 4 mm would be a minimum size rather than a 
specifically-required size, thus allowing molded or branded numbers to 
be of a larger size when considered necessary. ITRA also indicated 
support for the proposal to permit use of the 4-digit date code prior 
to its mandatory compliance date.
    TRMG, whose members are also members of ITRA, supported the 
comments of ITRA and urged that the proposed 4 mm size be a minimum 
size, thereby permitting the use of larger sizes when necessary or 
desirable.
    Advocates opposed our proposal to reduce the size of the numbers, 
arguing that we are proposing to reduce the size of the digits by \1/3\ 
while the number of older people in the United States is increasing. 
Advocates stated that, as people age, they tend to experience a wide 
variety of visual pathologies such as cataracts, glaucoma, macular 
degeneration, and other degradations of static acuity, which is 
especially common among older people with diabetic-related disorders. 
Advocates stated that hundreds of thousands of people may have 
excellent static acuity of 20/20 Snellen, yet have extraordinarily poor 
contrast vision or Contrast Sensitivity Function (CSF). Thus, Advocates 
asserted that because tire sidewall information consists of letters and 
numerals in black-on-black relief, the lowest possible contrast 
conditions, reduction in the size of the numerals will result in a 
significant portion of the population being unable to read the date 
code. Advocates further suggested that the proposal was not consistent 
with the philosophy underlying the Americans With Disabilities Act 
(ADA).
    CFA asserted that the TIN figures should be increased in size 
rather than decreased. CFA urged NHTSA to develop more pronounced ways 
to display information on tire sidewalls, thereby making it easier for 
consumers who know about it to use it or attract the attention of those 
that are not aware of it. CFA argued that NHTSA needs to require safety 
and performance information to be prominently and clearly displayed in 
order to encourage the marketplace, rather than regulation, to produce 
safer and better performing products. In closing, CFA stated that it 
concurs with the positions taken by Advocates, summarized above.
    Although CIMS did not specifically oppose reduction of the size of 
the numbers, it commented that ``(e)xperience would tell whether this 
keeps the same readability or decreases it if the change is made.''

(3) Marking the TIN on Both Sidewalls

    CIMS suggested that the TIN be marked on both sidewalls, citing as 
an example a particular tire recall in which many dealers were required 
to raise the vehicle on a hoist in order to check the TIN that appeared 
on the inside of the mounted tire. CIMS asserted that although the 
industry sought to limit the TIN to one sidewall to avoid the cost and 
safety considerations of changing it each week on both sides of the 
tire, it would be easier both for the purchaser of the tire and the 
tire dealer in the event of a recall. CIMS argued that registration 
percentages are too low, resulting in many recalled tires remaining in 
service, possibly because the purchaser did not receive the 
notification because it was too difficult for anyone to check the TIN.

(4) Keep Current Requirements for Retreads

    CIMS stated that NHTSA did not solicit comments or information with 
respect to the problems of retreaders. CIMS pointed out that many 
retreaders are small businesses and that any changes could result in 
increased costs to them. CIMs argued that retreaded tires are not kept 
in the pipeline as long as new tires, therefore it seems unnecessary 
for retreaders to incur the additional cost of this change. Even if 
this change would result in only a minor materiel charge, CIMS asserted 
that there would be a significant retooling charge to retreaders and 
suppliers. Finally, CIMS stated that retreaders who still use hand-
punched tins would have to change their dies to add the additional 
digit when they punch in the TIN. CIMS stated that this would increase 
costs, including increased labor costs.

E. Discussion

(1) 4-Digit Date Code

    NHTSA continues to believe that a 4-digit date code would aid in 
the identification of tires during recall campaigns. As discussed in 
the Background section above, we originally proposed a 4-digit date 
code for the TIN, but in response to suggestions of

[[Page 36810]]

commenters, reduced the code from 4 digits to 3 in order to shorten the 
stencil plate to conserve sidewall space. The 3-digit code presented no 
identification problems during the 1970's because the requirement was 
new and tires with date codes were obviously built in that decade. 
There still were no problems in the 1980's because it was easy to 
distinguish between the newly popular radial tires and the bias-ply 
tires of the 1970's.
    In the 1990's, however, the physical differences between radial 
tires produced in the previous decade were not readily apparent. One 
could not be sure, therefore, in which decade a given tire was 
produced. Accordingly, we believe that in order to avoid any further 
confusion as to when a tire was produced, the time has come to add a 
4th digit to the date code. As stated in the Comments section above, 
all commenters on the issue, as well as the petitioners, RMA and ETRTO, 
support adding a 4th digit to the date code. NHTSA has decided to 
require that a 4th digit be added to the date code grouping of the TIN 
so that the week of manufacture will be expressed in the first 2 digits 
and the year of manufacture will be expressed in the last 2 digits.

