Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government

• Home
• Departments
• Agencies
• Dates

Top Searches

Popular Sites

Common CFR Searches

Federal Register: November 18, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 222)

DOCID: FR Doc 02-28682

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

United States Institute of Peace

CFR Citation: 49 CFR Parts 567, 571, 574, 575, and 597

Docket ID: [Docket No. NHTSA-02-13678]

RIN ID: RIN 2127-AI32

NOTICE: Part II

DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule.

SUBJECT CATEGORY:

Tire Safety Information

DATES: This final rule is effective September 1, 2003. Voluntary compliance is permitted before that time. If you wish to submit a petition for reconsideration of this rule, your petition must be received by January 2, 2003.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY:

In response to the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act of 2000, this document establishes a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard to improve the information readily available to consumers about tires. The new information will assist consumers in identifying tires that may be the subject of a safety recall. It will also increase public awareness of the importance and methods of observing motor vehicle tire load limits and maintaining proper tire inflation levels for the safe operation of a motor vehicle. This rule applies to all new and retreaded tires for use on vehicles manufactured after 1975 with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less and to all new vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less, except for motorcycles and low speed vehicles.

SUMMARY:

Transportation Department, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary

A. Highlights of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

B. Highlights of the Final Rule

II. Background

A. The Transportation Recall Enhancement Accountability and Documentation Act

B. Safety Problem

1. Difficulty Locating the Tire Identification Number (TIN)

2. Misunderstanding and Dangers Associated With Inflation Pressure

C. Existing Labeling Requirements

1. Tire Sidewall Labeling

2. Tire Identification Number (TIN)

3. Vehicle Labeling
III. December 2000 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) IV. December 2001 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
V. Summary of Public Comments on NPRM

A. Tire Sidewall Labeling

1. Maximum Permissible Inflation Pressure

2. Maximum Load Rating

3. Cord Material and Number of Plies

4. Speed Rating and Load Index (Service Description)

5. Placement of TIN

6. Reordering of TIN

7. Height of TIN

B. Vehicle Placard and Label

1. Content

2. Format

3. Location

4. Color

5. Multistage Manufacturer

C. Owner's Manual

D. Applicability of FMVSS No. 110 and 120

E. Costs

1. Placard and Label

2. Tires

F. Effective Dates

G. Defining ``reasonable amount of luggage''

H. Foreign/International Standards

I. Prohibition on nonrequired information
VI. Summary of postcomment period Firestone plant visits by NHTSA Officials, Agency Decision
VII. Regarding Final Rule

A. Summary of Final Rule and Rationale

B. Summary of Key Differences between NPRM and Final Rule

C. Labeling Requirements

1. Tire Sidewall Labeling

a. Maximum Permissible Inflation Pressure

b. Maximum Load Rating

c. Cord Material and Number of Plies

d. Placement of TIN

e. Reordering of TIN

f. Height of TIN

g. Other

2. Vehicle Placard and Label

a. Revision and Upgrade of Placard and Optional Label

b. Location and Size

c. Multistage Manufacturer Issues

3. Owner's Manual

D. Vehicle Applicability and Effective Date

E. Other Issues and Concerns

1. Permission to Change Labeling

2. Modification to FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120

3. Certification Label

4. Analysis of Responses to Agency Questions in NPRM VIII. Benefits
IX. Costs
X. Effective Date

XI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. National Environmental Policy Act

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

E. Unfunded Mandates Act

F. Civil Justice Reform

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

H. Plain Language
XII. Regulatory Text
I. Executive Summary

A. Highlights of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (66 FR 65536, Docket No. NHTSA0111157) published on December 19, 2001, the agency proposed to establish a new standard that would revise the agency's existing tire labeling requirements, as well as its current regulations to improve tire information for light vehicles (vehicles other than motorcycles and low speed vehicles (LSVs) with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less) and light vehicle tires and its availability and understandability to consumers. The proposal was substantially based on NHTSA's activities undertaken in response to the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act of 2000, including publication of an ANPRM, consideration of comments in response to the ANPRM, data gathering and analysis, and NHTSA sponsored focus groups. The highlights of the proposal were as follows:
(1) Tire Markingsthe TIN, size designation, maximum permissible inflation pressure, and maximum load rating would have been placed on both sides of light vehicle tires;
(2) Tire Identification Number (TIN)(a) information in the TIN would have been reordered so that the first six characters would have contained the information required for determining whether a particular tire is subject to a recall and, (b) each TIN character would have been at least 6 mm (\1/4\'') high;
(3) Vehicle Placard Content and Format(a) the tire inflation pressure information would have been visually separated by a red colored border on the vehicle placard or, alternatively, would have been placed on a separate tire
[[Page 69601]]
inflation pressure label, (b) the tire inflation pressure information on the placards would have been in color (red, yellow, and black on a white background), (c) a black and white tire symbol icon (13 millimeters (.51 inches) wide and 14 millimeters (.55 inches) high) would have been in the upper left corner of the placard and label, (d) the placard and label would have both included the phrases ``Tire Information'' and ``See Owner's Manual For Additional Information'' in yellow text on a black background, (e) the statement of ``vehicle capacity weight'' on the vehicle placard would have been replaced with the following sentence: ``[t]he combined weight of occupants and cargo should never exceed XXX pounds,'' and, (f) the vehicle's recommended tire size designation would have been replaced with the tire size designation for the tire installed as original equipment on the vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer;
(4) Placard Locationthe placard or placard and label containing tire inflation pressure by tire size and other required information specified in S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110 would have been located on the driver's side Bpillar. If a vehicle did not have a Bpillar, then the placard or placard and label would have been placed on the edge of the driver's door; and
(5) Owner's Manual Informationowner's manuals for light vehicles would have discussed the following five subject areas: (a) Tire labeling, (b) recommended tire inflation pressure, (c) glossary of tire terminology, (d) tire care, and (e) vehicle load limits.

Also, the agency proposed revising FMVSS No. 110, Tire selection and rims, for passenger cars, 49 CFR 571.110, and FMVSS No. 120 Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, 49 CFR 571.120, to reflect the applicability of the proposed light vehicle tire standard to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, and revising FMVSS No. 117, Retreaded pneumatic tires, 49 CFR 571.117, and FMVSS No. 129, New nonpneumatic tires for passenger cars, 49 CFR 571.129, to replace the labeling requirements contained therein with those specified in the proposed new light vehicle tire standard.

