useful rule of thumb because it would differ depending on the test load
of the tire. For the foregoing reasons, the agency is proposing that
the tire fuel efficiency rating be based on RRF.

VI. Proposed Rating System

A. What Should We Convey to Consumers in a Rating System?

1. Fuel Efficiency
    As explained above in section II.A.1, NHTSA is proposing to
communicate tire fuel efficiency information in the form of a rolling
resistance rating, because rolling resistance corresponds to the amount
of fuel used in the form of mechanical energy dissipated to move the
tire. Tire rolling resistance is the most effective metric for rating
the ``fuel efficiency'' of a tire because rolling resistance force
(RRF) measures the energy loss that opposes the direction of travel of
the rotating tire and, thus, it directly reduces the efficiency of a
vehicle in converting the chemical energy in the fuel to motion of the
vehicle.
    Based on the rolling resistance force test value measured using the
ISO 28580 test procedure, the fuel efficiency rating of a given
replacement passenger car tire is calculated using the formula
specified by NHTSA, which is discussed in section VI.B.1 below.
2. Safety
i. Potential Safety Consequences
    There is a growing appreciation but still a limited understanding
of how tire traction, wear resistance, and rolling resistance relate to
the practical outcomes of vehicle fuel consumption, crash incidence,
and tire service life. One of the past concerns about rolling
resistance is that traction and/or treadwear are negatively impacted by
changes made to improve rolling resistance.
    As part of the research in support of this rulemaking, NHTSA
performed and analyzed additional testing with the tires that were used
to evaluate the rolling resistance test methods. This testing included
UTQGS traction and treadwear testing, additional wet and dry traction
testing on an outdoor track, indoor dry traction and treadwear testing,
and EPA dynamometer fuel economy testing.\122\ This research, with one
exception discussed below, did not show that this tradeoff is a given
and must occur. However, it may cost more to maintain traction or
treadwear with an improvement in rolling resistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ See NHTSA Tire Rolling Resistance Rating System Test
Development Project: Phase 2--Effects of Tire Rolling Resistance
Levels on Traction, Treadwear, and Vehicle Fuel Economy (February
2009). The research reports from this Phase 2 research will be
placed in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By putting information on all three parameters on a label, a
consumer would factor any possible tradeoffs between rolling
resistance, traction, and treadwear, and/or cost differences between
tires. That is, with all three ratings on one label, a consumer could
see whether they were opting for a decrease in traction and treadwear
to gain improved rolling resistance.
    Technical literature extensively indicates that the tradeoff
between fuel economy and safety performance can be significantly
reduced or eliminated with advanced compounding technologies, which are
usually more expensive and proprietary. However, many aspects of the
tire's construction and manufacture affect how much tradeoff remains,
and the results of implementing silica tread technology will vary
between manufacturers (which ranges from manufacturers who have decades
of experience with the technology to manufacturers who have none). It
is hoped that increased consumer awareness may help to spur
technological innovation to promote simultaneous improvements along
several dimensions. At least for the near future, however, the agency
cannot guarantee that there will not be a tradeoff between fuel
efficiency and safety.
    Therefore, NHTSA is concerned about the potential negative safety
consequences that may occur if consumers, motivated by potential fuel
savings, begin to purchase tires with better rolling resistance ratings
but are unwilling to spend additional money to also maintain wet
traction levels. Despite having the wet traction rating on the same
sticker, some manufacturers may defer the use of the more expensive
silica tread technologies and instead optimize tires to lower rolling
resistance and treadwear (another important purchase motivator) at the
expense of wet traction in order to gain a price advantage. This may be
especially prevalent in the lower-cost segments of the market.
    A survey of the current marketplace was undertaken to estimate what
information consumers currently have for choices in wet traction,
price, and, where available, rolling resistance performance of tires.
From the NHTSA ratings in http://safercar.gov and tires available at
TireRack.com, approximately 20 percent of tires currently have traction
ratings of AA, 70 percent have ratings of A, and 10 percent have
ratings of B. There were no C-rated tires for on-road passenger vehicle
use. From the NHTSA data and the data from the California Energy
Commission and Consumer Reports magazine, it appears that tire makers
design most tires with AA wet traction rating for flag-brand and high-
performance tires with correspondingly high average selling prices.
Data for rolling resistance, wet traction, and list price performance
indicate that tires with both A-traction rating and low rolling
resistance performance are available at all list price levels.
ii. Test Procedure
    Whereas rolling resistance is a standard measurement for
characterizing and comparing tire energy performance, less
comprehensive data exist in the public domain for accurate
characterizations of tire traction. There are different methods of
evaluating traction. For example, the UTQGS rating and the European wet

grip rating use different test procedures which do not evaluate the
same elements.
    The test procedure specified in the UTQGS rating systems for
traction is the only metric for which consistent data are widely
available for a range of tires. Accordingly, NHTSA is currently
proposing to use the traction test procedure specified in the agency's
UTQGS regulation to rate tires for safety on the same scale and label
as fuel efficiency via rolling resistance rating. See 49 CFR
575.104(f). The UTQGS traction test procedure measures a tire's
coefficient of friction when it is tested on wet asphalt and concrete
surfaces. The subject tire is placed on an instrumented axle of a skid
trailer, which is pulled behind a truck at 40 miles per hour (mph) on
wet asphalt and concrete surfaces. The trailer's brakes are momentarily
locked, and sensors on the axle measure the longitudinal braking forces
as it slides in a straight line. The coefficient of friction is then
determined as the ratio of this sliding force to the tire load.
    The UTQGS traction rating procedure specifies that the traction
coefficients for asphalt and for concrete are to be calculated using
the locked-wheel traction coefficient on the tire, or sliding
coefficient of friction. Because it uses the sliding coefficient of
friction, this test procedure indicates the traction or wet pavement
behavior for a vehicle that is not equipped with anti-lock brakes (ABS)
or electronic stability control (ESC). A vehicle equipped with ABS or
ESC reacts to braking and sliding in a more sophisticated way. ABS
prevents wheel lock-up by pumping the vehicle's brakes repeatedly
during braking events. ESC may automatically perform activation of the
brakes on individual wheels in an attempt to slow down a vehicle and
point it in a different direction if the system senses a directional
loss of control. NHTSA's tire testing research showed that for a tire
with a given rolling resistance, vehicles equipped with ABS or ESC will
exhibit safer behavior on wet pavement (i.e., better traction) than the
sliding coefficient of friction traction measurement would indicate in
the UTQGS traction test procedure.
    The peak coefficient of friction is a metric that would better
indicate traction performance for vehicles equipped with these advanced
braking and handling systems. This is because as soon as ABS causes the
vehicle to reapply the brakes (and also during ESC system activation),
the tires are constantly operating at or near peak coefficient of
friction. Thus, since most new cars offer ABS as either standard or
optional equipment, and ESC is being mandated on new light vehicles via
a phase-in, NHTSA is proposing to base the traction rating for purposes
of the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program on the peak
coefficients of friction as measured on the asphalt and concrete
surfaces specified in the UTQGS traction test procedure.\123\ The
machinery that conducts this test already measures peak coefficient of
friction, so there is no new measurement that needs to be taken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ The phase-in electronic stability control (ESC) requires
100 percent of the fleet to be equipped with ESC by model year 2011,
i.e., by September 2010. 72 FR 17236, 17291. Since an anti-lock
braking system (ABS) provides many of the components necessary for
ESC, NHTSA believes that most manufacturers will likely equip
vehicles with ABS as they equip them with ESC. See id. at 17256, n.
49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, recognizing that the median age for the U.S. passenger car
fleet is 9.4 years,\124\ NHTSA requests comments on whether it is
premature to suggest moving to an ABS-ESC focused rating based on new
vehicles. Within the agency's Phase 2 data, tires of the same size had
as much as 30 percent difference in wet slide numbers over the range of
rolling resistance values. From the 40 mph wet slide friction numbers,
a 30 percent difference in wet slide number translates into an increase
of 27 feet (13 percent) in calculated wet stopping distance for a non-
ABS equipped vehicle. Therefore, it may be necessary to address both
peak and slide friction numbers, at least for the near term. The agency
has considered a safety rating taken from the average of the four
friction numbers (peak & slide on asphalt & concrete), all of which can
be collected during the same test. The agency requests comments on
whether it should instead consider a composite test, and if the four
friction numbers should be weighted equally or differently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ See http://usa.polk.com/News/LatestNews/News_20080215_
scrappage.htm (last accessed Mar. 10, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The tire label mandated by Europe in ECE Regulation 117 includes
the wet grip test. However, NHTSA would need to do its own evaluation
of that test before specifying it in our regulation. NHTSA seeks
comments on other ways to rate replacement tires for safety.
3. Durability
    The rolling resistance, traction, and wear characteristics of tires
are not independent of one another. The tread has a major influence on
rolling resistance because it contains much of the rubber in the tire
that causes energy loss. The same tread deformation contributes to the
tire's traction capabilities. A loss in traction capability because of
treadwear is the main reason for tire replacement.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA tentatively concludes that the durability of a tire refers to
how long a tire is going to last, that is, how long it is going to
maintain sufficient tread depth for the safe operation and maintain the
strength the tire had when it was initially purchased. A treadwear
rating measures a tire's wear rate compared with that of control tires.
Treadwear life, therefore, corresponds to treadwear durability of a
tire. NHTSA seeks comments, however, on other potential ways to
communicate durability.
    The UTQGS rating systems for treadwear is the only metric for which
consistent data are widely available for a range of passenger car
tires. Accordingly, NHTSA is proposing to specify the UTQGS treadwear
procedure to rate tires for durability on the same scale and label as
fuel efficiency via rolling resistance rating. See 49 CFR 575.104(e).
Based on the UTQGS rating for treadwear as calculated under 49 CFR
575.104(d)(2)(i), the durability rating of a given replacement
passenger car tire on a scale of 0 to 100 is calculated by dividing the
UTQGS treadwear rating by ten, as explained in further detail below.
    NHTSA acknowledges the limits of the existing UTQGS system.\126\
Very few participants in the focus groups were aware of these ratings.
In a roundtable discussion sponsored by the California Energy
Commission dealers uniformly dismissed the system as not providing
valuable or reliable information. In fact, those dealers expressed
skepticism about tire fuel efficiency ratings if they were ``just
another UTQGS rating.'' However, given the statutory deadline for NHTSA
to establish this program, NHTSA believes that modified UTQGS ratings
for traction and treadwear are the only viable options at this time to
fulfill the statutory requirement that this consumer information
program educate consumers about tires' relationships to fuel
efficiency, safety, and durability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ The UTQGS is discussed in more detail later in this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA seeks comment, however, on other test methods that could be
easily used to establish metrics for safety or durability ratings. As
noted above, as part of the research in support of this rulemaking,
NHTSA performed and analyzed additional testing with the tires that
were used to evaluate the rolling resistance test methods. NHTSA

did some indoor treadwear testing in our research program, but merely
to provide some comparative information, not to substitute a different
test protocol. NHTSA will, however, consider future revisions if
information suggests those revisions would enhance the program.
4. Overall Rating
    For the purposes of the final rule, the agency is also considering
the concept of a combined rating of some sort, which would convert all
three benefit metrics into one overall rating. NHTSA notes that in
considering how to revise and improve its New Car Assessment Program
(NCAP), it sought public comment on the roughly parallel notion of
simplifying inter-vehicle comparisons and purchase decision making by
consumers by combining the individual safety ratings for different
crash modes into a single overall rating. Ultimately, the agency
adopted plans to develop and implement such a summary rating.
    The advantage of such a system for tire performance ratings would
be that it would simplify the ratings, potentially relieving consumers
of the task of weighing the ratings for three different metrics for one
tire against the three ratings for another tire. At the same time, if
the single combined rating were presented to the exclusion of
individual ratings for each metric, it would obscure the relative
performance of individual components that might carry different
priorities with different consumers.
    Ideally, the goal would be to express the combined rating in terms
that are readily understandable and of practical value to the average
consumer. The following example attempts to do this by combining the
three ratings into a single absolute (as opposed to relative) cost per
mile figure reflecting the full cost of buying and using a tire. The
in-use costs of a tire would be based on each of the ratings and the
useful life of the tire, reflecting the real-world significance of each
of the ratings.
     The in-use cost of the fuel efficiency rating would
reflect money spent on fuel consumed.
     The in-use cost of the durability rating would reflect
money spent on purchasing replacement tires more or less frequently.
     The in-use cost of the safety rating would reflect money
spent on traction-related crashes.
    Implementing such a combined rating would face several hurdles,
especially regarding the safety rating. For example, how would the
safety of any particular tire be measured and what baseline would it be
measured against? Further, in order to attempt to convert the safety
(traction) rating into stopping distance, potentially costly and time
consuming testing for the wide variety of tires would be necessary. An
example of such a combined rating for tires might be one expressed in
terms of average overall cost/mile.
    The agency seeks comments as to whether such a combined rating
could be developed and, if so, should be adopted in the final rule and
implemented. The agency seeks comments on the relative advantages and
disadvantages of a single combined rating, the three rating system in
our proposal, and a third approach combining the first two approaches.