(2) Reducing Digit Size

    As discussed in section A(1) above, the agency established a defect 
and noncompliance notification system in accordance with amendments to 
the Safety Act of May 22, 1970. Thus, in our NPRM of July 23, 1970, we 
explained that the amendments to the Safety Act required tire 
manufacturers, retreaders, and brand name owners to maintain records of 
the names and addresses of new and retreaded tire purchasers ``in order 
to facilitate notification to that purchaser in the case of defective 
tires or tires that do not comply with an applicable Federal motor 
vehicle safety standard'' (35 FR 11800) (emphasis added). We also 
explained that the tire identification system that we proposed in that 
NPRM was intended to provide ``a suitable method of identifying the 
tires involved.'' Id.
    Advocates and CFA opposed reducing the size of the numbers in the 
TIN on the basis that such reduction would make it more difficult for 
consumers to see, especially those with visual pathologies. These 
commenters, however, did not provide any data showing that drivers 
cannot read 4 mm figures. Moreover, our experience to date with 4mm 
figures on tires suggests that figures of that size do not present a 
problem. For those familiar with font sizes, 4 mm is approximately the 
equivalent of font size 16 in Windows 95, which is approximately double 
the font size used in this Federal Register and also approximately 
double the size of the letters found on a U.S. quarter. By way of 
another example, the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) (49 
CFR Sec. 575.104) are intended to establish a tire grading system for 
consumer information, and the size of the tire grades marked on the 
tire sidewalls has always been 4 mm (5/32 inch). In the nearly 25 years 
since establishment of the UTQGS, we have not received a single 
complaint that those letters and numbers were too small to read. In 
addition, Part 574 permits tires of less than 13-inches in diameter or 
those of less than 6-inches cross section width to have a letter/number 
size of 4 mm, again with no complaints.
    We would also like to discuss the following point suggested by 
Advocates, as follows:

    Given the public philosophy that underlies the Americans with 
Disabilities Act , i.e. to increase the accommodation of a wide 
array of Americans whose needs are not met by current practices 
involving, among other things, the task of visual detection and 
comprehension, Advocates believes that NHTSA has offered a proposed 
amendment without any foundation in the administrative record of 
this rulemaking.

    Advocates letter of December 17, 1998 to U. S. DOT Docket 
Management, page 5.

    Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) 
provides: No qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason 
of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied 
the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public 
entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.
42 U.S.C. 42132.
    The primary benefit provided by the TIN is that tires subject to 
recall notices can be identified and replaced. The change in the size 
of the numbering does not deny persons with poor vision this benefit 
because even if the person has difficulty seeing the date code, dealers 
and repair personnel will still be able to identify the tires and 
effectuate the recall. The ADA does not prescribe a particular type 
size for information provided by government agencies. The nearest 
comparison is in the aviation consumer protection context where 
restriction on airfares are required to be in 10 or 12-point type, 
depending on the size of the advertisement. See Morales v. TWA, 504 
U.S. 374 (1992). The size of the date code numbers prescribed in this 
rule is the equivalent of 16-point type, approximately 25 percent 
larger than 12-point type.
    While it is unclear how many people have inadequate static acuity 
or impaired CSF that would make it difficult to read 4 mm numbers, a 
person so impaired can be reasonably accommodated through the use of a 
magnifying glass or by simply asking repair personnel to check the tire 
numbers against any recall notices. The U.S. Supreme Court recently 
held that a physical impairment must be evaluated in light of 
corrective measures such as eyeglasses. See Sutton v. United Airlines, 
____ U.S. ____ (1999). It is therefore unclear at this time whether 
persons with inadequate static acuity or impaired CSF that would make 
it difficult for them to see the 4 mm numbers have a disability covered 
by the ADA.