The agency proposed compliance dates for tires according to the following schedule: all passenger car (``Pmetric'') tires manufactured on or after September 1, 2003, and all light truck (``LT'') tires manufactured on or after September 1, 2004, would have had to meet the new requirements. Additionally, all light vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2003, would have had to comply with the final rule. The agency proposed that leadtime to be consistent with the leadtime proposed for the tire performance upgrade. The aforementioned proposals are summarized more fully in section IV. of this document.

B. Highlights of the Final Rule

The final rule establishes a single standard for light vehicle tires, FMVSS No. 139, New Pneumatic Tires for Light Vehicles. It also contains provisions for labeling requirements that address the following aspects of tire and vehicle labeling: tire markings, the Tire Identification Number (TIN), vehicle placard content and format, placard location, and owner's manual information. The rule applies to all new and retreaded tires for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses and trailers with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less, manufactured after 1975, and to all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses and trailers with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less.\1\ The requirements are fully summarized in section VII.A of this document.
\1\ Therefore, this standard is applicable to LT tires up to load range E. This load range is typically used on large SUVs, vans, and trucks.

In response to the NPRM, NHTSA received comments from tire and vehicle manufacturers and associations, consumer advocacy groups, and the general public. After considering the public comments and other available information, the agency is modifying certain aspects of its proposal.

In particular, the agency is persuaded, for the reasons explained in section VII.C.1.d. of this document, that there are worker safety and costs issues associated with placement of the full TIN on both sidewalls of the tire. Additionally, there are technical difficulties associated with the reordering of the TIN. These amendments were proposed to aid consumers in determining whether their tires were subject to a recall. Instead, the agency is addressing the visibility of the TIN by requiring that the full TIN, as currently ordered, appear on the ``intended outboard sidewall,'' if there is one, and that either the full TIN or a partial TIN, i.e., a TIN from which the date code has been deleted, appear on the opposite side of the tire. ``Intended outboard sidewall'' is defined in FMVSS No. 139 as the sidewall that contains a whitewall, bears white lettering, or bears a manufacturer or model name molding which is higher or deeper than on the other sidewall of the tire. If a tire does not have an intended outboard sidewall, the tire must be labeled with the full TIN on one sidewall and with either the full TIN or a partial TIN on the other sidewall.

The major changes to the standard (or deviations from the proposal) are as follows:
(1) The agency is not reordering the contents of the TIN. (2) The agency is requiring the full TIN on the ``intended outboard sidewall'' of the tire and either the full TIN or a partial TIN, containing all aspects of the TIN except for the date code, on the opposite sidewall.
(3) The agency is eliminating size and format requirements for the vehicle placard and label, except for those specifying certain headings, use of the tire icon, and a limited use of color. (4) If the vehicle does not have a driver's sideBpillar and the driver's door edge is too narrow or does not exist, the agency is requiring that the placard or placard and label be affixed to the inward facing surface of the vehicle next to the driver's seating position.
(5) For tires, the agency is providing additional time for compliance with the new requirements as follows: 40% of all covered tires between September 1, 2004, and August 31, 2005, 70% of all covered tires between September 1, 2005, and August 31, 2006, and 100% of all covered tires beginning on September 1, 2006.

NHTSA has decided to adopt the effective date of September 1, 2003, for vehicle labeling. The effective date reflects NHTSA's desire for expedited action on this issue. In view of the urgent need to alert the public to tire and loading information and because the labeling revisions to light vehicles constitute format changes, not performance or vehicle design changes, NHTSA finds that an effective date of September 1, 2003, is reasonable and is in the public interest. The extension of the effective date for tires and the phasein reflect the reality that the tire manufacturers will need to rework, retool, and replace the tire molds currently utilized. NHTSA believes that this phasein will permit tire manufacturers to continue to use existing molds while they acquire new ones that reflect the new tire information requirements. Also, by only requiring that 40% of tires comply with the requirements during the first stage of the phasein, the agency is providing the industry and its mold shops with an achievable task of reworking molds that would not exceed their capacity for such work. By not requiring full
[[Page 69602]]
compliance until September 1, 2006, NHTSA is providing the tire industry with ample time to accomplish the task.

The agency estimates that onetime costs of up to $23.4 million will occur for the tire industry during the phasein period. These costs will add up to $0.08 per tire during this period. The recurring annual costs are believed to be very minor.

Retread tires are a small part of the market for light vehicles. Because the cost to change the mold to add a second TIN or partial TIN is spread over a smaller market, the cost increase per retread tires will be higher by an unknown amount.

The agency estimates that vehicle costs will increase about $0.15 per vehicle, based on $0.04 per label and $0.11 for adding about 8 pages of information to the owner's manual. With approximately 17 million light vehicles and light trailers being sold annually, the vehicle costs will be about $2.6 million per year on a recurring annual basis.

Thus, total overall costs will be up to $26 million initially, with $2.6 million estimated to occur on a recurring annual basis.

NHTSA believes that this rule will be effective in increasing public awareness of tire safety, particularly, the understanding and maintenance of proper tire inflation and load limits. This rule will also enable consumers to identify the TIN and other tire information more easily for recalls and other notifications. The rule will standardize the location and content of important information relating to proper inflation and load limits and other tire safety concerns. By increasing consumer knowledge and awareness, this rule will lead to reduced tire failures and tire related crashes, and therefore fewer deaths and injuries.
II. Background
A. The Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act

The Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act of 2000, Pub. L. 106414, requires the agency to address numerous matters through rulemaking. One of these matters, set forth in section 11 of the Act, is the improvement of the labeling of tires required by section 30123 of title 49, United States Code, to assist consumers in identifying tires that may be the subject of a recall. Section 11 provides that the agency must initiate a rulemaking proceeding for that purpose within 30 days after the enactment of the Act and must complete it not later than June 1, 2002.