B. How Should We Convey Ratings Information to Consumers?

    In support of this rulemaking, NHTSA contracted with a strategic
communications firm to conduct consumer focus groups to review possible
labels and other informational materials. Two focus groups were
conducted in three locations, with a total of 54 participants. During
the focus groups the participants discussed vehicle safety and fuel
economy in general, their tire purchase process, their interest in
information about tire fuel efficiency and how they might use it in the
tire purchase decision process, and their reaction to five possible
label designs.\127\ NHTSA anticipates conducting additional consumer
testing. The agency seeks comment on our focus group consumer testing
and the scope, content, and methodology of future consumer testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ See NHTSA Rolling Resistance Focus Group Report (January
2008). A copy of this report and other research reports relied on in
this proposal will be placed in the docket. In reviewing these
findings, it is important to remember that qualitative research, by
design, is not meant to be projectable within accurate statistical
ranges. Focus groups allow for the understanding and investigation
of group consensus, not individual reactions. Qualitative research
offers insight into the thematic and directional information of the
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The tested label designs consisted of different combinations of
elements of existing vehicle and/or energy rating schemes. Specifically
the designs were developed as different combinations of a red-to-green
shaded color scheme as in the European energy labels, stars, numbers,
and/or letter grades. One design had a vertical orientation of the
rating scale similar to the European label. One design used a 3-axis
radar chart. Based on the feedback in the focus groups, NHTSA is
proposing to express ratings for tire fuel efficiency (i.e., rolling
resistance), safety (i.e., traction), and durability (i.e., treadwear)
on a scale of 0 to 100, with 100 being the best rating, and zero being
the worst rating.
    NHTSA's proposal differs from the European tire fuel efficiency
rating system. The European tire label divides the fuel efficiency
rating into seven bins, or seven ranges of rolling resistance scores,
each range (or bin) represented by a letter, A through G. This is the
same letter rating the system used in Europe for rating the energy
efficiency of household appliances,\128\ and is already well known by
consumers in Europe. In contrast, U.S. consumers do not have a
preexisting association between letter grades and energy efficiency
ratings. Thus, NHTSA is proposing the ratings scales that tested best
in the agency's consumer research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ See Council Directive 1992/75/EC, 1992 O.J. (L 297).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA's proposal also differs from manufacturer suggestions that
NHTSA develop a rating based on five bins, similar to NHTSA's New Car
Assessment Program (NCAP).\129\ In the focus groups, most of the label
designs showed ratings based in bins. The reason for NHTSA's proposal
is that participants overwhelmingly preferred the design that showed a
numerical rating on a scale of 0 to 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ See http://www.safercar.gov/; 73 FR 40016 (July 11, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Last, NHTSA's proposal differs from the EPA's Energy Star program.
In large part this is because of participants' preference for greater
discrimination in the rating. In addition, NHTSA's proposal to require
manufacturers to report actual test data will allow for the use of such
test data to provide additional useful comparative information as
discussed later in this notice when NHTSA discusses its planned
consumer education program. See section VIII.
    In consumer testing, NHTSA used both stars (as in the NCAP program)
and letter grades (as in the European proposal) representing fuel
efficiency grades given based on which range of rolling resistance
values, or bin, the tire fell within. While both of these were
understood by the participants, the numerical scale giving an
individual score for a tire in each category of rating was preferred.
Most consumers indicated that they preferred the greater precision of
the 0 to 100 rating scale than a 5-point grading scale.\130\ A specific
score gives consumers a greater ability to discriminate between tires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ NHTSA Rolling Resistance Focus Group Report, at 7-8
(January 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In NHTSA's research, consumer focus groups also expressed a clear
preference to have fuel efficiency, traction, and

treadwear ratings appear on identical scales, i.e., they expressed
distaste for the sample ratings graphic that displayed fuel efficiency
on a 0 to 100 scale, traction using letter grades, and treadwear on a
different scale. It is true that consumer preferences are not
necessarily conclusive on appropriate design. What matters is what
design is most helpful in facilitating choice, and judgments in focus
groups may not be conclusive on that question. But with reference to
the goal of ensuring both simplicity and transparency, NHTSA is
proposing to require all three ratings be expressed on a scale of 0 to
100. As noted, NHTSA invites comments on how to ensure that these
ratings are as meaningful as possible to consumers.
    One of the labels tested included an overall rating, which was
generally well-received. Some participants raised their concern that
the overall rating was an average of the three factors (fuel
efficiency, traction and tread wear), treating them as if they were
equally important when in fact few consumers consider them equally
important in their own purchase decision. In the end, most felt the
overall rating was still useful, as long as each dimension on the label
had a rating, as then consumers could separately weigh the factors that
were important to them, if necessary.
    As noted above, NHTSA is not proposing any regulatory text for an
overall rating in today's notice; however we are considering how we
might do this for the final rule. NHTSA shares the focus group
participants' concern that an overall rating not just be an average,
but instead somehow reflect the relative value on some common scale of
the three ratings. As discussed above in section VI.A.4, an example of
such a system might be expressed as average overall cost per mile. The
advantage of such a system would be that it would simplify the ratings.
However, at the same time, it would obscure the relative performance of
individual components which might carry different priorities with
different consumers.
    In addition, the agency is uncertain as to whether such a combined
rating would be practicable. Developing a cost-per-mile estimate would
require addressing the myriad of complications expressed in the Fuel
Economy, Safety, and Durability sections above. For example, how would
the safety of any particular tire be measured and against which
baseline would it be measured? The agency cannot identify poor tire
traction as the cause of a crash, but may be able to estimate potential
benefits or disbenefits from modified stopping distances that result
with different traction ratings. How would potential safety impacts be
valued? Should values include estimates of the value of life and
degradation in quality of life, or just the economic impacts that
result from death and injury and property damage? Since these estimates
would represent average impacts spread across society, would they be
meaningful to individual tire purchasers?
    As noted above, the agency requests comments as to whether such a
combined rating could be developed and, if so, should be adopted in the
final rule and implemented. The agency seeks comments on the relative
advantages and disadvantages of a single combined rating, the three
rating system in our proposal, and a third approach combining the first
two approaches. NHTSA requests comments on the concept of an overall
rating, including the more detailed discussion of how to value these
ratings later in this notice or other ideas of how to combine ratings
for an overall rating.
1. Proposed Rating Formulas
i. Fuel Efficiency
    As explained above, based on the feedback in the focus groups,
NHTSA is proposing to express a tire fuel efficiency rating on a scale
of 0 to 100, with 100 being the lowest rolling resistance or best
rating, and zero being the highest rolling resistance or worst rating.
This integer fuel efficiency rating from 0 to 100 (RFE) can
be calculated from an ISO 28580 test value of rolling resistance force
(RRF) as follows:

RFE = (RRFmax - RRF) * 100/(RRFmax -
RRFmin)

where RRFmax is the highest rolling resistance the agency
believes should be represented on the fuel efficiency rating scale and
where RRFmin is the lowest rolling resistance the agency
believes should be represented on the fuel efficiency rating scale.
    Regarding these minimum and maximum RRF values that define the
bounds of the fuel efficiency scale, NHTSA's testing research combined
with a RRF dataset that California shared with the agency showed RRF
test values of replacement passenger car tires ranging from 7.5 to 22.8
pounds-force (lbf). We are, therefore, proposing a rolling resistance
force scale ranging from 5 lbf to 25 lbf, where 25 is the highest
rolling resistance and thus, the replacement tire with the worst fuel
efficiency,\131\ representing a zero on the fuel efficiency rating
scale. The agency is proposing this range because the high end of the
rolling resistance scale range should be set at close to the level of
the current worst performing tires, since we should not expect tires
developed subsequent to this program to get worse fuel efficiency.
Allowing for the existence of some tires with higher rolling resistance
test values than the selection of replacement tires tested by NHTSA and
California, we moved up the estimate of highest rolling resistance
force to 25 (from 22.8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ Note that higher rolling resistance force measurements
indicate a greater amount of energy lost through the tires and
converted to heat. This indicates a lower fuel efficiency of a tire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the low rolling resistance end of the rating scale, even
though the combined dataset had tires with an RRF as low as 7.5 lbf,
NHTSA is proposing to set this 100 end of the scale based on an RRF of
5.0 lbf, because we believe it is possible to construct tires with
improved rolling resistance and the rolling resistance scale should
allow sufficient room to express that improvement. NHTSA's research has
found that while tire construction need not sacrifice traction or
treadwear for improved rolling resistance, maintaining the same
traction and treadwear while increasing the fuel efficiency of a given
tire typically entails higher costs. See safety discussion above in
section VI.A.2 of this notice. The agency wants to allow for such
future technological innovation in the fuel efficiency rating
scale.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ If future technology made improvements possible that would
allow tires to exceed the range of this or the other two scales,
NHTSA would consider future rulemaking to adjust the scales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on NHTSA's proposed rolling resistance force scale of all
replacement passenger car tires, a tire fuel efficiency rating would be
calculated by the following formula:

RFE = (25 - RRF) * 100/(25 - 5) = (25 - RRF) * 5

Using this fuel efficiency rating formula, the tires tested by NHTSA
and California would fall between 11 and 88 on the 0 to 100 fuel
efficiency rating scale. NHTSA seeks comments on this and other
possible constructions of the fuel efficiency rating.
    As mentioned above, one of the reasons the agency is basing the
fuel efficiency rating on RRF rather than RRC is because it allows the
program to readily provide consumers with a statement such as ``a
difference of X on the fuel efficiency rating scale equates to Y
gallons of fuel saved.'' We have calculated that for the proposed fuel
efficiency rating scale, a general rule of thumb is that for every
10,000 miles you drive, a difference of five on the scale equates to
three gallons of fuel saved when you purchase four tires and a
difference of ten on the scale equates to six gallons of fuel saved.

