[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 5, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34961-34964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-16462]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 575
[Docket No. 94-30, Notice 3]
RIN 2127-AF17
Consumer Information Regulations Uniform Tire Quality Grading
Standards
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of
comment period; notice of public meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 24, 1995, NHTSA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards
(UTQGS). Pursuant to requests from several tire manufacturers, NHTSA
announces an extension of the period for submitting written comments on
the NPRM from July 10, 1995 to August 14, 1995. The agency also
announces the holding of a public meeting to supplement the written
comments. Finally, NHTSA proposes an additional calculation to
supplement the proposed rolling resistance regression equation so that
the equation can be used to calculate a specific rolling resistance
coefficient.
DATES: Public meeting and copies of oral testimony: The public meeting
will be held July 24, 1995, beginning at 9 a.m. Those wishing to make
oral presentations should contact Mr. Orron Kee at the address or
telephone number listed below, and submit copies of their planned
testimony by July 20, 1995.
Written comments: Written comments on the May 24, 1995 NPRM and
this SNPRM must be received on or before August 14, 1995.
Proposed Effective Date: If adopted, the amendments proposed in
this notice would become effective one year after date of publication
of the final rule in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Public Meeting: The meeting will be held in Room 2230 Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street, S.W, Washington, D.C.
Written Comments: Comments on the NPRM and SNPRM should refer to
Docket No. 94-30; Not. 2 or the docket and notice number shown above,
and be submitted to: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 5111, Washington, DC
20590. Docket room hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
Written copies of oral testimony: Written copies of oral testimony
for the meeting should be provided to Mr. Orron Kee at the address
below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Orron Kee, Office of Market
Incentives, Office of the Associate Administrator for Rulemaking,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Room 5320, Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 366-0846.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In the May 24, 1995 Federal Register, NHTSA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the Uniform Tire Quality Grading
Standards (UTQGS)(49 CFR 575.104) to: Revise the
[[Page 34962]]
treadwear testing procedures to maintain the base course wear rate of
course monitoring tires at its current value; create a new traction
grade of ``AA'' in addition to the current traction grades of A, B, and
C; and replace the temperature resistance grade with a rolling
resistance/fuel economy grade. (60 FR 27472)
Requests for Extension of Comment Period and for Public Meeting
Subsequent to the May 1995 NPRM, NHTSA received requests for
extension of the period for submitting written comments on the NPRM and
for a public meeting on the NPRM from the Goodyear Tire and Rubber
Company, the Kelly Springfield Tire Company, Multinational Business
Services, Inc., Cooper Tire and Rubber Company, and Bridgestone/
Firestone, Inc. A copy of each letter has been placed in NHTSA's docket
at Docket No. 94-30, Notice 2. NHTSA has decided to grant these
requests. A public meeting will be held on July 24, 1995 in Room 2230,
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC. The meeting
will begin at 9 a.m. Although NHTSA wishes to hear as many views as
possible, it reserves the right to limit the number of witnesses and
the time allotted to each speaker. The period for submitting written
comments, originally scheduled to end July 10, is extended to August
14, 1995.
Topics for Public Meeting
To focus the discussion at the public meeting, NHTSA asks those
testifying at the meeting to address one or more of the following
topics:
1. Effect of rolling resistance improvements on traction under each
of the following conditions: wet road surface, dry road surface, and
low temperatures.
2. Effect of rolling resistance improvements on cornering and
handling performance.
3. Differences in the rolling resistance, traction, and handling
characteristics of original equipment tires and replacement passenger
car tires.
4. Costs of:
(A) Testing for rolling resistance grading instead of temperature
resistance grading;
(B) Revising tire molds, tread labels, and brochures to include
rolling resistance grades;
(C) Improving the rolling resistance performance of replacement
tires so that it equals that of original equipment passenger cars; and
(D) Leadtime necessary before commencing to test and label tires
for rolling resistance.
5. Carbon dioxide reduction and fuel economy improvement benefits
from low rolling resistance tires.
6. Suggestions and supporting data for other test procedure
revisions to improve treadwear test consistency and repeatability.
7. Cost of regrading tires under existing regulation when treadwear
rating increases due to changes in the base course wear rate.
8. Cost of labeling for higher traction grade:
(A) Cost if that higher grade is the only change made to the UTQGS
regulation; and
(B) Additional cost if higher grade is added at same time as
rolling resistance grade.
Oral testimony is not limited to the topics listed above. NHTSA
welcomes additional comments at the meeting on any other issue raised
in the May 24, 1995 NPRM or this SNPRM to amend the UTQGS Standard.