Additionally, that section provides that the agency may take whatever additional action it deems appropriate to ensure that the public is aware of the importance of observing motor vehicle tire load limits and maintaining proper tire inflation levels for the safe operation of a motor vehicle. Section 11 states that such additional action may, for example, include a requirement that the manufacturer of motor vehicles provide the purchasers of the motor vehicles information on appropriate tire inflation levels and load limits if the agency determines that requiring such manufacturers to provide that information is the most appropriate way the information can be provided.
B. Safety Problem
1. Difficulty Locating the Tire Identification Number (TIN)

The Firestone tire recalls in 2000 highlighted the difficulty that consumers experience when attempting to determine whether a tire is subject to a recall if the tire is mounted so that the sidewall bearing the TIN and size designation faces inward, i.e., underneath the vehicle.

The side of a tire bearing the TIN is often mounted so that it faces inward. In the case of whitewall tires, this occurs because the TIN is almost always molded on the blackwall (i.e., inside sidewall) of the tire. Whitewall tires account for a small and declining percentage (currently about 5 percent or less) of original equipment tire sales in this country, but about 40 percent of replacement tires. There are about three times as many replacement tires as original equipment tires sold each year. Blackwall tires, which have the TIN on one sidewall, are as likely to be mounted with the number side facing in as out. Based on this information, we estimate that approximately 65 percent of all tires are mounted with their TINs not readily visible.

When tires are mounted so that the TINs appear on the inward facing sidewalls, motorists have three inconvenient options for finding and recording the TINs. They must either: (1) Slide under the vehicle with a flashlight, pencil and paper and search the inside sidewalls for the TINs; (2) remove each tire, find and record the TIN, and then replace the tire; or (3) enlist the aid of a garage or service station that can perform option 1 or place the vehicle on a vehicle lift so that the TINs can be found and recorded.

As a result of the difficulty and inconvenience of checking the TINs, the percentage of people who respond to a tire recall campaign is reduced and motorists unknowingly continue to drive their vehicles with potentially unsafe tires.
2. Misunderstanding and Dangers Associated With Inflation Pressure

As discussed in the NPRM, surveys indicate that consumers often do not realize that the recommended inflation pressure, which provides the cold tire inflation pressure for the maximum loaded vehicle weight based upon vehicle specification and operation as determined by the vehicle manufacturer, is labeled on the vehicle on a placard or the vehicle certification label by the vehicle manufacturer. Surveys also indicate that a significant number of vehicles are being operated with underinflated, overloaded and/or damaged tires and that the public needs to be reminded to inspect and properly maintain their tires.

The sidewalls of a tire used while significantly underinflated flex more and the air temperature inside it increases, making the tire more prone to failure. In addition, a significantly underinflated tire loses lateral traction, making handling and stopping more difficult. Underinflated tires can contribute to various types of crashes in addition to those resulting from blow outs or tire failure, including crashes which result from: An increase in stopping distance; skidding and/or a loss of control of the vehicle in a curve or in a lane change maneuver; or hydroplaning on a wet surface.

Additionally, underinflation contributes to tire overloading. Tire overloading describes a condition in which the vehicle is carrying more weight than the tire is rated to carry at a specified inflation pressure. For instance, for every 1pound per square inch (psi) reduction in inflation pressure, a vehicle's tires suffer a 1.6% reduction in vehicle capacity weight (passenger plus cargo capacity). Overloading can result in handling or steering problems, brake failure, and tire failure.

As discussed in the NPRM, several crash files contain information on ``general'' tire related problems that precipitate crashes. The more recent of these files are The National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System (NASSCDS) and the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). For instance, the NASSCDS data demonstrate that about one half of one percent of all crashes are caused by these tire problems. The rate of blowoutcaused crashes for light trucks (0.99 percent) is more than three times the
[[Page 69603]]
rate of those crashes for passenger cars (0.31 percent). Blowouts cause a much higher proportion of rollover crashes (4.81) than nonrollover crashes (0.28); and again more than three times the rate in light trucks (6.88 percent) than in passenger cars (1.87 percent). FARS data for 1995 through 1998 show that 1.10 percent of all light vehicles in fatal crashes were coded with tire problems. Light trucks had slightly higher rates of tire problems (1.20 percent) than passenger cars (1.04 percent). The annual average number of vehicles with tire problems in FARS was 535 (313 passenger cars and 222 light trucks).
C. Existing Labeling Requirements

1. Tire Sidewall Labeling

NHTSA's existing labeling requirements for new passenger car tires are set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 109, New Pneumatic TiresPassenger Cars (49 CFR 571.109). Specifically, section S4.3 of FMVSS No. 109 sets forth information labeling requirements for tires, including requirements regarding the positioning of the information on the sidewall to ensure that it is readily visible and to minimize the possibility that it will be scuffed off if the sidewall hits a curb or similar object. It provides that the information listed in paragraphs S4.3 (a) through (e) (e.g., number of plies and maximum permissible inflation pressure) must appear, on at least one sidewall, in an area between the maximum section width and the bead of the tire, unless the maximum section width of the tire falls between the bead and onefourth of the distance from the bead to the shoulder of the tire.

NHTSA's labeling requirement for retreaded passenger car tires is set forth in FMVSS No. 117, Pneumatic Retreaded Tires (49 CFR 571.117). FMVSS No. 117 requires that each newly retreaded passenger car tire have molded into its sidewalls information similar to that required in FMVSS No. 109, plus the words ``bias,'' or ``bias belted,'' or ``radial,'' as applicable. FMVSS No. 117 does not, though, require that the name of the manufacturer or brand name and number assigned to the manufacturer be placed on retreaded tires as is required on new passenger vehicle tires by FMVSS No. 109.

NHTSA's labeling requirements for new tires for vehicles other than passenger cars are set forth in FMVSS No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles other than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.119). Paragraph S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119 specifies that all tires for vehicles other than passenger cars must have certain markings on the sidewalls. Among other things, these tires must show the actual number of plies in the tire, the composition of the ply cord material (S6.5(f)), and a letter designating the load range (S6.5(j)). S6.5 also provides that the designated information must appear, on at least one sidewall, in an area between the maximum section width and bead of the tire, unless the maximum section width of the tire falls between the bead and onefourth of the distance from the bead to the shoulder of the tire. For tires for which the maximum section width falls in that area, all required labeling must be located between the bead and a point onehalf the distance from the bead to the shoulder of the tire. Additionally, section S6.5(b) requires that each tire be marked with the tire identification required by part 574 of this chapter and that this number may be marked on only one sidewall.