ii. Safety
    As explained above, NHTSA is proposing to specify that the safety
(i.e., traction) rating, for purposes of the tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program, be calculated using the peak coefficients
of friction, which are friction coefficient numbers that are also
recorded by the test equipment used in UTQGS traction rating procedure.
The agency is proposing to specify the measurement of the peak
coefficients of friction on both asphalt and on concrete, as opposed to
the sliding coefficients of friction, as specified in the UTQGS
traction test procedure. These measurements of peak coefficient of
friction on asphalt and peak coefficient of friction on concrete must
be ``adjusted,'' or correlated to a standard reference test tire,
because asphalt and concrete surfaces can vary from day to day. Thus,
there must be some standardized tire to which the test can calibrate.
This is true for the sliding coefficients of friction measured as well.
    For the safety (i.e., traction) rating, the agency is proposing to
require tire manufacturers to report the Adjusted Peak Coefficient of
Friction for Asphalt ([mu]APA) and the Adjusted Peak
Coefficient of Friction for Concrete ([mu]APC) by testing in
accordance with 49 CFR 575.104(f) and recording the average peak
coefficients of friction and then adjusting the measured average peak
coefficients of friction for asphalt and concrete, respectively, using
the following formulae:

[mu]APA = (Measured Candidate Tire Average Peak Coefficient
of Friction for Asphalt + 0.75) - (Measured Standard Tire Average Peak
Coefficient of Friction for Asphalt)

[mu]APC = (Measured Candidate Tire Average Peak Coefficient
of Friction for Concrete + 0.60) - (Measured Standard Tire Average Peak
Coefficient of Friction for Concrete)

The two constants, 0.75 and 0.60, are based on agency test data for the
adjustment of the average peak coefficients of friction for asphalt and
concrete pavements, respectively. The agency might change these two
numbers if the repaving of the skid pad surfaces at the agency's San
Angelo Test Facility results in a shift of these numbers on each
surface. NHTSA is seeking comments and proposals on this approach,
including the use or change of these constants.
    In addition to the adjusted peak coefficients of friction, the
agency is also proposing to require tire manufacturers to report the
traction rating using the following formula:

RTC = Adjusted Peak Traction Rating = {([mu]APA +
[mu]APC) {1 - [([mu]APA - [mu]APC)/
([mu]APA + [mu]APC)]\2\{time}  - 0.6{time}  *
(100/2.0)

The agency proposes this formula as a convenient way to obtain a single
rating for both asphalt and concrete, and normalizing the expected
range to a scale of 0 to 100.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ This formula is an adaptation of the Fahrenheit to
Centigrade (also a 0 to 100 scale) conversion formula.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``([mu]APA + [mu]APC) {1-
[([mu]APA - [mu]APC)/([mu]APA +
[mu]APC)]\2\{time} '' portion of the RTC formula
has been developed with the intention of encouraging tire manufacturers
to design tires with little disparity between [mu]APA and
[mu]APC. That is, if [mu]APA= [mu]APC,
``([mu]APA + [mu]APC) {1 - [([mu]APA -
[mu]APC)/([mu]APA +
[mu]APC)]\2\{time} '' would be equal to ([mu]APA
+ [mu]APC) and thus the highest rating possible is achieved
for a given set of coefficients of friction since no deduction to the
rating is assessed due to the disparity of the coefficients of friction
between asphalt and concrete. This approach is consistent with the
current traction rating philosophy of UTQGS which penalizes a tire's
rating if either the asphalt or concrete coefficients are in a lower
relative category than the other adjusted coefficient.
    Based on data available to date at the agency's San Angelo Test
Facility, NHTSA estimates the minimum Adjusted Peak Coefficient of
Friction for Asphalt is 0.4, the maximum Adjusted Peak Coefficient of
Friction for Asphalt is 1.2, the minimum Adjusted Peak Coefficient of
Friction for Concrete is 0.3, and the maximum Adjusted Peak Coefficient
of Friction for Concrete is 1.1, for an additive range spanning from
0.7 (i.e., 0.4 + 0.3) to 2.3 (i.e., 1.2 + 1.1). For the purpose of
allowing future tire traction improvement, the agency is proposing to
expand the estimated Adjusted Peak Coefficient of Friction range of 0.7
to 2.3 to a range of 0.6 to 2.6, where 0.6 would represent a zero on
the traction rating scale and 2.6 would represent a 100 on the traction
rating scale. The agency proposes this range because we believe it is
technically possible to construct tires with improved traction and the
traction rating scale should allow sufficient room to express that
improvement.
    The agency then shifts and normalizes ``([mu]APA +
[mu]APC) {1-[([mu]APA-[mu]APC)/
([mu]APA + [mu]APC)]\2\{time} '' from the range
of 0.6 to 2.6 to a 0 to 100 rating scale and arrives at the
aforementioned RTC formula.\134\ Using the RTC
traction rating formula, NHTSA's estimated range of additive Adjusted
Peak Coefficient from 0.7 to 2.3 would fall between 5 and 85 on the 0
to 100 safety (wet traction) rating scale. NHTSA is seeking comments
and proposals on this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ The agency notes that the formula for RTC
reduces to a simpler form than that which is specified above. For
the NPRM we have not reduced the formula so that the public can see
where maximum and minimum peak coefficients are used in the equation
and to make it clear that it includes a ``rating penalty'' for tires
with different coefficients for asphalt and concrete. We believe
this is important since these values may change based on additional
data and on retesting after our test track has been repaved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned above, our safety (traction) rating formula and
supporting equations were developed based on limited test data and in
advance of traction test resurfacing at our San Angelo Test Facility.
Consequently, it is difficult to precisely predict the probable range
of adjusted peak coefficients across all replacement tires and,
therefore, to calculate the resultant expected safety (wet traction)
rating range for existing tires. We plan to update the formula and
supporting equations in the final rule with additional data and with
test data gathered after the track is resurfaced in order to bring the
rating scale to a range that can be expected for state of the art
tires. We also request comments on how much to amend the rating formula
for the final rule to expand the rating scale at the minimum and/or
maximum ends of the scale to allow for future potential wet traction
improvements.
    In terms of what this scale would mean to consumers, a traction
rating is difficult to quantify. That is, it is not as straight forward
as it is for a fuel efficiency rating to develop a rule of thumb for
the safety rating scale such as ``each difference of X on the safety
rating scale equates to Y percent fewer crashes and Z dollars less in
resultant economic damages.'' NHTSA would have to try and correlate a
rating with a set stopping distance, and then that distance with
crashes. These calculations are complicated by the fact that they
depend on other factors (in addition to the traction rating of the
tires) such as the handling characteristics of the vehicle on which
they are mounted, the force with which the brakes are applied, and the
loading of the vehicle. To put a tire's safety rating information on an
economic scale, all of these characteristics would have to be assumed
for all tires. But in reality, there is not a single vehicle that all
replacement tires can be mounted on. Therefore, we are concerned that
the difference between two such tire safety ratings would not reflect
the same economic difference in terms of safety, where the tires were
mounted on two different types of vehicles. What we can communicate
with the proposed rating

is that tires with better traction ratings stop in less distance than
tires with worse ratings.
iii. Durability
    Existing treadwear grades in UTQGS range up to 800. Therefore,
NHTSA is requiring that the UTQGS treadwear grade be divided by 10 and
that number placed on the 1 to 100 scale. This treadwear rating scale
will allow for the possible technological development of replacement
tires with higher treadwear ratings in the future. Accordingly, if
TWUTQGS is the UTQGS rating for treadwear as calculated
under 49 CFR 575.104(d)(2)(i), then NHTSA is proposing the treadwear
rating for purposes of the tire fuel efficiency rating program
(RTW) be calculated according to the following formula:

    RTW = TWUTQGS/10

    In terms of what this scale would mean to consumers, the treadwear
conversion is straightforward, as the treadwear rating is a relative
rating compared to a control tire, which would be rated 10 on our
scale. A tire rated 20 should last twice as long as a tire rated a 10.
Similarly, a tire rated a 75 on the proposed traction scale would last
three times longer than a tire rated 25 on the proposed traction rating
scale.
2. Proposed Label Style
    NHTSA is proposing to require tire manufacturers to affix a paper
label with the fuel efficiency, safety, and durability ratings in the
form illustrated in Figure 7.\135\ This label is based upon the ratings
presentation that tested best with consumers in focus groups conducted
by the agency. In NHTSA's consumer focus group research the agency
considered and presented consumers with five different ratings graphics
containing ratings for fuel efficiency, traction, and treadwear. The
ratings graphics were presented in various colors, with various picture
icons, and experimented with horizontal rating scales as well as
vertical rating scales. See Figure 8 through Figure 12.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ Manufacturers are required to print UTQGS information on a
paper label pursuant to 49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(B). Many manufacturers
include other information on this paper label as well. Note that
NHTSA uses the term ``paper label'' in the colloquial sense; many
labels on tires are actually made of plastic.
    \136\ Color versions of Figures 8-12 will be placed in the
docket and on NHTSA's Web site, http://www.nhtsa.gov.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.011

    NHTSA is proposing that the rating scales be oriented horizontally,
that the scales be shaded red (0) to green (100), and that each scale
be marked by an icon in addition to the title, similar to Label B shown
to the focus groups (Figure 9). This label design was the clearly
preferred concept. Participants intuitively understood that red was
poor and green was good and liked this color scheme. The vertically-
oriented label (Label C, illustrated in Figure 10) was difficult to
understand for many participants in the focus groups.
    NHTSA is proposing to modify the Label B as shown to consumers
(Figure 9) as described here. See Figure 7. First, NHTSA is proposing
to add a heading that reads, ``Government Tire Ratings,'' similar to
the heading on the vehicle label that shows the new car assessment
program (NCAP) ratings. The focus group participants indicated that
they would prefer to know that it was a government program.
    We are also proposing to have the fuel efficiency rating appear
topmost on the label, followed by safety and durability. The ratings
appeared in different order in the designs shown and participants did
not express a preference. NHTSA has chosen to place fuel efficiency on
top as that is the emphasis of EISA, however we request comment on the
order of ratings. Participants did indicate that safety would be a more
important consideration in their purchase decision, so the agency seeks
comment on this rating appearing at the top.
    Further, we are proposing to change the labels on the rating scales
to read as follows: ``Fuel Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Rating,''
``Safety (Wet Traction),'' and ``Durability (Treadwear).'' This
language more closely mirrors the language in EISA. The agency is
proposing that ``Greenhouse Gas Rating'' appear on the fuel efficiency
rating scale because section 105 of EISA mandates a consumer
information program that will establish a rating system reflecting the
fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions over the life of
automobiles.\137\ For consistency across fuel economy-related consumer
information programs, we are proposing that the fuel efficiency rating
in the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program indicate that
fuel efficiency ratings also signify relative performance in terms of
greenhouse gas emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As for the safety and durability rating scale labels, NHTSA is
aware that safety and durability can refer to more characteristics than
those rated in the program we are proposing today, and therefore has
included ``wet traction'' and ``treadwear'' to clarify what is being
rated on the safety and durability scales.
    The agency is also proposing to change the language at the bottom
of the label by replacing the word ``highest'' with the word ``best.''
This is to because the data behind the rating is not uniformly
``higher'' when the rating improves. While this would not be apparent
to all consumers, some may wish to research the data behind the rating
and this language would more accurately reflect the data.
    NHTSA is proposing to include an additional sentence at the bottom
of the label indicating where consumers should go to learn more about
the information: ``For more information visit http://www.nhtsa.gov.''
This sentence appears more prominent than the other reference sentences
at the bottom of the label because the agency seeks to encourage
consumers to learn about the ratings, which they can do most completely
on NHTSA's Web site. The Web address could be replaced if the new tire
information Web site NHTSA intends to develop has a simple domain name.
    NHTSA is proposing to place the rating on each scale in a white
box, as opposed to within one of the colored shaded boxes comprising
the scale. This allows the rating score to be printed in slightly
larger text than if it were limited to inside each box. Placing each
rating in a white box also allows the rating to appear in a more
accurate location on the scale, as opposed to being limited to
appearing within a shaded box. NHTSA is further proposing to move the
arrows pointing to the score to the bottom of each rating scale, as
opposed to the top. This is to avoid potentially obscuring the rating
scale titles with the arrow on

the top of the scale pointing to a lower rated tire.
    NHTSA is also proposing a minimum font size of 14 point for the
heading on the label, and 12 point for the labels on each of the rating
scales. NHTSA is also proposing to require the label to be at least 4.5
inches high by 5.5 inches wide. The agency tentatively concludes that
this is approximately the smallest size the label could be and still be
legible. This is slightly larger than the Stars on Cars label required
on vehicles. NHTSA requests comments on these size requirements for the
label.
    Finally, NHTSA is proposing to delete the indication of ``average
rating.'' Without having a complete database of all tires, NHTSA is not
sure where the ``average rating'' would be located on each scale. In
addition, it is likely that these would not be in the same location on
each of the three scales, and focus group participants expressed some
confusion with designs like this.
    Participants in the focus groups generally liked the icons used on
the sample labels, however the icon used for the traction rating was
found confusing by many. The cloud in the symbol for traction
(representing the source of the rain drops) was confusing for some
consumers who could not make out what it was or thought it was a cowboy
hat. NHTSA considered other ideas, such as those shown in Figure 13.
NHTSA is not currently proposing a different icon than that which was
tested. However, NHTSA plans to conduct further consumer testing prior
to the final rule and is seeking comment on these and any other ideas
regarding possible changes to the traction icon, which indicates
``wet'' traction.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.012