Procedural Matters for the Public Meeting
Persons wishing to speak at the public meeting should contact Mr.
Orron Kee, whose address and telephone number appear in the beginning
of this notice. Please contact Mr. Kee by July 20, 1995, so that NHTSA
can determine the need for any special equipment, and can make any
other special arrangements. NHTSA asks that, if possible, each
participant provide Mr. Kee with a copy of his or her oral presentation
by July 20, 1995, and limit the presentation to 30 minutes. If the
presentation will include slides, motion pictures, or other visual
aids, please bring at least one copy of each such aid to the meeting so
that the agency can include them in the public record.
To facilitate communication, NHTSA will provide auxiliary aids
(e.g., sign language interpreter, braille materials, large print
materials and/or a magnifying device) to participants as necessary,
during the meeting. Any person desiring auxiliary aids should contact
Ms. Barbara Carnes, NHTSA Office of Safety Performance Standards,
telephone (202) 366-1810, by July 12, 1995.
If the number of requests for oral presentations exceeds the
available time, NHTSA will ask prospective speakers and organizations
with similar views to combine or summarize their presentations. If time
permits at the end of the scheduled presentations, NHTSA will permit
unscheduled speakers to make statements.
The NHTSA presiding officials at the meeting may ask questions of
any speaker. Further, any attendee at the meeting may submit written
questions for the agency panel, at its discretion, to address to
presenters of testimony. However, there will be no opportunity for
attendees to directly question any presenter of testimony.
A schedule of persons making oral presentations will be available
at the designated meeting room. Please be aware that NHTSA will place a
copy of any written statement provided by those persons in the docket
for this notice. A verbatim transcript of the meeting will be prepared
and placed in the docket as soon as possible following the hearing.
Any interested person can submit written comments on the issues set
out in this notice, for inclusion in the docket. Unless a person is
requesting confidential treatment for information in his or her
submission, the person need not submit more than three copies of the
comments. NHTSA asks however, that if possible, 10 copies be provided.
Any written testimony submitted will be considered as comments to the
NPRM.
Supplemental Proposal
Among the proposals in the May 24, 1995 NPRM was a proposal to
replace the UTQGS' temperature resistance grade with a rolling
resistance/fuel economy grade. On page 27481 of the NPRM, NHTSA
explained that the substitution was proposed because NHTSA tentatively
concluded that fuel economy information is more understandable and more
meaningful to the tire-buying public than the temperature resistance
rating. Further, adding the fuel economy grade furthers the initiatives
in the Climate Change Action Plan issued by the Clinton Administration
in October 1993 in a national effort to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
NHTSA proposed to base the new fuel economy rating on a rolling
resistance coefficient instead of rolling resistance itself since doing
so would partially normalize rolling resistance variations by tire size
within a tire line. The rolling resistance coefficient (Cr) is
calculated by dividing the rolling resistance by the load on the tire
when tested in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J-1269, Rolling
Resistance Measurement Procedure for Passenger Car, Light Truck, and
Highway Truck and Bus Tires, revised March, 1987 (SAE J-1269). One tire
manufacturer, Michelin, commented in response to the agency's April 25,
1994 Request for Comments on UTQGS that the rolling resistance
coefficient ranges from 0.0073 to 0.0156, while other tire
manufacturers, Goodyear, assessed the range as being between 0.0067 and
[[Page 34963]]
0.0152, and Standard Testing Laboratories (STL), assessed it as being
between 0.005 to 0.015. (59 FR 19686)
In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed two alternative ways of calculating the
tire's fuel economy based on the rolling resistance coefficient. In the
final rule, one of the two alternatives may be adopted. The first
method begins by using 0.010 as the midpoint of all the rolling
resistance coefficient ranges suggested by Michelin, Goodyear, and STL
in their comments on the April 1994 Request for Comments. The first
method would rate tires with a coefficient of less than 0.010 as ``A''
for fuel economy. Tires with a coefficient of 0.010 to 0.015 would be
rated ``B,'' while tires with a rolling resistance coefficient greater
than 0.015 would be rated ``C.'' The first method would be consistent
with the views of those commenters that stated that if a rolling
resistance/fuel economy rating were established, the A, B, and C
ratings would be simpler, and therefore preferable.