NHTSA's labeling requirements for new temporary spare nonpneumatic tires for passenger cars are set forth in FMVSS No. 129, New non pneumatic tires for passenger cars (49 CFR 571.129). The FMVSS No. 129 labeling requirements are similar to those set forth in section S4.3 in FMVSS No. 109 for size designation, load, rating, rim size and type designation, manufacturer or brand name, certification, and tire identification number. Paragraph S.4 of FMVSS No. 129 specifies that each nonpneumatic tire must have certain markings on the sidewalls including the nonpneumatic tire identification code (NPTIC), the load rating, and the tire identification number required in Part 574. These labeling requirements also specify that the labeling information must appear on both sides of the tire, except, in the case of a tire that has a particular side that must always face outward where the information must appear on the outward facing side.

2. Tire Identification Number (TIN)

Section 574.5 of Title 49, CFR, Tire Identification Requirements, sets forth the methods by which new tire manufacturers and new tire brand name owners must identify tires for use on motor vehicles. The section also sets forth the methods by which tire retreaders and retreaded tire brand name owners must identify tires for use on motor vehicles. The purpose of these requirements is to facilitate efforts by tire manufacturers to notify purchasers of defective or nonconforming tires and by such purchasers to identify those tires so that purchasers can take appropriate action in the interest of motor vehicle safety.

Specifically, Sec. 574.5 requires each new tire manufacturer and each tire retreader to mold a TIN into or onto the sidewall of each tire produced, in the manner and location specified in the section and as depicted in Figures 1 and 2 of that section. The TIN is composed of four groups:

1. The first group represents the manufacturer's identification mark assigned to such manufacturer by this agency in accordance with Sec. 574.6;

2. The second group represents the tire size for new tires; for retreaded tires, the second group represents the retread matrix in which the tire was processed or, if no matrix was used, a tire size code;

3. The third group may, at the option of the manufacturer, be used as a descriptive code for identifying significant characteristics of the tire. If the tire is produced for a brand name owner, the third grouping must identify such brand name owner; and

4. The fourth group identifies the week and year of manufacture. The first two figures identify the week, starting with ``01'' to represent the first full week of the calendar year; the second two figures represent the year. For example, ``2198'' represents the 21st week of 1998.

3. Vehicle Labeling

Labeling requirements are also contained in 49 CFR part 567, Certification, 49 CFR part 575, Consumer Information Regulations, FMVSS No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, applicable to passenger cars and to nonpneumatic spare tire assemblies for use on passenger cars, and FMVSS No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

Section 567.4 requires vehicle manufacturers to affix to each vehicle a label bearing, among other things, the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR), which must not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicles rated seating capacity; and the Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR), which is the value specified by the manufacturer as the load carrying capacity of a single axle system.

Paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110 requires manufacturers to affix a placard to each passenger car's glove compartment door or an equally accessible location showing the vehicle's capacity weight, designated seating capacity, the manufacturer's recommended cold tire inflation pressure for maximum loaded vehicle weight, the manufacturer's recommended tire size designation, and,
[[Page 69604]]
for a vehicle equipped with a nonpneumatic spare tire assembly, the nonpneumatic identification code required by FMVSS No. 129, New Non Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars. The required information is intended to promote the vehicle's safe performance by preventing the overloading of the tires or the vehicle itself.

FMVSS No. 120 requires that each vehicle show, on the label required by 567.4, or on a tire information label (S5.3.2(b)), the recommended tire size designation appropriate for the GAWR, the size and type designation of rims appropriate for those tires, and the recommended cold inflation pressure for those tires such that the sum of the load ratings of the tires on each axle (when the tires load carrying capacity at the specified pressure is reduced by dividing 1.10, in the case of a tire subject to FMVSS No. 109, i.e., a passenger car tire) is appropriate for the GAWR.
III. December 2000 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)

On December 1, 2000, this agency initiated rulemaking, as required by the TREAD Act, by publishing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) (65 FR 75222, Docket No. NHTSA008296), which announced our plans to (1) improve the labeling of tires, (2) assist consumers in identifying tires that may be the subject of a recall, and (3) ensure that the public is aware of the importance of observing motor vehicle tire load limits and maintaining proper tire inflation levels for the safe operation of a motor vehicle.

The ANPRM discussed NHTSA's existing tire information labeling and marking requirements, tire identification number requirements, and other labeling requirements such as those contained within its Consumer Information Regulations, e.g., Uniform Tire Quality Grading System (``UTQGS''). Also discussed in the ANPRM were prior rulemaking actions and petitions pertinent to the tire labeling issues addressed by the TREAD Act, particularly those relevant to the location of the TIN, and underinflation and overloading concerns.

NHTSA solicited comments in areas such as general consumer knowledge and behavior, availability of information to consumers, TIN information, and other tire labeling information. The agency also asked many specific questions related to such matters such as TIN content, readability and location, worker safety and costs issues associated with labeling the TIN on both sidewalls of the tire, loading, plies and cord material, tread wear indicators, UTQGS, speed rating, runflat and extended mobility tires, tire inflation pressure, and the dissemination of tire safety information.

IV. December 2001 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

On December 19, 2001, the agency published an NPRM proposing to establish a new standard that would revise the agency's existing tire labeling requirements, as well as revise its current regulations to improve tire information for light vehicles (vehicles other than motorcycles and low speed vehicles (LSVs) with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less) and light vehicle tires and its availability and

understandability to consumers.

The NPRM's proposed amendments addressed the following aspects of tire and vehicle labeling: tire markings, the Tire Identification Number (TIN), vehicle placard content and format, placard location, and owner's manual information. The proposal would have extended all passenger car labeling requirements, including those requiring the labeling of combined occupant and cargo weight capacity and designated seating positions, to light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) with a GVWR or 10,000 pounds or less. The proposed revisions were based on consideration of comments in response to the ANPRM, data gathering and analysis, and NHTSA sponsored focus groups.