    NHTSA is further seeking comment on using some icon or mark on the
labels to help consumers at a glance identify the most fuel efficient
tire. NHTSA has designed the scales so that the highest rating for
tires in the databases we have examined for each category would be in
the 80s. A mark indicating, for example, the top 25% of ratings could
let consumers know that they are already looking at a best-rated tire.
The mark could be associated with just the fuel efficiency rating or
the tire might only receive the mark if it also has a minimum certain
safety and durability rating. This is similar to the idea behind the
Energy Star program. The Energy Star program is a voluntary joint EPA
and DOE program to rate the energy-efficiency of household
products.\138\ For each product included in the program, there are
performance standards to determine whether or not the product qualifies
for an Energy Star designation. As an initial matter, NHTSA is
concerned that such a mark might be inaccurately perceived by the
consumer as indicating an overall tire rating, which might indicate
government approval of the safety of that replacement tire. We request
comment on this idea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ See http://www.energystar.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is also requesting comment on whether or not the ratings
label should include a caution that the ratings apply only to properly
inflated and/or new tires. Both of these messages would be part of the
consumer education program to promote this program.
    Last, NHTSA is requesting comment on including a statement like
``made in week xx of year yy,'' where the ``xx'' and ``yy'' would be
the numerals from the tire identification number (TIN). NHTSA receives
a lot of complaints about the TIN and consumer difficulty in
understanding how to read it. Focus group participants also indicated
that date of manufacture was additional information they would like to
have. NHTSA requests comments on the effect of requiring this
information on the paper label.

VII. Proposed Information Dissemination and Reporting Requirements for
Tire Manufacturers and Tire Retailers

A. The Replacement Passenger Car Tire Market

    Most replacement tires are designed to perform on the wide range of
vehicles in the fleet, including vehicle models dating back many years.
Thus, suppliers competing in the replacement market must offer a wide
variety of tire types and sizes.\139\ In addition, the spectrum of
replacement tire sizes and types is continually expanding. At any one
time, replacement tires from hundreds of brands and lines are for sale
in the marketplace, which consists of tens of thousands of individual
products, or stock-keeping units (SKUs), when size variability is taken
into account. Consumers may choose among a handful to several dozen
tire lines for their replacement needs.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 21.
    \140\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consumers may choose from national Internet and mail order
companies to tire dealers, manufacturer outlets, and retail department
stores. Typically, the tires bought in the replacement market are
balanced and mounted by the tire dealer or retailer.\141\ NHTSA is
proposing a definition of ``tire retailer'' to be ``a person or
business with whom a replacement passenger car tire manufacturer or
brand name owner has a contractual, proprietary, or other legal
relationship, or a person or business who has such a relationship with
a distributor of the replacement passenger car tire manufacturer or
brand name owner concerning the tire in question.'' See section XIII
(Regulatory Text) of this notice. NHTSA seeks comment on the
appropriateness and inclusiveness of this definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Assumptions About the Average Tire Purchaser and the Average Tire
Purchasing Process

    NHTSA's consumer research focus groups revealed some common themes
in consumers' tire purchasing processes, which are discussed in detail
below. Additionally, on November 17, 2008 NHTSA participated in a
roundtable discussion convened by the Energy Efficiency Center at the
University of California, Davis (``UC Davis

workshop'') \142\ to discuss the tire purchase process. Participants
included State and Federal government agencies, tire manufacturers,
tire retailers and universities. Both these sources of information have
enabled the agency to make some assumptions regarding the average tire
purchaser and the average tire purchasing process. These assumptions
have led the agency to draw tentative conclusions regarding the most
effective ways to ensure consumers have access to easy-to-understand
information. These assumptions form the basis of our proposals
regarding requirements for information dissemination and reporting
requirements for tire manufacturers and for tire retailers. NHTSA
requests comment on how to best communicate information to consumers
before or during the tire purchasing process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ The agenda and presentations from the roundtable can be
seen at http://eec1.ucdavis.edu/programs/transportation/tire-
roundtable-nov-2008/tiresroundtable (last accessed Mar. 6, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA's consumer research and the discussions at the UC Davis
workshop revealed that many consumers make their choice of tire at the
location of purchase with guidance from a sales associate. NHTSA's
consumer research indicated, however, that many tire consumers do
conduct research to determine specifications for their vehicle, and
then visit a store or go online to compare tires of different
specifications. Participants in the UC Davis workshop noted that many
tire purchases are unplanned, where consumers needed to take immediate
action to restore their vehicle. Consumers in NHTSA's focus group
research made a distinction between buying replacement tires and buying
tires because of an urgent need, e.g., a flat tire. These consumers
agreed that in the latter scenario, many steps that they may have
undertaken before a planned purchase, e.g., doing comprehensive
research, were bypassed with the goal of getting a new tire in their
price range immediately. UC Davis workshop participants, among them
many tire retailers and tire manufacturers, further agreed that while
some consumers do ``defensive'' research prior to scheduled or planned
tire purchases in an attempt to avoid getting taken advantage of by
sales associates, very few do ``offensive'' research such that they
know precisely what tires they want.
    NHTSA's consumer research found that the connection between fuel
efficiency and tire selection was not brought up unaided. Even when
prompted, many participants in the research did not feel there was a
strong connection between the two. A few participants understood that
inflated tires are safe, making the causal relationship between tire
inflation and vehicle safety, which is understood by most. But after
discussion and probing, more participants began to understand the
connection and agreed tires impact fuel efficiency. While NHTSA's
consumer research indicated that consumers are interested in the
prospect of a rating system that would enable them to compare fuel
efficiency of different tires, participants in the UC Davis workshop,
which included tire retailers, tire manufacturers, and government
organizations, generally agreed that price is the largest factor in
most consumers' final tire purchasing decision.

C. What Are We Proposing To Require of Tire Retailers?

    Based on NHTSA's understanding of the average tire purchaser and on
the tire purchasing process generally, we believe that the most
successful method of encouraging consumers to consider the new ratings
at the point of sale is to have a poster in each tire retailer/dealer
location that would be visible to consumers, to make consumers aware
that there are comparative government tire ratings available for the
passenger car tires they are considering. The poster would communicate
the importance of comparing replacement tire ratings as well as the
importance of proper tire maintenance.
    Therefore, in today's notice we are proposing to require that tire
retailers who have a display room, i.e., those that present sample
tires offered for sale to consumers, display a tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program poster that NHTSA will print and provide
to retailers. Some of the principles NHTSA is proposing be conveyed by
the poster are:
     Your choice of tires you buy to put on your vehicle
affects:
    [cir] The gas mileage your vehicle will get,
    [cir] The traction and other safety characteristics your vehicle
can achieve, and
    [cir] How long you can reasonably expect it will be before you'll
have to buy another new set of tires.
     There is a new government program that requires new tires
for cars, vans, and SUVs to have a paper label on the tire tread to
show you the tire's rating for fuel efficiency, safety, and durability.
     Ask your dealer for the ratings for the tires you are
considering for your vehicle.
     More information about this ratings program and a complete
listing of the ratings for all these tires is available at http://
www.nhtsa.gov.
     Whatever tire you choose, you need to keep it properly
inflated to get the best fuel efficiency, safety, and tire life that
the tire can deliver.
    NHTSA seeks comment on these messages and solicits suggestions for
poster design and the best means to convey information about the rating
system and elicit interest in the ratings, keeping in mind the ultimate
goal of assisting consumers in making more educated tire purchasing
decisions.
    The agency is proposing to make this poster available within 12
months of the issuance of a final regulation. At that time NHTSA will
publish a Federal Register notice announcing the availability of the
poster. We are proposing that a tire retailer will be able to comply
with the requirement of displaying the poster either by downloading and
printing it, in color and with the specifications from NHTSA's Web
site, or by contacting the agency and requesting that we send the
retailer a copy of the poster.
    We are also proposing to require that tire retailers leave the
paper label which displays the tire fuel efficiency rating graphic on
the tire until the tire is sold.\143\ This requirement would maximize
the chance that consumers would see the label for the tire they are
purchasing. NHTSA recognizes that at many tire retailers, the tires are
mounted by the retailer itself and the consumer may never actually see
the tires they purchase before they are on their vehicle. We are not
proposing to require that tire retailers must show consumers the label
for the tire they are going to purchase, but merely that the label is
kept on the tire until sale. The agency would not hold a tire retailer
responsible for accidental damage or delamination of a label, or for a
manufacturer's failure to provide a label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ Note that NHTSA uses the term ``paper label'' in the
colloquial sense; many labels on tires are actually made of plastic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is aware of the small business nature of many tire retailers
and is sensitive to any burdens being placed upon tire retailers and
dealers. The agency considered requirements that tire retailers show
consumers the ratings for each tire that is available and being
compared for potential purchase. However, the agency has tentatively
concluded that the burdens associated with such requirements are not
needed to implement an effective program. The agency seeks comments on
any other

information dissemination requirements that would ensure that easy-to-
understand information is conveyed in a way that is most likely to
impact consumers' decisions and, thus, affect their behavior and save
them and our nation fuel and money.