The second method of calculating the tire's fuel economy favors a
more differentiated, quantitative expression of the amount of potential
fuel savings than would be provided by a general indication as in the
case of the letter ratings. For example, a tire with rolling resistance
coefficient of 0.0080 would be graded as achieving a 9 percent increase
in fuel savings (100(0.0150-0.0080)/(0.0150)(5)). (The number (5) in
the preceding calculation represents a 5 percent change in rolling
resistance.) Similarly, a tire with a rolling resistance coefficient of
0.0150 would be graded as achieving a 1 percent increase in fuel
economy.) A tire with a rolling resistance coefficient of 0.0150 or
greater would be graded as 0 percent, indicating no fuel savings.
After publishing the NPRM containing these two alternative
calculation methods, NHTSA determined that the SAE J-1269 calculation
results not in a specific coefficient, but in a regression equation
that specifies the rolling resistance coefficient as a function of tire
load and pressure. In order to compare different tires, a specific
combination of tire load and pressure must be specified. To compare
fuel economy ratings of tires, it is more meaningful to compare
coefficients against coefficients, rather than (as proposed in the
NPRM), equations against equations.
NHTSA therefore proposes that variables (tire load and pressure) in
the SAE J-1269 equations be calculated using the test load and pressure
specified for the high speed performance test in Table II of Standard
No. 109 New Pneumatic Tires (49 CFR 571.109). That test has the same
values for test load and pressure as those in the temperature
resistance test presently specified in the UTQGS. NHTSA proposes to use
the high speed performance test values because the values specified in
Table II are close to the test points specified in SAE J-1269.
Standard No. 109's high speed performance test procedures specify a
test load of 88 percent of the tire's maximum load with a pressure
somewhat less than the maximum pressure, in accordance with the value
provided in Table II of Standard No. 109. The pressures specified in
Table II are not reduced by the same amount for the higher pressure
300, 340, and 350 kPa tires as they are for the 240 and 280 kPa tires.
Stamping a tire as 300, 340, or 350 kPa signifies that the pressures
are available if needed, not that the tires must be inflated to the
maximum pressures. Standard load conventional tires all reach their
maximum load capacity at 240 kPa or 280 kPa (for P-metric tires). Tires
stamped with 300 kPa or 350 kPa maximum pressure have the same maximum
load capacity as tires stamped 240 kPa maximum pressure. Standard load
conventional tires stamped with 340 kPa maximum pressure have the same
maximum load capacity as tires stamped 280 kPa. 300, 340 or 350 kPa-
stamped tires may have an additional 60 or 110 kPa inflation pressure,
when needed for specific uses.
Public comment is sought on the proposed method for calculating a
specific rolling resistance coefficient using the SAE J-1269 rolling
resistance regression equation. Comment is also sought whether there
are alternative methods of selecting the load and pressure values to
calculate a specific coefficient, using the SAE J-1269 equation.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. E.O. 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This notice has not been reviewed under E.O. 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review. The agency has considered the impact of this
rulemaking action and has concluded that it is not ``significant''
under the DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The amendments
proposed in this notice are intended to make the UTQGS more meaningful
and helpful to consumers in selecting tires to meet their needs.
Adoption of the new calculation method proposed in this notice would
not inherently increase the costs, either to manufacturers or to
consumers, of replacing the temperature resistance grade with the
rolling resistance grade. Discussion of the impacts of the NPRM is
contained in the agency's Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation, a copy of
which has been placed in NHTSA's Docket No. 94-30, Notice 2.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has considered the impacts of this rulemaking action under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that the proposed
amendment would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Accordingly, the agency has not prepared a
preliminary regulatory flexibility analysis. The agency believes that
no passenger car tire manufacturers qualify as small businesses.
Further, as noted above, adoption of the proposed calculation method
would not impose any additional costs.
C. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking for purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and has determined that implementation of the
proposal in this document would have no significant impact on the
quality of the human environment.
D. Federalism
NHTSA has analyzed this proposal in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in E.O. 12612 and has determined that the
proposals in this notice do not have sufficient federalism implications
to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment. No state laws would
be affected.
E. Civil Justice Reform
The proposed amendment in this notice would not have any
retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), whenever a Federal motor
vehicle safety standard is in effect, a state or political subdivision
thereof may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to
the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle only if the state's
standard is identical to the Federal standard. However, the United
States government, a state or political subdivision of a state may
prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment
obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement
than that required by the Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth
a procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending
or revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. A petition for
reconsideration or other administrative proceedings is not required
before parties may file suit in court.
[[Page 34964]]
Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the
amendments proposed in this rulemaking action. It is requested but not
required that any comments be submitted in 10 copies.