NHTSA proposed that the TIN, size designation, maximum permissible inflation pressure, and maximum load rating be placed on both sides of light vehicle tires. Requiring the TIN and size designation to be on both sides would have ensured that that information would be on the sidewall facing outward, regardless of how the tire is mounted. We also proposed requiring that the TIN appear on both sides of the tire because dualside labeling was suggested during the congressional hearings concerning the Firestone recall. Also, based on responses to the ANPRM by the tire industry claiming a general ``safety hazard'' due to unspecified ``changes in the manufacturing process,'' and reasons provided in the NPRM, we were not then persuaded that there were significant worker safety concerns associated with this proposal. Requiring that the other items of information be on both sidewalls would have aided consumers in maintaining their tires and loading their vehicles.

NHTSA proposed two changes to the TIN. First, the agency proposed to require a reordering of information in the TIN so that the first six characters would have contained the information required for determining whether a particular tire is subject to a recall. The first two characters would have reflected the plant code, and the next four characters would have reflected the date code. Second, the agency proposed to require that each character be 6 mm (\1/4\'') high. The agency believed that a requirement for a uniform TIN font size would have significantly improved the readability of the TIN.

The agency proposed four sets of revisions for the presentation of tire inflation pressure and load limit information on the vehicle placard currently required for passenger cars by S4.3 of Sec. 571.110 and to be required for all light vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.\2\ The NPRM contained figures illustrating the proposed revisions to the placard. This placard, permanently affixed to the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location, currently displays the vehicle capacity weight, the designated seating capacity (expressed in terms of total number of occupants and in terms of occupants for each seat location), the vehicle manufacturer's recommended cold tire inflation pressure for maximum loaded vehicle weight, and the manufacturer's recommended tire size designation. \2\ FMVSS No. 120 currently requires that each motor vehicle other than a passenger car show, on the label required by Sec. 567.4, or on a tire information label (S5.3.2(b)), the recommended tire size designation appropriate for the GAWR, the tire size and type designation of rims appropriate for those tires, and the recommended cold inflation pressure for those tires such that the sum of the load ratings on the tires on each axle (when the tire's load carrying capacity at the specified pressure is reduced by dividing 1.10, in the case of a tire subject to FMVSS No. 109, i.e., a passenger car tire) is appropriate for the GAWR.

First, the agency proposed that tire inflation pressure information would have been visually separated by a red colored border on the vehicle placard or, alternatively, been placed on a separate tire inflation pressure label. The vehicle placard would have contained only the information that would have been required in the proposed version of S4.3 (paragraphs (a)(e)).\3\ This information would not have been combined with other labeling or certification requirements. The [[Page 69605]]
vehicle placard also would have had to meet the proposed color and content requirements as discussed below.
\3\ (a) Vehicle capacity weight expressed as ``THE COMBINED WEIGHT OF OCCUPANTS AND CARGO SHOULD NEVER EXCEED XXX POUNDS'; (b) Designated seating capacity (expressed in terms of total number of occupants and in terms of occupant for each seat location);
(c) Vehicle manufacturer's recommended cold tire inflation pressure;
(d) Tire size designation for the tire installed as original equipment on the vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer; and

(e) ``SEE OWNER'S MANUAL FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION''.

Second, the agency also proposed that the tire inflation pressure label and vehicle placard would have had to meet the following three requirements: (1) The tire inflation pressure information on the placards would have been in colorred, yellow, and black on a white background, (2) contained a black and white tire symbol icon in the upper left corner of the placards, 13 millimeters (.51 inches) wide and 14 millimeters (.55 inches), and (3) the placard and label would have both include the phrases ``Tire Information'' and ``See Owner's Manual For Additional Information'' in yellow text on a black background.

Third, the agency proposed to replace the vehicle capacity weight statement on the vehicle placard with the following sentence: ``[t]he combined weight of occupants and cargo should never exceed XXX pounds.'' The ``XXX'' amount would equal the ``vehicle capacity weight'' of the vehicle as defined in FMVSS No. 110. The information was the same as that currently required to be placed on the vehicle placard by manufacturers. However, the agency believed that the statement ``the combined weight of occupants and cargo should never exceed * * *'' would have been easier for consumers to comprehend than a technical phrase such as ``vehicle capacity weight.'' ``Vehicle capacity weight'' is not intuitive to consumers and would have required a vehicle operator to look to the owner's manual or standard to understand which factors are included in the calculation of the sum/ amount on the placard.

Fourth, the agency proposed to replace the vehicle's recommended tire size designation with the tire size designation for the tire installed as original equipment on the vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer. While in most instances these two numbers would have been identical, this minor revision would have insured that the consumer is provided with the correct tire inflation pressure information for the tire size actually installed on his vehicle as original equipment by the manufacturer.

We proposed these placard changes in response to survey and focus group data which indicated that consumers needed assistance in locating recommended tire pressures for their vehicle's tires and understanding load limits. The use of colors and a visual cue, such as a tire symbol icon, would have aided drivers in noticing and locating this imperative information. By expressing the vehicle's load limit in easily recognizable terms such as ``passenger and cargo weight'', as opposed to ``vehicle capacity weight'' the proposed placard revisions would have also aided consumers in understanding and adhering to load limit guidelines.

The agency proposed that the placard or placard and label containing tire inflation pressure by tire size and other required information specified in S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110 would have been located on the driver's side Bpillar. If a vehicle did not have a Bpillar, then the placard or placard and label would have been placed on the edge of the driver's door. Currently, S4.3 of 571.110 specifies that the vehicle placard be affixed to the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location. A standardized location for tire information placards and labels would have contributed to consumer awareness of recommended tire inflation pressures and load limits.

The agency proposed that owner's manuals for light vehicles contain discussion of the following five subject areas: (1) Tire labeling, (2) recommended tire inflation pressure, (3) glossary of tire terminology, (4) tire care, and (5) vehicle load limits. A single, reliable source containing the proposed required information for the tires and tire safety information listed above would have aided consumers by providing to them, in one centralized location, the information that they needed to properly maintain their tires and adhere to recommended load limits.