D. What Are We Proposing To Require of Tire Manufacturers?

1. Data Reporting
    We are proposing to require manufacturers to report to NHTSA for
each tire that is individually rated under this tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program the following data:
     Rolling resistance force (RRF), as computed from the ISO
28580 test (in Newtons) and followed in parenthesis by the equivalent
pounds-force, e.g., 5 Newtons (1.12 lbf).\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ While pounds-force (lbf) have been used throughout this
NPRM since they are more familiar to the average U.S. consumer, the
SI units of Newtons will be the official reporting unit. All
proposed limits and values will be converted accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Test load, as specified in the ISO 28580 test procedure
(in Newtons) and followed in parenthesis by the equivalent pounds-
force, e.g., 5 Newtons (1.12 lbf).
     Rolling resistance rating (0-100), based on the formula in
section VI.B.1 above.
     Traction 0-100 rating, based on the formula in section
VI.B.1 above.
     Average peak coefficient of friction for asphalt, as
measured during the UTQGS traction test procedure (49 CFR 575.104(f)).
     Average peak coefficient of friction for concrete, as
measured during the UTQGS traction test procedure (49 CFR 575.104(f)).
     Adjusted peak coefficient of friction for asphalt
([mu]APA), based on the formula in section VI.B.1 above.
     Adjusted peak coefficient of friction for concrete
([mu]APC), based on the formula in section VI.B.1 above.
     Treadwear 0-100 rating, based on the formula in section
VI.B.1 above.
     Wear rate of tested tire, as measured during the UTQGS
treadwear procedure (49 CFR 575.104(e)).
    There are several reasons NHTSA is proposing that the tire
manufacturer submit these various measurements to the agency. First,
this makes it straightforward for the agency to ensure compliance with
the rating systems developed in this tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program. These reporting requirements also permit the
agency to assess the adequacy and appropriateness of the tolerance
bands, as described in section XI of this notice. Additionally, NHTSA
can use the force measurements to develop an accurate rolling
resistance database that can be used for development of a calculator
that consumers can use to estimate dollars of fuel saved either
annually or over the average life of the tire, as explained in section
VIII of this notice. Finally, the test load can be used to calculate
rolling resistance coefficient if necessary or desirable.
    We are proposing to require manufacturers to report to NHTSA the
treadwear rating and the traction rating for each tire, on a 0 to 100
scale as discussed above in sections VI.A.2 and VI.A.3 because these
ratings represent durability and safety for purposes of the national
tire fuel efficiency consumer information program required by EISA. The
agency is proposing that these ratings be based on the UTQGS test
procedures for traction and treadwear. However, the agency remains open
to considering other tests that may better represent and communicate
information about safety and durability. As mentioned above, NHTSA
requests comments on other test methods and metrics on which to base
ratings of safety and durability.
    We request comment on what format to require tire manufacturers to
submit data. NHTSA intends to require submission of data in a uniform
format to ensure that all information is provided, and for ease of
database entry. NHTSA is proposing that the agency will design a
Microsoft Excel template for data submission and will make this
template available for download from the agency Web site. However, the
agency is also looking into using an online data submission system and
the possibility of creating one centralized location where tire
manufacturers will submit all required data submissions, including tire
fuel economy data submissions. The agency seeks comment on the
feasibility of using both a spreadsheet template and an online data
reporting system for having tire manufactures submit data for the fuel
efficiency consumer information program ratings.
2. Tire Labels
    We are also proposing two alternatives for tire manufacturers to
present the required rating information on a paper label affixed to
each subject replacement tire. First, a tire manufacturer may place the
required rating graphic somewhere on the paper labels already required
to be affixed to each individual tire by UTQGS requirements.\145\
Second, a tire manufacturer could fulfill the tire fuel efficiency
labeling requirements by affixing a separate paper label with just the
tire fuel efficiency label graphic on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ See 49 CFR 575.104(d)(i)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regardless of which alternative is chosen by the tire manufacturer,
we are proposing to specify a minimum size for the tire fuel efficiency
rating system graphic (4.5 inches high and 5.5 inches wide) and that
the graphic must be in color on the label.
    The minimum size specification is proposed to ensure that the
rating graphic will be legible on the label. The reason that we are
proposing the graphic appear in color is because consumers reacted
positively to the red shading on the lower/left side of the scale to
indicate lower ratings, and to the green shading on the higher/right
side of the scale to indicate higher ratings.
    NHTSA requests comments on whether the label requirement should be
more specific regarding precisely when tire manufacturers must affix
the label.

E. Requirements for Tire Retailers and Tire Manufacturers With an
Internet Presence

    There are tire retailers with virtual storefronts, as well as
retailers and manufacturers that maintain Web sites that consumers can
use to research tires. Because NHTSA believes that many consumers use
the Internet to do at least a minimal amount of research in some
situations before they need to purchase tires, we are proposing to
require that tire retailers and tire manufacturers that maintain Web
sites must include a link to the comprehensive tire Web site that NHTSA
plans to develop (see section VIII.B.4 below).
    NHTSA requests comments on what additional requirements, if any,
should apply to such Web sites. For example, should NHTSA require the
Web site to include an electronic version of the poster NHTSA is
proposing to require retailers with a display room to display? The
poster would be provided in an electronic format by NHTSA when printed
copies are provided as discussed above.

F. Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards

    As mentioned above, NHTSA has a tire rating system that has been in
place since 1975, the uniform tire quality grading standards
(UTQGS).\146\ NHTSA established the UTQGS to fulfill a statutory
requirement established by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle

Safety Act of 1966.\147\ This statutory requirement has been codified
and amended to read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ See 49 CFR 575.104 (2008).
    \147\ See National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966,
Public Law 89-563, Sec.  203, 80 Stat. 718 (1966) (codified as
amended at 49 U.S.C. 30123(b)).

    The Secretary shall prescribe through standards a uniform
quality grading system for motor vehicle tires to help consumers
make an informed choice when purchasing tires. The Secretary also
shall cooperate with industry and the Federal Trade Commission to
the greatest extent practicable to eliminate deceptive and confusing
tire nomenclature and marketing practices. A tire standard or
regulation prescribed under this chapter supersedes an order or
administrative interpretation of the Commission.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ 49 U.S.C. 30123(b).

    The UTQGS, applicable to passenger car tires, require motor vehicle
and tire manufacturers to provide consumers with information about
their tires' relative performance regarding treadwear, traction, and
temperature resistance. Manufacturers are required to rate their tires
based on performance in specified test procedures, to report those
ratings to NHTSA, to permanently mold those ratings onto sidewalls, to
attach a label containing those ratings on replacement tires, and to
provide information about the UTQGS with tires and new motor vehicles.
The treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance characteristics
were chosen by NHTSA for rating under the UTQGS because the agency
believed they provided the best balance of tire properties for
meaningful evaluation by consumers. As previously discussed for the
characteristics affected by today's proposals, those characteristics
interact with each other such that improvement of one of them could
reduce performance of one of the others.
    As NHTSA is proposing to base today's proposed safety and
durability ratings on them, traction and treadwear were discussed
above. The UTQGS temperature rating indicates the tire's resistance to
the generation of heat and its ability to dissipate heat. Sustained
high temperature can cause the material of the tire to degrade and
reduce tire life, and excessive temperature can lead to sudden tire
failure. Tires are tested under controlled conditions on a high-speed
laboratory test wheel. Tires are graded A, B, or C, with A indicating
an ability to dissipate heat at higher speeds. While grade C originally
corresponded to a level of performance required for passenger car tires
by FMVSS No. 109, new requirements in FMVSS No. 139 mean that few, if
any, new tires perform below the level of grade B.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ UTQGS requires tires to be rated a C if they perform at
the lowest level in the UTQGS test. If a tire performs at a higher
level the manufacturer may rate the tire a B. Therefore, while there
may still be grade C tires on the market, NHTSA expects that the
tires could be rated a B, based on the requirements of FMVSS 139.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1995, NHTSA proposed amendments to the UTQGS.\150\ At that time,
NHTSA proposed, based on comments from the public,\151\ to remove the
temperature resistance rating and to add a fuel efficiency rating. It
was believed that the temperature resistance rating was not as well
understood by consumers as the treadwear and traction ratings.\152\ The
rulemaking was terminated \153\ because Congress placed a condition in
NHTSA's 1996 appropriations Act that stated ``none of the funds
appropriated by this Act may be obligated or expended to plan,
finalize, or implement any rulemaking to add to [the UTQGS] any
requirement pertaining to a grading standard that is different from the
three grading standards (treadwear, traction, and temperature
resistance) already in effect.'' \154\ This language has been included
in every DOT Appropriations Act since 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ 60 FR 27472 (May 24, 1995).
    \151\ See Request for Comments, 59 FR 19686 (Apr. 25, 1994).
    \152\ Id. at 19689.
    \153\ See 61 FR 47437 (Sept. 9, 1996).
    \154\ Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996, Public Law 104-50, 109
Stat. 436 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing today's proposal under EISA, the agency considered
the need and appropriateness of continuing the current UTQGS
requirements. For the reasons discussed below, we have tentatively
concluded that the current UTQGS requirements should either be removed,
once tires meet the new EISA requirements, or amended to conform to the
approach in today's EISA proposal.
    For two of the three UTQGS ratings, today's proposal would
establish parallel but different ratings. Thus, consumers would be
receiving the same basic information, but in two different ways. For
the treadwear rating, the durability rating proposed in this notice is
simply a different way of expressing the same rating. For the traction
rating, the safety rating proposed in this notice is based on the same
test procedure; however, the ratings are based on different
measurements, both of which are recorded by the equipment used in the
UTQGS test procedure.
    If the agency maintained the current UTQGS ratings in these areas,
there would be concerns about consumer confusion as well as unnecessary
duplication. For example, with both systems in place, a consumer would
see one scale (e.g., letter grades for traction) on the UTQGS label and
on the tire sidewall, but on the tire fuel efficiency label the
consumer would see a safety (i.e., traction) rating on a different
scale (0 to 100). Similarly, the consumer would get a treadwear grade
on the UTQGS label and on the tire sidewall, but would get the same
grade expressed on a different scale (0 to 100) on the tire fuel
efficiency label.
    As to the third UTQGS rating, i.e., temperature resistance, NHTSA
notes that 80 percent of current tires are graded either A or B. As
discussed previously, the new performance standards for passenger car
tires will result in only grade A or B tires in the market. Therefore,
the rating does not provide much comparative information. Moreover, for
reasons discussed in the 1995 NPRM,\155\ we believe this rating has
limited relevance to consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ See 60 FR 27472, 27478-27481.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the above discussion, we are requesting comments on two
alternatives. Under the first alternative, the current UTQGS
requirements would be removed once tires meet the new EISA
requirements. While the new requirements we are proposing today would
be issued under the authority of EISA, we believe the ratings system
proposed in this document for durability (treadwear) and safety (wet
traction) serve the same purposes as the corresponding existing UTQGS
ratings.
    We note that, unlike the current UTQGS requirements, manufacturers
would not be required to permanently mold the EISA ratings onto tire
sidewalls or provide information for tires on new motor vehicles.
However, we have tentatively concluded that, given the purposes of both
UTQGS and the EISA ratings, i.e., helping consumers make informed
choices in purchasing tires, and the ways that the relevant information
would be available (including the paper label on replacement tires and
a government Web site), these differences would not be a reason to
maintain the current UTQGS requirements.
    Under the second alternative, the current UTQGS requirements would
be amended to conform to the approach in today's EISA proposal. We
would replace the existing UTQGS treadwear and traction ratings with
the ratings proposed in today's notice for durability (treadwear) and
safety (wet traction), and the rating for temperature resistance would
be removed. The requirement for UTQGS information to be provided on a
tire tread surface label would be

written broadly enough that if the ratings were provided on the EISA
label they need not be provided on a separate UTQGS label. Under this
alternative, we would also remove the requirement for the UTQGS ratings
to be molded on the tire sidewalls. We believe this requirement is
duplicative and results in unnecessary costs. For replacement tires,
the ratings would be provided on the paper label. While we question
whether there is a need to provide this information for the tires on
new vehicles, we request comments on this issue. We also request
comments on the most appropriate way to require the information to be
provided, should we decide to continue to do so. Finally, as part of
this alternative, we would make any necessary conforming changes to the
other UTQGS requirements.
    We note that our proposed regulatory text does not include changes
with respect to removing or revising the current UTQGS requirements. If
this part of the proposal is adopted as a final rule, we would make the
necessary changes in the final rule's regulatory text.
    In developing this aspect of our proposal, we have specifically
considered 49 U.S.C. 30123(b) (the statutory requirements concerning
UTQGS), 49 U.S.C. 32304A (Consumer Tire Information, i.e., the relevant
part of EISA), and the current DOT Appropriations Act. As to the
language of the DOT Appropriations Act, discussed earlier, we construe
that language to prohibit us from adding to the UTQGS program any new
grading standards beyond those currently in effect (treadwear,
traction, and temperature resistance), but not from removing current
standards or making minor modifications in the current standards, such
as those discussed above under the second alternative. We note that the
fuel efficiency rating proposed by today's document would be issued
solely under the authority of EISA, i.e., it would not be part of the
UTQGS program under any of the alternatives we are considering.