Comments must not exceed 15 pages in length (49 CFR 553.21). This
limitation is intended to encourage commenters to detail their primary
arguments in concise fashion. Necessary attachments, however, may be
appended to those comments without regard to the 15-page limit.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, 3 copies of the complete submission including the
purportedly confidential business information should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA at the street address shown above, and 7
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
expunged should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in 49 CFR 512, the agency's confidential
business information regulation.
All comments received on or before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated above for the proposal will be
considered, and will be available to the public for examination in the
docket at the above address both before and after the closing date. To
the extent possible, comments received too late for consideration in
regard to the final rule will be considered as suggestions for further
rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal will be available for
public inspection in the docket. NHTSA will continue file relevant
information in the docket after the closing date, and it is recommended
that interested persons continue to monitor the docket for new
material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 575
Consumer protection, Motor vehicle safety, reporting and
recordkeeping, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 575 would be amended
as follows;
PART 575--CONSUMER INFORMATION REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for Part 575 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. Secs. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 575.104 would be amended by revising paragraph (g).
Sec. 575.104 Uniform tire quality grading standards.
* * * * *
[Alternative 1 to paragraph (g)]:
(g) Fuel economy grading. The fuel economy grade is calculated as
follows:
(1) The tire's rolling resistance coefficient is determined in
accordance with the procedures of SAE Recommended Practice J-1269,
Rolling Resistance Measurement Procedure for Passenger Car, Light
Truck, and Highway Truck and Bus Tires, revised March, 1987 (SAE J-
1269). In evaluating the rolling resistance coefficient (using the
regression equation from the SAE J-1269 procedure), use the load value
specified in Standard No. 109 New Pneumatic Tires (49 CFR 571.109) for
the tire and its corresponding test pressure specified in Table II of
Standard No. 109, for the high speed performance test.
(2) The rolling resistance coefficient (Cr) is the ratio of
rolling resistance force (Fr) to the normal load (Fn) on the
tire: or
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP05JY95.002
Example No 1: Fn = 1,100 pounds of force (lbf); Fr = 8
lbf; then
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP05JY95.015
A rolling resistance coefficient of 0.00727 would result in a grade
of ``A'' for fuel economy.
Example No. 2: Fn = 1,100 lbf, and Fr = 18 lbf, then
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP05JY95.016
A rolling resistance coefficient of 0.01636 would result in a grade
of ``C'' for fuel economy.
[Alternative 2 to paragraph (g)]:
(g) Fuel economy grading. The fuel economy grade is calculated as
follows:
(1) The tire's rolling resistance coefficient is determined in
accordance with the procedures of SAE Recommended Practice J-1269,
Rolling Resistance Measurement Procedure for Passenger Car, Light
Truck, and Highway Truck and Bus Tires, revised March, 1987 (SAE J-
1269). In evaluating the rolling resistance coefficient (using the
regression equation from the SAE J-1269 procedure), use the load value
specified in Standard No. 109 New Pneumatic Tires (49 CFR 571.109) for
the tire and its corresponding test pressure specified in Table II of
Standard No. 109 for the high speed performance test.
(2) The rolling resistance coefficient (Cr) is the ratio of
rolling resistance force (Fr) to the normal load (Fn) on the
tire: or
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP05JY95.003
Example No. 1: Fn = 1,100 pounds force (lbf); Fr = 8 lbf;
then
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP05JY95.017
Example No. 2: Fn = 1,100 lbf, and Fr = 18 lbf; then
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP05JY95.018
(3) Determine the tire's fuel economy grade by subtracting its
rolling resistance coefficient from 0.0150, then multiply by 1,333. The
resulting number, rounded to the nearest whole number, is the fuel
economy grade, expressed as a percentage.
(i)(A) Using the numbers in Example No. 1 in paragraph (g)(2) of
this section, given the rolling resistance coefficient (Cr) of
0.00727, the fuel economy grade (Fg) would be calculated as
follows:
Fg = (0.0150 - 0.00727) x 1,333
= (0.00773) x 1,333 = 10.30 percent, rounded to 10 percent.
(B) This would represent an increase of 10 percent in fuel economy,
expressed as a fuel economy grade of ``10%''.
(ii) Using the numbers in Example No. 2 in paragraph (g)(2) of this
section: If Fn = 1,100 lbf, and Fr = 18 lbf, then
Fg = (0.0150 - 0.01636) x 1,333
= (-0.00136) x 1,333 = -1.82 or 0 percent
A negative value represents a 0 percent increase in fuel economy,
and would be expressed as a fuel economy grade of ``0%''.
Issued on: June 29, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-16462 Filed 6-29-95; 4:12 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