Finally, the agency proposed revising FMVSS Nos. 110, Tire selection and rims, for passenger cars, 49 CFR 571.110, and 120 Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, 49 CFR 571.120, which would have reflected the applicability of the proposed light vehicle tire standard to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, and revising FMVSS Nos. 117, Retreaded pneumatic tires, 49 CFR 571.117, and 129, New nonpneumatic tires for passenger cars, 49 CFR 571.129, which would have replaced the labeling requirements contained therein with those specified in the proposed new light vehicle tire standard.

The agency proposed compliance dates for tires according to the following schedule: all Pmetric tires manufactured on or after September 1, 2003, and all LT tires manufactured on or after September 1, 2004 would have had to meet the new requirements. Additionally, all light vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2003 would have had to comply with the final rule.

NHTSA believed that this proposal would have resulted in minimal costs for tire and manufacturers. NHTSA estimated that the added cost for labeling tires under this proposal would have equaled $0.01 per tire or less and a minimal cost for vehicle labeling (onetime costs to change production for the new vehicle placard and/or tire inflation pressure label, the application of the vehicle placard and/or tire inflation pressure label to all light vehicles, not only passenger cars, and the new owner's manual pages). NHTSA estimated that, adding the total tire and vehicle manufacturing costs together, the total annual costs would have equaled approximately $5.5 million. V. Summary of Public Comments on NPRM