VIII. NHTSA's Consumer Education Program

    As noted elsewhere in the notice, section 111 of EISA requires that
the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program for replacement
tires include ``a national tire maintenance consumer education program
including, information on tire inflation pressure, alignment, rotation,
and treadwear to maximize fuel efficiency, safety, and durability of
replacement tires.'' 49 U.S.C. 32304A(a)(2)(D). In order to develop the
most effective communication materials to comply with this requirement,
the agency conducted consumer testing in January 2009 on informational
materials and potential tire labeling.\156\ The goals of this research
were to (1) explore reactions to consumer expectations for a tire fuel
efficiency rating program; (2) measure feedback related to the
effectiveness of the communication materials used to convey the tire
labeling information; and (3) gauge consumer preferences of tire label
designs presented to determine how best to design a consumer friendly
label for the program. Consumers have expressed interest in ways this
new information should be conveyed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ NHTSA Rolling Resistance Focus Group Report (January
2008). This report will be posted to the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is using consumer testing research to help maximize consumer
understanding of the program and to develop communication materials to
assist consumers in making more educated tire purchasing decisions.
NHTSA requests comments on the most effective way to establish and
implement a consumer education program to fulfill the statutory
requirements and purposes behind today's proposed tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program.

A. Previous Tire Consumer Education Efforts

    NHTSA has long recognized the importance of consumer education in
the area of tire maintenance. The Uniform Tire Quality Grading
Standards (UTQGS) ratings, which are molded onto passenger car tire
sidewalls, allow consumers to compare tire treadwear, traction
performance, and temperature resistance. UTQGS consumer information
includes a booklet published annually with comparative UTGQS ratings
for all passenger car tires. NHTSA's consumer based Web site,
Safercar.gov, features a tire lookup database with these comparative
ratings to assist consumers in purchasing new or replacement vehicle
tires.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ See http://www.safercar.gov/portal/site/safercar/
menuitem.13dd5c887c7e1358fefe0a2f35a67789/
?vgnextoid=9f4baa8c16e35110VgnVCM1000002fd17898RCRD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The What's Your PSI? campaign launched in 2005 challenged consumers
to learn the correct pressure for their vehicle's tires and to help
them maintain proper pressure. Campaign materials included a brochure
distributed by tire safety partners throughout the country and
interactive online tire quiz. These materials are available online
through the Safercar.gov Web site.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ See http://www.safercar.gov/portal/site/safercar/
menuitem.13dd5c887c7e1358fefe0a2f35a67789/
?vgnextoid=eac9aa8c16e35110VgnVCM1000002fd17898RCRD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2008, NHTSA revised the Tire Safety: Everything Rides On It
brochure, published in 2001. This brochure was published as a consumer
information tool to inform vehicle owners of tire pressure, load
limits, and maintenance. It is also a guidebook that helps consumers
make informed decisions on tire repair and maintenance procedures.\159\
The agency has partnered with industry and retail partners to
distribute the brochure. Additionally in 2008, NHTSA urged drivers to
check their tires during hot weather via a public service announcement
(PSA). The PSA was featured on NHTSA.gov and Safercar.gov, warning of
potential tire failure associated with under-inflation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ See http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/tiresafety/
ridesonit/tires_index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Potential Future Consumer Education Efforts

1. What Information Should NHTSA Convey?
    In addition to the information dissemination requirements for tire
manufacturers and tire retailers discussed above in section VII of this
notice, NHTSA intends to actively communicate the importance of tire
maintenance generally, including tire inflation pressure, alignment,
rotation, and other tire issues.
    All tires require proper inflation and maintenance to achieve their
intended levels of efficiency, safety, wear, and operating
performance.\160\ NHTSA has previously addressed the importance of
proper tire inflation to safety and fuel economy through PSAs.
Additionally, in 2005, NHTSA published a final rule mandating tire
pressure monitoring systems (TPMS) for all new automobiles by the 2008
model year.\161\ TPMS, however, is no substitution for proper tire
maintenance. Despite the fact that all new vehicles are equipped with a
TPMS, NHTSA believes that proper tire maintenance is still the most
important information to convey to consumers. Smaller reductions in
inflation pressure than measured by the TPMS can affect not only fuel
efficiency, but also tire lifespan and vehicle handling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ 2006 NAS Report, supra note 4, at 5.
    \161\ See 70 FR 18136 (April 8, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While past consumer information efforts have been effective in
communicating the importance of tire safety and maintenance, the agency

plans to improve on these efforts by using innovative methods of
dissemination for a new national tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program. According to the agency's recent research,
consumers reacted positively to receiving this information in the
following ways: Point of sale, interactive mediums, and via the
Internet.
2. Point of Sale
    While NHTSA is partially addressing the presentation of consumer
education information through the requirements for manufacturers and
tire retailers proposed in today's notice, tire fuel efficiency rating
information may additionally be displayed at kiosks, on overhead
posters, tire plaques, or in advertisements at the point of purchase
(everywhere tires are sold--tire retailers, dealers, online,
manufacturer Web sites). These displays would highlight key information
to be aware of and useful tips to note when shopping to buy replacement
tires. NHTSA plans to develop informative posters and brochures that it
will make available on its Web site for tire manufacturers and tire
retailers to download and make available to educate consumers.
    Moreover, as noted above, the agency plans to provide specific size
and design requirements for a paper label with fuel efficiency, safety,
and durability ratings to accompany each tire. A template would be
supplied to tire manufacturers for their inclusion of these ratings on
the label. A similar agency program, Stars On Cars, requires
manufacturers to post vehicle crash test rating information on a
vehicle's window sticker.
3. Interactive Mediums
    NHTSA's consumer research shows that a calculator that would show
the amount of fuel and money a driver would save by buying a higher
rated fuel efficiency tire annually, or over the estimated lifetime of
the tire, appeals to consumers. This calculator might be available
online, at a dealership, or a tire retailer. Using the calculator, a
consumer could select tires to compare, enter the fuel economy of their
vehicle (mpg) and the average number of miles they drive each year and
even the dollar amount they are paying for fuel and get a calculation
of differences in fuel usage and/or money saved for the tires under
comparison. In the example shown in Figure 14, gallons saved is
calculated assuming Tire A provides the input gas consumption and Tire
B provides the average gas savings per pound force found in the NHTSA
study (~0.085% per pound).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JN09.013

4. Web Site Development
    The agency's Safercar.gov consumer Web site currently provides
information on tire safety. Due to the amount of content available on
tires, NHTSA plans to consolidate all tire information into a dedicated
one-stop micro-site focusing on tires. The core message of the site
would be tire maintenance--information on its importance in terms of
safety, fuel efficiency, tire life and vehicle handling as well as tips
on how best to maintain tires. The site would then make it easier for a
consumer to locate various information regarding tires.
    The new site would also be the location for all of NHTSA's
information about tire fuel efficiency. From its new comprehensive tire
Web site, NHTSA also plans to link to other government Web sites that
discuss energy efficiency and consumer products and appliances, so that
upon visiting the government's comprehensive tire Web site, consumers
have the opportunity to learn about fuel efficient vehicles, energy
saving practices, and the energy efficiency of other consumer products,
as well as fuel efficient tires. These may include, but are not limited
to, EPA's Green Vehicle Guide, http://fueleconomy.gov, and the
government's Energy Star Web site.
    NHTSA plans to develop a link to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
about the tire fuel efficiency rating system. Similar to the UTQGS tire
lookup tool on Safercar.gov, NHTSA plans to develop a Web-based tire
fuel efficiency search database, which would be a useful tool for
consumers to compare tires prior to visiting a retailer.
    The database would also be a site for retailers to obtain
information to assist their customers. A dealer could satisfy the
proposed requirements to have ratings information available when
presenting comparative tire information by providing a computer kiosk
linked to NHTSA's Web site for customers to use while in their store.
5. Paper Brochure Materials
    NHTSA intends to publish a brochure to inform consumers about the
tire fuel efficiency ratings program, where to obtain the ratings, as
well as other related information. NHTSA would make this brochure
available on its Web site for tire retailers who wish to print it and
use it in their stores. The agency will also explore other avenues of
distribution to inform future tire purchasers of the availability of
this new information. Promoting awareness of this tire information will
allow

consumers to spend time carrying out research prior to visiting a tire
retailer.
6. Partnership Development
    NHTSA will work with existing partners and identify new ones to
help promote tire fuel efficiency campaign messages. NHTSA will seek to
partner with any interested tire retailers, State or local governments,
as well as manufacturers who share NHTSA's goal of promoting the
importance of proper tire maintenance. NHTSA will also seek to partner
with any interested universities or high schools who may wish to
educate students regarding tire fuel efficiency or proper tire
maintenance. Many high school and college students have used vehicles
with replacement tires and, thus, they are definitely a target audience
for consumer education regarding proper tire maintenance.
    These partners will help to distribute those messages to a broader
audience than the agency can do alone. These third-party relationships
also build credibility and awareness among the media, which in turn
helps expand reach. The agency will develop a toolkit that partners can
use when packaging materials for consumer education efforts.
    Further, EPA's SmartWay program has experience in transportation
marketing and forming partnership programs.\162\ EPA has experience
with general public outreach and has reached out to NHTSA seeking to
integrate NHTSA's tire fuel efficiency consumer information program
with EPA's similar efforts in its SmartWay Transport program. NHTSA and
EPA believe that a more integrated outreach effort from the Federal
government will best assist consumers in educating themselves about
tire maintenance and fuel efficiency, and thus in making more informed
purchasing decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ See http://www.epa.gov/smartway/index.htm (last accessed
June 4, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Exhibits and Conferencing
    NHTSA currently exhibits at a number of auto-related shows and
conferences throughout the year. These shows provide an opportunity to
distribute campaign materials and interface with consumers interested
in vehicle safety information. NHTSA also gives consumers a walkthrough
of agency Web sites to demonstrate how to find information. NHTSA will
use these conference environments to promote the tire fuel efficiency
consumer education program.
    The agency also plans on looking into distributing educational
flyers promoting NHTSA's tire education Web site to highly congested
events where large amounts of people drive their vehicles to attend,
such as professional sporting events.
8. Local Education Programs
    NHTSA proposes to establish a line of communication with its
regional and local offices and develop a plan that reaches out to the
local universities and high schools in the States to deliver
presentations made available by NHTSA officials. NHTSA plans to
distribute educational material such as brochures and FAQs to each
student body. The reason NHTSA wishes to reach out to university and
high school students, is because the agency believes that this target
audience highly uses replacement tires.