(3) Marking the TIN on Both Sidewalls

    Although this issue is beyond the scope of our proposals in the 
NPRM, we wish to discuss the issue anyway. The agency addressed the 
issue of marking the TIN on both sidewalls in the final rule of 
November 10, 1970 (35 FR 17257) in which we established the TIN. We 
originally proposed in the NPRM of July 23, 1970 (35 FR 11800) that the 
TIN be marked on both sidewalls. Many tire manufacturers responded by 
suggesting that the TIN be marked on only one sidewall because first of 
all, one sidewall was sufficient for recordkeeping purposes. Secondly, 
the commenters stated that marking the TIN on both sidewalls would 
create a serious safety hazard for the factory machine operators in 
that they would have to work inside the jaws of each open tire press in 
order to position identification plates on both sidewalls. Some 
manufacturers further commented that its unions had objected to their 
members working under such hazardous conditions. We were persuaded by 
the manufacturers' comments and decided that since first purchasers 
receive direct notification from the manufacturer by certified mail in 
the event of a recall and because of the production hazards involved, 
the TIN need be marked on only one sidewall of the tire. We believe 
that our rationale in the November 10, 1970 final rule remains valid.

(4) Keep Current Requirements for Retreads

    As noted in greater detail below, the agency believes that 
increasing the DOM code from 3 digits to 4 will not result in any cost 
increases or other burden for either the new and retread tire 
industries. Further, although there are still some small businesses 
retreading tires, the retread tire industry in general has in recent 
years experienced considerable consolidation, so that many of today's 
retreaders are

[[Page 36811]]

franchisees. Finally, we note that ITRA, RMA, and ETRTO all supported 
both adding the 4th digit and decreasing the size of the digits from 6 
mm to 4 mm. ITRA is an international trade association representing 
those segments of the transportation industry that manufacture, sell, 
repair, service, recycle, or use new or retreaded tires, as well as 
those individuals or suppliers that furnish equipment, materiel, or 
services to the transportation industry. As explained above, the RMA is 
the primary national trade association for the finished rubber products 
industry in the U.S., and the ETRTO is the European standardization 
authority for the establishment and promulgation of interchangeability 
standards for pneumatic tires, rims, and valves. None of these 
associations expressed any reservations with respect to the impact of 
these amendments on tire retreaders. Further, CIMS provided no backup 
data to support its assertions. We believe, therefore, that the 
concerns expressed in CIMS'' comments are not representative of those 
of the tire retreading industry in general and do not justify our 
creating different marking systems for new and retreaded tires.

(5). Harmonization With National, Regional and International 
Requirements

    Although no commenters addressed this issue, harmonization remains 
one of the agency's goals, particularly in those instances in which 
NHTSA can raise the level of its standards through harmonizing with a 
higher non-U.S. requirement. We already know that the European 
community and Japan will require the 4-digit, 4 mm date code commencing 
January 1, 2000. The agency believes that harmonizing our date code 
requirements with those of Europe and Japan makes sense, since it also 
is to our advantage by making the dates of manufacture of tires easier 
to ascertain for the agency as well as the industry. In addition, by 
not harmonizing our requirements with theirs, needless additional costs 
could be incurred by both domestic and foreign tire manufacturers who 
export tires into and out of the United States. Thus, the agency 
believes that adding a 4th digit to the date code and reducing the 
minimum size of the digits to 4 mm is consistent with our goal of 
higher safety through upward harmonization.