NHTSA received over 30 comments on the December 2001 NPRM. The comments were submitted by: vehicle and tire manufacturers and associations, consumer advocacy organizations and individual members of the public. The comments are summarized below.
A. Tire Sidewall Labeling
1. Maximum Permissible Inflation Pressure
[sbull] Consumers Union (``CU''), General Motors North America (``GM''), DaimlerChrysler (``DC''), International Tire & Rubber Association (``ITRA'') and Tire Association of North America (``TANA'') support maintaining the maximum inflation pressure on the tire sidewalls to prevent overinflation, to provide a level of inflation that is not a durability concern. CU and DC also suggest adding additional wording to the sidewall to direct one to the vehicle placard or owner's manual to the recommended inflation pressure.
[sbull] Rubber Manufacturers Association (``RMA''), Japan Automobile Tyre Manufacturers Association, Inc. (``JATMA''), Ford Motor Company (``Ford''), and UN/ECE Group for Global Technical Regulations for Vehicle Tyres (``GRRF'') support removing the maximum inflation pressure from the sidewall. JATMA and Ford state that different inflation pressures indicated by tire and vehicle manufacturers would cause confusion. Ford recommends that the maximum inflation pressure information be replaced with ``See Vehicle Placard for Recommended Tire Pressure.'' RMA and GRRF believe that the revised vehicle placard and owner's manual information is a better way of communicating correct inflation pressure and removal would encourage users to seek out the correct inflation pressure.
[[Page 69606]]
[sbull] RMA states that the NHTSA proposal would require establishment of new maximum permissible inflation pressures for light truck tires that are higher than the current marked pressure and are the minimum pressures required for the maximum load rating, not maximum pressures that are increased for operation at specific service conditions (Tire and Rim Association 2001 Yearbook, page 204). Also, RMA states that the requirement to stamp ``Maximum permissible inflation pressure'' on the sidewall of all light truck tires would require the reworking of all existing light truck tire molds. RMA suggests that, for LT tires, ``the terminology and definition of ``maximum permissible inflation pressure'' be replaced by ``reference inflation pressure''. RMA recommends that NHTSA adopt the following definition of this term: ``Reference inflation pressure means the pressure marked on the tire sidewall associated with the tire load range.''
2. Maximum Load Rating
[sbull] RMA, GRRF, JATMA, and European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation (``ETRTO'') suggest that the maximum load rating is of no use to consumers and that it be replaced by a load index as the best way to present information to aid the consumer in choosing a suitable replacement tire for the vehicle. RMA says that the proposed maximum combined weight limit statement to be added to the vehicle placard would help consumers safely manage their vehicle/tire load capabilities.
3. Cord Material and Number of Plies
[sbull] RMA, JATMA and ETRTO suggest that information about cord material and number of plies should not be required because they are of no safety benefit to consumers. RMA also says that elimination of these labeling requirements for light vehicle tires would simplify sidewall imagery and provide for better communication of essential information and that this information is not critical to the repair, retread or recycling of passenger car tires which are rarely retreaded today. RMA comments that type and number of plies may be useful for retreading purposes for LT tires and JATMA comments that this information is relevant for consumers purchasing rayon carcass tires.
[sbull] ITRA and TANA believe it is important to leave that information on both sidewalls of the tire for the retread, repair and recycling industries. They say that this information enables the retreader or repair technician to select the proper repair materials or procedures for retreading or repairing the tires. Also, if information regarding the number of plies and cord material is removed from the sidewall, technicians cannot determine if the tire has a steel cord sidewall. This information is critical when determining if the tire is a candidate for a zipper rupture and very important in normal handling by a tire technician.
4. Speed Rating and Load Index (Service Description)
[sbull] The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (``Alliance'') suggests that tire sidewall labeling for tire speed rating and load index be allowed.
[sbull] RMA and Volkswagen state that the agency should require the service description to become part of the tire size information to be placed on the tire sidewall for consumer reference when ordering replacement tires. RMA states that tires are universally labeled with the service description, as illustrated on the agency's proposed tire information placard and label, and that it is very easy for consumers to match the recommended service description on their original equipment tires with the service description on replacement tires. RMA also states that for individuals who might want to see the correlation of load index numbers to pounds and kilograms, simple charts could be included in owner's manuals or made available through tire dealerships and web sites.
5. Placement of TIN
[sbull] CU, Charles West, Ford, and CIMS agree with the agency that improved access to the TIN would enhance customers' ability to determine whether their tires are covered by a recall or customer satisfaction campaign. CIMS says that the only realistic way to determine if tires are recalled is to locate a dealer who is willing to inspect the tires by putting the vehicle on an overhead lift and rotating all four tires to read the TIN. According to CIMS, this process costs conservatively $100.00 per inspection and could cost consumers hundreds of millions of dollars.
[sbull] RMA, JATMA, ITRA, TANA, Rubber Association of Canada (``RAC''), and GRRF oppose the agency's mandating that the TIN be required on both sidewalls of a tire for the following reasons: (1) The current practice in the tire industry is to locate the TIN in the bottom half of the mold and the front portion of the press to enable workers to change the weekly date code with reasonable safety without having to climb into a 350 degree upper press. If the TIN were located in a mold in the upper press as well, then to change the date code in that mold, a manufacturer would require the physical removal of the mold from the press in order to comply with OSHA's lockout/tagout regulation, 29 CFR 1910.147. This process would cause up to eight hours of downtime per press/per week. (2) The initial costs to modify all 101,148 molds for the addition of the second DOT code would be $113.5 million. The ongoing cost of changing the DOT code in the top mold would be an estimated $224.1 million per year. Further, there is insufficient global mold shop capacity to accomplish such a modification in the specified time. (3) The addition of the second TIN is a matter of very occasional convenience, not directly affecting tire safety. There are no other auto products/parts on which a part/serial number must be placed on both sides or in more than one location. (4) Marking the TIN on one sidewall could be accompanied by a requirement to identify which way the tire is to be fitted on vehicles. (5) The TIN is only necessary once the user has established whether a particular manufacturer's tire and size designation are subject to recall. [sbull] RMA suggests three alternatives to the agency's proposal. (1) Require a partial TIN (manufacturer's identification, tire size, and optional information, but not weekly date code) on the opposite sidewall from the regular TIN. (2) Require the TIN on only one side of the tire and also show the TIN for the original equipment tires in an appropriate section of the vehicle owner's manual by means of an adhesive label. (3) Require placement of the TIN on the intended outboard side of Pmetric and LT tires as indicated by the tire manufacturers.
[sbull] Specialty Tires of America and Coker Tire (``Coker'') request that specialty tires, e.g., biasply and tires for classic and antique cars, be excluded from the requirement to mark the TIN on both sides of the tire. Coker notes that the process of producing a tire that contains a wide whitewall involves grinding a large section of the sidewall, which would result in removal of the TIN.
6. Reordering of TIN
[sbull] All commenters, except for CU, object to the rearrangement of the TIN.
[sbull] The Alliance, American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (``Honda''), RMA, ITRA, TANA, CIMS, ETRTO, RAC, and GRRF request that NHTSA maintain the current TIN groupings, format, and order for the following reasons: (1) A reordering of the TIN would confuse consumers and would require NHTSA to launch a new tire information
[[Page 69607]]
campaign, (2) a reordering of the TIN would confuse consumers because tires would be in circulation, for up to 12 years, with two different TIN code sequences, (3) high costs (RMA members$83.9 million) due to need to rework tire molds, retrain dealership personnel, revise printed materials, and revise databases, (4) the agency's proposed requirements for owner's manual information would necessarily improve consumer knowledge about TIN groupings, (5) the threedigit plant code (instead of two characters for a new tire) for retreaders could not be accommodated in the newly ordered TIN, (6) the proposed positioning of the date code would not conform to foreign regulations and would be contrary to the spirit of international harmonization.
7. Height of TIN
[sbull] Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety (``Advocates'') does not support the agency's proposal to require each character of the TIN to be 6 mm or \1/4\'' high because they state it is a capricious choice and because the agency has not gathered information on the readability of this height of low characters. Additionally, they repeat their concern with this character size for individuals with Contrast Sensitivity Function (CFS).
[sbull] CU, RMA, ITRA and TANA support the proposed TIN height of 6mm.
[sbull] GRRF also stated that the proposed TIN height is not consistent with the draft GTR proposed height requirements. B. Vehicle Placard and Label
1. Content
[sbull] ITRA and TANA commend NHTSA for its proposal and believe that all of these changes would help the consumer better understand their tire pressure requirements and load limits.
[sbull] RMA supports the proposed content, layout, and placement of placard, including both options. RMA also states that the agency should require a service description (load index and speed rating) as part of the tire size information shown on the vehicle placard and tire inflation pressure label because the information is important to consumers and provides the agency an opportunity for global harmonization of tire regulations.