IX. Costs and Benefits

    A. Costs \163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ All costs discussed below are presented in 2008 economics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are three sets of costs involved for manufacturer: Costs to
test tires to obtain rating information, costs of the consumer
information and, assuming the program drives the market to demand
different tires, costs to improve tires. Costs for the first two
categories are estimated to be around $10.5 million annually, with one-
time costs of around $4 million.
    As discussed more thoroughly below under benefits, the costs for
the third category are difficult to estimate. There are many different
ways that a manufacturer might choose to improve the rolling resistance
rating of their tires. The agency estimates that the increased cost at
the consumer level of such improvements is $2.00 to $4.00 per tire for
tires subject to this regulation if all other tire properties were held
constant.\164\ However, total costs for this category are dependent on
market demand for different tires as a result of this program. The PRIA
estimates that between 2 and 10 percent of the targeted tire population
will be improved as a result of the proposal. Under this assumption and
using a cost of $3 to improve the rolling resistance of one tire, the
costs to improve tires are estimated to be between $8.4 and $42
million. The agency requests comments on this cost estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ This is the cost to reduce rolling resistance by 10
percent from today's average replacement tire rolling resistance,
holding other tire properties constant. Using silica is a well known
method. There are a variety of ways to improve rolling resistance
and not hold other properties constant, with different cost
implications. That is one reason that the agency feels it is
important to have rolling resistance, traction, and treadwear on the
same label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on a report from Smithers Scientific Services, Inc. presented
at the February 5, 2009 Staff Workshop for the California Energy
Commission's Fuel Efficient Tire Program, there are 20,708 tires that
would need to be tested initially to provide information. If each one
of these were tested once for tire rolling resistance, the initial
costs to the industry would be $3,727,000. Based upon the average
number of reports the agency receives under the UTQGS program, the
agency estimates that 125 new/redesigned tires will need to be tested
annually, for ongoing testing costs of $22,500. Since the UTQGS already
requires testing for treadwear and traction, those costs are already in
the baseline and are not incremental costs of this proposal.
    Information program costs include manufacturer costs to report
information to NHTSA and to label tires. Tire manufacturers are
required to provide information to NHTSA on the rating system. We are
proposing to require manufacturers to report to NHTSA for each tire
that is individually rated under this tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program data on each of the three ratings: fuel efficiency,
traction, and treadwear. In the early warning system (EWR) there are 28
tire manufacturers that report. Each manufacturer will need to set up
the software in a computer program to combine the testing information,
organize it for NHTSA's use, etc. We estimate this cost to be a one-
time charge of about $10,000 per company. In the EWR analysis, we
estimated the annual cost per report per tire manufacturer to be $287.
There are also computer maintenance costs of keeping the data up to
date, etc. as tests come in throughout the year. In the EWR
analysis,\165\ we estimated costs of $3,755 per year per company. Thus,
the total annual cost is estimated to be $4,042 per company, and
$280,000 + $113,176 = $393,176 for the first year and $113,176 as an
annual cost for all 28 tire manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation, Tread Act Amendments to
Early Warning Reporting Regulation Part 579 and Defect and
Noncompliance Part 573, August 2008, (Docket No. 2008-0169-0007.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal also requires a color label to be added to the current
label that is glued onto a tire. The label will have the three scales
in color and other information. We estimate the incremental cost of
adding the color label to the existing label to be $0.05 per tire. We
assume it will not change the way the label is attached to the tire, so

will not result in additional labor at the tire manufacturer plant.
    There are roughly 200 million replacement tires sold per year.\166\
We estimate that 5 percent (10 million) of the replacement tires are LT
tires, and therefore not covered by this proposal, and 4.5 percent (9
million) of the replacement tires are snow tires or other types of
tires that are exempt from the consumer information program. Thus, the
cost to provide consumer information on a label is estimated to be
$9.05 million ($0.05*181 million).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ According to Modern Tire Dealer in 2008, there were 198
million replacement tires sold. http://www.moderntiredealer.com/
FAQ/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For tire retailers, the agency estimates that this proposal would
have no cost. The only proposed requirements for retailers are to leave
the label on the tire until it is sold and to display a poster. Since
manufacturers will supply the label, and NHTSA will supply the poster,
there should be no cost to retailers.
    There are three sets of costs to the government: Enforcement costs,
costs for maintaining the Web site, and costs to provide the poster to
retailers. NHTSA anticipates spending $730,000 annually to do
compliance testing for this program. Based on costs for the existing
areas of the NHTSA Web site, NHTSA estimates that it will cost
approximately $550,000 per year to set up and update the part of the
Web site to include information on 20,000 tires. For the poster, NHTSA
currently provides a booklet to tire dealers with the UTQGS
information. That booklet is on 8.5 x 11 paper
and is 141 pages long. The printing costs are $3,190 per year. NHTSA
anticipates that providing the posters would be a similar expense.
Therefore, the combined costs to the government are estimated to be
$1.28 million.

B. Benefits

    There are three categories of potential benefits (or disbenefits)
from this rule: Fuel economy, safety and durability. For each of these
categories a significant unknown is likely consumer behavior in
response to this program, and as a result of that, likely manufacturer
reaction. For example, if consumers value fuel efficiency but are
unwilling to increase the price they pay for tires, tires with improved
fuel efficiency but decreased safety and/or durability may enter the
market. If consumers care most about safety, and if there is a tradeoff
between fuel economy and safety, one effect of this rule may be to
increase safety while decreasing fuel economy. NHTSA would have to
quantify the value of all three categories of benefits/disbenefits
under such a scenario and construct a range of likely scenarios to
calculate the combined potential benefits of this rule. Other scenarios
can also be imagined. NHTSA requests comments on how it might more
narrowly analyze the uncertainty regarding the anticipated outcomes of
this proposal.
    In addition to the unknown reactions of consumers and
manufacturers, calculating benefits is complicated by several
additional factors. We explain these additional complications for each
of the three rating systems in the remainder of this section. In each
of these discussions we consider how to compute the benefit of a
difference of X points on the particular rating scale.
    For fuel economy, one of the reasons the agency is basing the fuel
efficiency rating on RRF rather than RRC is that it allows the program
to readily provide consumers with a statement such as ``a difference of
X on the fuel efficiency rating scale equates to Y gallons of fuel
saved.'' To calculate benefits for an individual tire purchase, if the
driver knows the baseline fuel economy of the vehicle the tires will be
mounted on, the fuel efficiency rating of the existing tires, the fuel
efficiency rating of the replacement tires, and the number of miles
driven annually, the driver can calculate the reduction (or increase)
in the number of gallons of fuel the driver will need to operate the
vehicle for a year. By using fuel price forecasts, you can estimate the
cost of that fuel, and make an economic decision about whether or not
to buy those replacement tires.
    To calculate fuel savings benefits for this rule, we would need to
know how many consumers are likely to purchase lower (or higher) fuel
efficiency rated tires as a result of the information in this program
and the average reduction (or increase) in rolling resistance of the
tires they purchase. The agency is planning to do additional consumer
testing or other means to help it estimate the expected consumer
reaction to this program. The PRIA develops hypothetical estimates
assuming that between 2% and 10% of targeted tires are improved and
that the average reduction in rolling resistance among improved tires
is between 5% and 10%. Under these assumptions, the proposal is
estimated to save between 7.9 and 78 million gallons of fuel and
prevent the emission of 76,000-757,000 metric tons of CO2
annually. The values of the fuel savings are between $22 million and
$220 million at a 3 percent discount rate and between $20 million and
$203 million at a 7 percent discount rate. The agency requests any
information commenters may have about how to estimate consumer reaction
and fuel savings.
    Benefit estimates for the safety rating are more difficult to
quantify. As noted, information is lacking about likely consumer
responses to the proposed label. Even if such information were
available, it is not as straight forward as it is for a fuel efficiency
rating to develop a rule of thumb for the safety rating scale such as
``each difference of X on the safety rating scale equates to Y percent
fewer crashes and Z dollars less in resultant economic damages.'' One
possible way to do this would be to try and correlate a rating with a
set stopping distance, and then estimate the reduction in crash
injuries and fatalities resulting from a given reduction in stopping
distance. The latter could be done by developing an injury probability
profile for crashes as a function of impact speed (Delta-V) and measure
the change in Delta-V that would occur when braking distance is
changed. The agency has used this method to measure safety impacts in 2
previous rulemakings, those for Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems
(TPMSs),\167\ and for truck trailer braking improvements.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ Final Economic Assessment, Tire Pressure Monitoring System
FMVSS No. 138, Office of Regulatory Analysis and Evaluation, Plans
and Policy, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. (March, 2002), Docket
No. NHTSA-2002-8572-0216.
    \168\ Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake
Systems Amending Stopping Distance, Office of Regulatory Analysis
and Evaluation, National Center for Statistics and Analysis (Not Yet
Published).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, these calculations are complicated by the fact that they
depend on other factors (in addition to the traction rating of the
tires) such as the handling characteristics of the vehicle on which
they are mounted, the force with which the brakes are applied, and the
loading of the vehicle. To put a tire's safety rating information on an
economic scale, all of these characteristics would have to be assumed
for all tires. But in reality, there is not a single vehicle that all
replacement tires can be mounted on. We invite comments on these
important issues, but we are concerned that the difference between two
such tire safety ratings would not reflect the same economic difference
in terms of safety, where the tires were mounted on two different types
of vehicles. What we can communicate with the proposed rating is that
tires with better traction ratings stop in less distance than tires
with worse ratings. And as noted, the societal safety impacts depend on
consumer and

manufacturer reactions to the program. We seek comments on all of these
questions.
    For durability, the rating is a relative rating compared to a
control tire, which would be rated 10 on our scale. A tire rated 20
should last twice as long as a tire rated a 10 and so forth. Several
assumptions would need to be made to develop a rule of thumb for the
durability rating scale of the form ``each difference of X on the
durability rating scale equates to equates to a reduction of $Y in tire
purchases over the lifetime of the vehicle.'' Tire lifetimes are
complicated by factors such as: The vehicle the tire is mounted on,
driving habits, tire maintenance, weather/environment/temperature, etc.
NHTSA could however come up with a set scenario and come up with
mileage estimates if the tires are driven as in that scenario. Drivers
could translate that into a reduction in tire purchase costs over the
lifetime of a vehicle given the price of the tires being considered--a
$50 tire that is expected to last 10,000 miles would have the same
expected lifetime cost (over the life of a vehicle) as a $100 tire that
is expected to last 20,000 miles.

X. Lead time

    While manufacturers currently calculate the rolling resistance of
at least some tires for vehicle manufacturers to use when selecting
which tires to equip new vehicles with, NHTSA believes that lead time
is necessary for tire manufacturers to conduct additional testing and
to prepare rating information for all affected tires. In addition, time
will be necessary for NHTSA to collect all reported rating information
into a database and to prepare consumer information materials.
    On February 5, 2009, at a CEC staff workshop on their Fuel
Efficient Tire Program, Smithers Scientific Services, Inc. (Smithers)
presented the results of research done for the CEC to evaluate test
facility capacity to conduct rolling resistance testing. Smithers based
their analysis on current availability at independent laboratories, and
also an estimate of test machine availability at manufacturer-owned
laboratories. Depending on the scenario evaluated, they estimated that
testing all affected tires would take 0.7 to 8.2 years.
    NHTSA notes that Smithers' evaluation included some factors that
are different from today's proposed Federal program. First, Smithers
assumed that three tests would be required for each tire, while the
program we are proposing today would only require a single test.
Second, the proposal was based on estimates of both passenger car and
light truck tires, while today's proposal only applies to passenger car
tires.\169\ Adjusting for these two factors, the Smithers data would
suggest that manufacturers need 0.2 to 2.4 years to test one
replacement passenger car tire of each different size specification, as
proposed in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ Smithers estimated that there were 62,124 passenger car
tires and 9,888 light truck tires that would need to be tested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA believes this number may still be an over-estimate of the
time needed to test and rate all tires affected by this proposed
program. Based on our research, NHTSA estimates it may be possible that
less than 25 percent of the affected tires will have to be tested in
accordance with the ISO 28580 procedures in order to rate them for this
program. It is likely that manufacturers will be able to develop
equations to calculate the effect of differences in tread pattern,
etc., and use those equations to compute the test results from ISO
28580 from other tires that have been tested. Tire manufacturers will
be able to extrapolate estimates of the test procedure values from
knowing the test procedure values of similar sized tires. In addition,
manufacturers already have rolling resistance information on many, if
not all tires, as this information is used by vehicle manufacturers
when choosing which tires to install as original equipment. Even if
these data were gathered using other test methods, NHTSA's research
shows that equations can translate the data to the test procedure
specified in this rule. Recognizing that the deadlines imposed by
Congress in EISA indicate a desire to have information available to
consumers as quickly as possible, NHTSA is therefore proposing to
require manufacturers to report on all existing tires within 12 months
of the issuance of a final regulation.
    For new tires introduced after the effective date of this rule,
NHTSA is proposing to require reporting of information at least 30 days
prior to introducing the tire for sale, as is required for UTQGS
information.
    Regarding the poster NHTSA is proposing to require in retailers
that have a display room, the agency is proposing to make this poster
available within 12 months of the issuance of a final regulation. At
that time NHTSA will publish a Federal Register notice announcing the
availability of the poster. The agency is proposing that a tire
retailer must have the poster on display within 60 days of the issuance
of the notice of availability in the Federal Register. We are proposing
that a tire retailer will be able to comply with the requirement of
displaying the poster either by downloading and printing it, in color
and with the specifications from NHTSA's Web site, or by contacting the
agency and requesting that we send the retailer a copy of the poster.
    For tire retailers and tire manufacturers with an Internet
presence, NHTSA is proposing that those Web sites link to NHTSA's tire
Web site within 12 months of the issuance of a final regulation. NHTSA
will provide the direct link to the comprehensive tire Web site in that
final regulation.