F. Agency Decision.

    For the reasons enumerated in the Discussion section above, the 
agency has decided to amend 49 CFR 574.5 to change the date of 
manufacture grouping in the tire identification number, also known as 
the date code, which is the fourth grouping of digits. Effective July 
2, 2000, the number of digits in the date code will be increased from 3 
to 4, the first 2 digits representing the week of manufacture and the 
last 2 digits representing the year of manufacture. Thus, the numbers 
0100 would represent the first full week of January 2000. In addition, 
the minimum size of those digits is reduced from 6 mm (\1/4\ inch) to 4 
mm (\5/32\ inch) for all tire sizes in order to fit within the tire 
molds currently utilized by tire manufacturers. Early compliance with 
these requirements will be permitted effective upon publication of this 
rule in the Federal Register.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This document has not been 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'' within the meaning of the 
DOT's regulatory policies and procedures. This action amends the tire 
identification number required by 49 CFR 574.5 to be marked on all 
tires sold in the United States. Specifically, this proposal increases 
the number of digits in the date of manufacture grouping of the tire 
identification number from 3 to 4, and permits a reduction in the size 
of those digits so that the 4 digits will fit within the same ``plug'' 
in the tire molds in which the currently-required 3 digits fit. That 
permits tire manufacturers and retreaders to use the same molds that 
they do now, thereby relieving them of the necessity of absorbing the 
costs of constructing new molds. Date codes are changed weekly by 
manufacturers and with an approximately 1-year phase-in period, 
manufacturers will have ample opportunity to phase-in the new 4-digit 
date code without having to redesign their tire molds. For these 
reasons, the agency believes that implementation of the amendments 
herein will not result in any increased costs to tire manufacturers, 
distributors, dealers, or consumers. Accordingly, the agency has 
concluded that preparation of a full regulatory evaluation is not 
warranted.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. I hereby certify 
that this rulemaking action will 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. 605(b)). The amendments implemented 
herein will primarily affect manufacturers and retreaders of motor 
vehicle tires. The Small Business Administration (SBA) regulation at 13 
CFR Part 121 defines a small business 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, prescribes a small business size standard of 
1,000 or fewer employees. SIC code No. 3714, Motor Vehicle Part and 
Accessories, prescribes a small business size standard of 750 or fewer 
employees.
    The amendments promulgated in this rulemaking action merely 
increase the number of digits in the date of manufacture symbol in the 
tire identification number from 3 digits to 4, and permit a reduction 
in the size of those digits from 6 mm (\1/4\ inch) to 4 mm (\5/32\ 
inch). The purpose of these changes is to make tires more easily 
traceable in the event of a defect or noncompliance, to allow easier 
identification of old tires, and to harmonize U.S. requirements with 
those of the European Community and Japan. These amendments were 
requested by the trade organizations that represent the major tire 
manufacturers in both the U. S. and Europe. In particular, the 
reduction in the size of the digits will be beneficial so that tire 
manufacturers would be spared the expense of designing and making new 
tire molds. NHTSA believes, therefore, that the amendments promulgated 
herein will not impose any increased costs or other burdens on tire 
manufacturers, most, if not all, of which would not qualify as small 
businesses under SBA guidelines. Further, these amendments will not 
result in any increase in costs for small retreaders and other small 
businesses or consumers. Accordingly, we believe that there will be no 
significant impact on small businesses, small organizations, or small 
governmental units by these amendments. For those reasons, the agency 
has not prepared a 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.

[[Page 36812]]

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 have no significant 
impact on the quality of the human environment.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The amendments requiring tire manufacturers to designate the date 
of manufacture of their tires in 4 digits instead of the currently 
required 3 and to reduce the size of the digits from 6 mm to 4 mm 
relate to third-party information collection requirements as defined by 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR Part 1320. These 
amendments create no additional information collection requirements 
since the amendments merely make a slight change to the format of 
existing requirements.
    The information collection requirements for 49 CFR Part 574 have 
been submitted to and approved by OMB pursuant to the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act , 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. This collection of 
information authority for tire information and recordkeeping has been 
assigned control number 2127-0503, which expires August 31, 2000.

F. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule does not have any retroactive effect. A petition for 
reconsideration or other administrative proceeding will not be a 
prerequisite to an action seeking judicial review of this rule. This 
rule does not preempt the states from adopting laws or regulations on 
the same subject, except that it does preempt a state regulation that 
is in actual conflict with the Federal regulation or makes compliance 
with the Federal regulation impossible or interferes with the 
implementation of the Federal statute.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 574

    Labeling, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Rubber and rubber products, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 574 is amended as 
follows:

PART 574--TIRE IDENTIFICATION AND RECORDKEEPING

    1. The authority citation for part 574 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    2. Section 574.5 is amended by revising paragraph (d) and Figures 1 
and 2 to read as follows:


Sec. 574.5  Tire identification requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) Fourth grouping. For tires produced or retreaded on and after 
July 2, 2000, the fourth grouping, consisting of four numerical 
symbols, must identify the week and year of manufacture. The first two 
symbols must identify the week of the year by using ``01'' for the 
first full calendar week in each year, ``02'' for the second full 
calendar week, and so on. The final week of each year may include not 
more than 6 days of the following year. The third and fourth symbols 
must identify the year. Example: 3197 means the 31st week of 1997, or 
the week of August 3 through 9, 1997; 0198 means the first full 
calendar week of 1998, or the week of January 4 through 10, 1998. The 
symbols signifying the date of manufacture must be not less than 4 mm 
(5/32 inch) in height and shall immediately follow the optional 
descriptive code (paragraph (c) of this section). If no optional 
descriptive code is used, the symbols signifying the date of 
manufacture must be placed in the area shown in Figures 1 and 2 for the 
optional descriptive code.

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 36813]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JY99.007



[[Page 36814]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JY99.008



[[Page 36815]]

    3. Section 574.7 is amended by revising Figures 3a and 4, to read 
as follows:


Sec. 574.7  Information requirements--new tire manufacturers, new tire 
brand name owners.

* * * * * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JY99.009

* * * * * * *

[[Page 36816]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JY99.010


    Issued on: July 2, 1999.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-17402 Filed 7-7-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C