XI. Compliance Tolerances

    The test procedure proposed in this notice is the one NHTSA will
use for compliance testing. Today's notice also proposes tolerances for
RRF, traction, and treadwear which indicate what NHTSA is proposing to
consider a noncompliance for the reporting and rating requirements if
there is a difference between NHTSA's test result and a reported
rating. In establishing tolerances, at this state of the rulemaking
process, the agency has considered the repeatability of a tire tested
as well as the variability of machine-to-machine tests, lab-to-lab
tests, and the potential for different results due to different
manufacturing dates.
    For UTQGS, NHTSA specifies a test procedure for each rating. For
traction and temperature resistance, the regulation then sets a
performance level at which the tire must be rated a C, and higher
levels at which the manufacturer may rate it a B, A, or in the case of
Traction AA. The regulation was written this way as an acknowledgement
of some level of necessary variability in the manufacture of tires. For
tires that perform near a performance level that would allow a higher
traction grade, the regulation allows the manufacturer to ``underrate''
to allow for the possibility that NHTSA might select a tire for
compliance testing that would perform at the lower level.
    For a consumer that purchases, for example, a B-rated tire and
receives a tire that actually performs better than expected, there is
no concern. However, there is some concern that a consumer may choose
to pay extra for a B-rated tire when a comparable tire is
``underrated'' as a ``C.'' Thus, for the UTQGS definition of
compliance, there is a risk that ratings information communicated will
not be accurate.
    Section 111 of EISA added a new sub-provision to 49 U.S.C. 32308
(General prohibitions, civil penalty, and enforcement) which provides
for civil

penalties of not more than $50,000 for each violation of the tire fuel
efficiency provisions. 49 U.S.C. 32308(c). Given this, in deciding how
to define what would be considered a noncompliance for the tire fuel
efficiency program, NHTSA tentatively has the concern that the program
not result in a situation where NHTSA would be taking enforcement
action against a manufacturer for the safety and durability ratings
under this program, when enforcement action would not be warranted for
UTQGS ratings based on the same test procedures. For this reason, NHTSA
is proposing to require the ratings reported by a manufacturer under
this proposed rule must be less than or equal to the rating determined
by the agency using the procedures specified in this rule.
    However, as discussed previously, NHTSA's research allows the
agency to quantify the range of most of the variability that can be
expected when determining the RRF value for a tire. Similarly, based on
NHTSA experience conducting the traction and treadwear tests for the
UTQGS program, NHTSA believes it can determine the range of variation
for the safety and durability ratings proposed in this rule. NHTSA is
requesting comments on a requirement which would require the ratings
reported by a manufacturer to be within a specified tolerance limit as
explained below for each rating. Because of the concern with the
accuracy of the information being reported in this program, NHTSA is
also seeking comment on whether to consider a non-compliance to exist
when NHTSA's test value results in rating that is outside the tolerance
band, but is higher than the rating reported by tire manufacturer.

A. Fuel Efficiency

    For the fuel efficiency rating, the agency is proposing a tolerance
for compliance purposes of plus and minus ()5.5 percent of
the rating set by the manufacturer. The agency bases this tolerance on
an analysis of in-house test data to date, while considering the
machine variability specification under ISO 28580, which is 0.05
Newtons per kiloNewton (N/kN) for RRC.
    The agency selected a percentage tolerance because test data
revealed that the variability of testing a tire increases as the load
rating of the tire increases; this was found on multiple tests of the
same tires. It was found that the variability for a passenger car tire
with a mid-range load index had variability around the mean of 0.66 pounds-force (lbf) which translated to 95 percent of the
data being within 5.5 percent of the mean. A similar
analysis revealed that the same 5.5 percent was an
effective tolerance for the tires of lower and of higher load ranges,
as well. So, a small tire tested repeated times would reveal small RRF
variations, but within 5.5 percent of the mean, and a large
load range tire revealed larger RRF variations, but also within 5.5 percent range of its respective mean.
    So for compliance purposes, the agency is proposing that the RRF
rating established by the manufacturer must be between 5.5
percent of the RRF revealed from agency testing. The agency
acknowledges that any RRF will be obtained from a tire that is
different from the tire or tires that the manufacturer used to
establish the reported RRF. In these cases, there will be new
variability introduced into the compliance testing of a production tire
from such factors as from machine-to-machine tests, lab-to-lab tests,
different manufacturing dates, different batches of material, and
possibly at different manufacturing plants. The agency does not have
sufficient data to comprehensively establish tolerances considering
these factors, so the agency solicits comments and proposals for a
tolerance that considers these factors, and requests that wherever
possible, supporting data is provided. The manufacturer will be
required to submit to the agency the RRF and the rating for each tire.

B. Safety

    The calculation of the safety (i.e., traction) rating is discussed
in detail in section VI.B.1 of this notice. For compliance purposes,
the agency is proposing that the adjusted peak coefficient of friction
for asphalt ([micro]APA) and the adjusted peak coefficient
of friction for concrete ([micro]APC) must individually be
between 0.06 of the respective peak coefficients of
friction revealed from agency testing. These proposed tolerances are
based on agency test data wherein peak coefficients of friction for
asphalt and concrete were recorded, and the average and standard
deviation calculated for each.\170\ The standard deviation was doubled
and assigned a plus/minus tolerance to capture 95 percent of the data
for the tested tires for each surface; the tolerance for the concrete
was 0.06, and the tolerance for the asphalt was also 0.06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA
Tire Rolling Resistance Rating System Test Development Project:
Phase 2--Effects of Tire Rolling Resistance Levels on Traction,
Treadwear, and Vehicle Fuel Economy (February 2009). This Phase 2
research report will be placed in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency acknowledges that any adjusted peak coefficient of
friction result will be obtained from a tire that is different from the
tire or tires that the manufacturer used to establish the reported
adjusted peak coefficient of friction. In these cases, there will be
new variability introduced into the compliance testing of a production
tire from such factors as from machine-to-machine tests, lab-to-lab
tests, different manufacturing dates, different batches of material,
and possibly at different manufacturing plants. The agency does not
have sufficient data to comprehensively establish tolerances
considering these factors, so the agency solicits comments and
proposals for a tolerance that considers these factors, and requests
that wherever possible, supporting data is provided.
    The agency also considered another approach to the safety (i.e.,
traction) rating calculation, and the agency solicits comment on this
approach, as well. This approach would require the manufacturer to
report to the values for both the peak and sliding (or locked-wheel)
coefficients of friction for both concrete and asphalt for each
separately rated tire. For each testing surface, the manufacturer will
report the coefficient acquired on that surface and a rating that is
calculated by dividing the average peak coefficient from the test tire
by the average peak coefficients from the control tires, times 100. The
data would be weighted based on the sequence of the test (candidate)
tires (T) and control (standard) tires (C). For example if the test
order was C1-T1-T2-C2, then the value used in obtaining the rating for
the first test tire would be T1/(\2/3\ C1 + \1/3\C2) and for the other
test tire T2/(\1/3\ C1 + \2/3\C2), each multiplied by 100. This gives a
value based on the relationship of the test tire and the control tires
that ran with it. This rating (one for asphalt and one for concrete)
would be added together and normalized on a 1 to 100 scale for the
final safety rating.

C. Durability

    As explained above in section VI.B.1, NHTSA is proposing
calculating a durability (i.e., treadwear) rating by taking the UTQGS
treadwear rating (as specified in 49 CFR 575.104), and dividing by 10.
For compliance testing, the agency is proposing a tolerance on the
UTQGS wear rate of the tire of 2.5 mils per 1,000 miles as
defined in 49 CFR 575.104(e).
    The agency proposes this compliance tolerance based on the wear
rates measured on the ASTM E1136 Course Monitoring Tire (CMT) from
testing as specified in 49 CFR 575.104(e). When

analyzed, the data revealed the standard deviation to be 0.84 mils per
1,000 miles, and normally, the agency would consider 2
standard deviations (1.6 mils per 1,000 miles) to be a suitable
tolerance, which would capture 95 percent of the data around the
average wear rate. However, the CMT is a limited production tire made
to tightened specifications, and the agency believes that this
justifies an expansion of the tolerance to 3 standard
deviations (2.5 mils per 1,000 miles) which will capture 99 percent of
the data around the average wear rate. For compliance purposes, the
wear rate established by the manufacturer must be between 2.5 mils per 1,000 miles of the wear rate revealed from agency
testing.
    The agency acknowledges that any wear rate result will be obtained
from a tire that is different from the tire or tires that the
manufacturer used to establish the reported wear rate. In these cases,
there will be new variability introduced into the compliance testing of
a production tire from such factors as from machine-to-machine tests,
lab-to-lab tests, different manufacturing dates, different batches of
material, and possibly at different manufacturing plants. The agency
does not have sufficient data to comprehensively establish tolerances
considering these factors, so the agency solicits comments and
proposals for a tolerance that considers these factors, and requests
that wherever possible, supporting data is provided. The manufacturer
will be required to submit to the agency the wear rate from testing and
the durability rating it assigned for each tire.

XII. Regulatory Alternatives

    Throughout sections specific to various portions of the tire fuel
efficiency consumer information program for replacement tires, NHTSA
has discussed other options considered by the agency.

XIII. Public Participation

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be
more than 15 pages long.\171\ We established this limit to encourage
you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you
may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no
limit on the length of the attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ See 49 CFR 553.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please submit your comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on
the electronic docket site by clicking on ``Help'' or ``FAQ.''
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe)
file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using Optical
Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search
and copy certain portions of your submissions.\172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of
converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or
electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's
guidelines may be accessed at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/
DataQualityGuidelines.pdf.

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

    If you submit your comments by mail and wish Docket Management to
notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed,
stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon
receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by
mail.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. When you send a comment
containing information claimed to be confidential business information,
you should include a cover letter setting forth the information
specified in our confidential business information regulation.\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ See 49 CFR part 512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted
the claimed confidential business information, to the Docket by one of
the methods set forth above.

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    We will consider all comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent
possible, we will also consider comments received after that date.
Therefore, if interested persons believe that any new information the
agency places in the docket affects their comments, they may submit
comments after the closing date concerning how the agency should
consider that information for the final rule.
    If a comment is received too late for us to consider in developing
a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that
comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

    You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document
(e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other
interested persons) at any time by going to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also
read the materials at the Docket Management Facility by going to the
street address given above under ADDRESSES. The Docket Management