[sbull] CU believes that tire pressure should be listed in ``psi'' first and ``kpa'' second. Additionally, CU states that the placard should (1) make clear that the combined weight of occupants and cargo or vehicle capacity weight does not include the vehicle's towing capacity and (2) should define ``cold tire pressure.''
[sbull] The Alliance, Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (``MMC''), GM, Volkswagen, and Subaru of America, Inc. (``Subaru'') state that vehicle manufacturers should be allowed to provide tire information in addition to the required fields to accommodate different speed and loading conditions, sales practices, tire/rim optional equipment, and more than one set of recommended tire pressures. The Alliance states that it is common practice to exchange tires and wheels between vehicles in a dealership's inventory and distribution of labels with original tire sizes listed would be difficult to distribute so different tire sizes should be listed on the placard. Subaru suggests permitting an additional optional tire size label or notation on the placard to indicate to see the owner's manual for optional tire size tire information.
[sbull] MMC requests that additional manufacturer production information be acceptable at the bottom part of the placard. [sbull] The Alliance suggests that manufacturers should be permitted to provide a multilingual label if space permits. [sbull] The Alliance and GM suggest that the agency use the ISO approved symbol for ``owner's manual'' in place of the phrase ``See Owner's Manual for Additional Information.'' Volkswagen recommends that the tire icon not be required on the vehicle label that shows only seating capacity and vehicle capacity weight because of space limitations and because they believe this information is not tire related.
[sbull] Subaru suggests that the placard use the heading ``original tire size'' instead of just ``tire size'' and that the text is more legible with upper and lower case lettering and that abbreviations for pounds and kilograms be permitted.
[sbull] GRRF states that only the inflation pressure at the maximum loading condition is quoted and that consumers would be better informed by recommended pressures at both a normal loading condition, e.g., driver or driver and front seat passenger only, and maximum loading condition. The group, however, supports using the maximum loading condition if only one condition is chosen by the agency.
2. Format
[sbull] The Alliance supports the option to provide a single placard with all required information. It recommends that, based upon the limited space available for the location requirements, a manufacturer opting to provide tire pressure on a standalone label should be permitted to place the remaining information (seating capacity and loading) on the certification label. In support of this recommends, the Alliance says that the label already contains maximum loading capacity information for the vehicle and is required to be located in the driver's door area.
[sbull] MMC and GM request that NHTSA not regulate placard design, direction, and dimensions.
[sbull] ETRTO suggests that a font size equivalent to Times New Roman 20 be required in the format requirements for the placard since recommended tire inflation pressure information is vital for safety and would, it is hoped, be consulted monthly by consumers.
3. Location
[sbull] The Alliance, GM, Honda suggest that the agency adopt the same location requirement that exists in Part 567.4(c) because flexibility is needed to accommodate vehicles that do not have a conventional Bpillar or do not have enough room on the Bpillar nor sufficient room on the driver's door edge or vehicles which are right hand drive for postal and special use.
[sbull] The Alliance also suggests that the agency include a provision that permits the manufacturer to place the Part 567 certification label on the passenger side if both the required placard and certification label cannot be accommodated on the driver's side. [sbull] Subaru agrees with the agency that the placard should be on the Bpillar, preferably on the driver's side, and suggests that this be specified in the regulatory text.
[sbull] GRRF supports the agency's proposed location of the placard and label on the vehicle and the location of the placard/label in relation to each other.
4. Color
[sbull] The Alliance and GM oppose a multicolor requirement, arguing that it presents a significant cost burden, offers no apparent benefits, and is not a caution or warning label. They argue further that the addition of color would not aid the consumer in locating information on the placard/label or the placard/label itself. [sbull] Volkswagen states that it would need to institute separate production and processing of the placard and tire information label because its vehicle information labels are printed on sheets of material with a uniform background color and black print.
5. Multistage Manufacturer
[sbull] The Alliance and the National Truck Equipment Association (``NTEA'')
[[Page 69608]]
suggest that the agency address issues related to vehicles that are manufactured in two or more stages and vehicles that are modified after primary manufacture. They state that the primary manufacturer in many cases would not have sufficient information regarding final configuration and vehicle equipment to designate seating capacity and weight limitations for occupants and cargo. NTEA further requests that actual and individual weighing not be required in order to certify the vehicle properly. NTEA also suggests that, in the event that NHTSA determines that multistage manufacturers should label each truck with information concerning seating capacity and combined occupant and cargo weight rating, there be provisions to allow for the updating of such information, through removing or covering original information with a new label, to ensure that consumers are receiving current information. C. Owner's Manual
[sbull] CU supports the agency's proposals and rationale and suggests that it would be useful to consumers for manufacturers to provide recommended optional tire size designations in the manual. [sbull] The Alliance urges the agency to develop tire and tire safety information with standardized language that is to be provided with a vehicle as a brochure or in an owner's manual.
[sbull] GM recommends that the agency not require actual recommended inflation pressures in the owner's manual.
[sbull] Honda comments that the glossary of tire terminology is unclear as to what terms are nontechnical in S3 of Nos. 110 and 139 and suggests that NHTSA not require verbatim text in the owner's manual or that it improve the regulatory text to reflect manufacturers communications with consumers.
[sbull] Honda and the Alliance recommend that vehicle manufacturers provide an explanation of the TIN in the owner's manual to achieve improved owner understanding.
[sbull] Volkswagen suggests that owner's manual not be required to identify a specific tire size for the vehicle because owner's manuals are printed at the beginning of the production year and available tire sizes can change during the production cycle. Volkswagen also notes that manufacturers should not be restricted from adding additional information to the owner's manual.
[sbull] RMA supports the owner's manual requirements and, along with ITRA and TANA, support the requirement that the statements made in Figure 5 for ``Steps for Determining Correct Load Limit'' of the preamble appear verbatim in the owner's manual. RMA, however, along with GRRF, express concern with the statement suggesting that a pressure higher than the recommended pressure may be needed to support certain loads incorrectly indicates that tires can be loaded above their maximum capacity by increasing pressure and suggest the deletion of this statement.
[sbull] RMA recommends that the owner's manual contain instructions on the proper use of the spare tire and that it explain that correct tire inflation is vehicle specific and not contained on the sidewall. RMA also recommends that the owner's manual should define ``tire service description'' and provides a suggested definition.
D. Applicability of FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120
[sbull] The Alliance suggests that NHTSA drop the proposal to amend the applicability of FMVSS No. 110 and 120 from this rulemaking and instead incorporate them into the NPRM to be published on tire performance requirements.
[sbull] RMA and RAC state that the agency, in applying FMVSS No. 110 to light vehicles other than passenger cars, should not relax the current standards for tire selection and that load service factor of 1.10, applicable to passenger car tires for use on light trucks, vans, SUVs, and trailers, contained in S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 120 be maintained in the new rule.
E. Costs
1. Placard and Label
[sbull] NTEA disagrees with NHTSA's estimate that there are only 4 small passenger car and light truck vehicle manufacturers in the U.S. It states that its members include close to 1,000 final stage manufacturers. NTEA also states that NHTSA's cost estimates for production and installation of the new placards and labels are not accurate for multistage produced vehicles and it estimates that the proposed placard would cost at least $0.25 in addition to scales and other equipment needed to determine the correct vehicle weight. [sbull] GM states that the proposed placard/label would cost 20 cents more per label in addition to an acquisition cost of special color printers at $300,000.
2. Tires
[sbull] CU agrees with NHTSA's cost assessments of this rulemaking. [sbull] The Alliance states that NHTSA has not accounted for the costs for computer programming code and software revisions necessary to implement changes to the TIN, including tracking dual formats, lost time, labor and resources due to errors and complexities associated with dual TIN orderings.
[sbull] RMA, GRRF, ITRA, TANA, and ETRTO believe that NHTSA substantially underestimated the costs to the tire industry. They say that these costs include loss of production, costs of modifications, and time and production costs to take molds out of production weekly to add second date code.
[sbull] RMA estimates the global cost to reorder the TIN on existing molds would be $83.9 million. The cost to add a second TIN to approximately 100,000 relevant molds (not including truck and motorcycle molds) is estimated at $113.5 million. GRRF estimates costs to U.S. tire industry at $100 million annually.
[sbull] ETRTO estimates that the costs of reworking up to 250,000 molds at $150 million and the total costs at $220 million, taking into account loss of production associated with adding a second TIN. [sbull] ITRA and TANA note that the economic impact of this proposal, which they estimate would cost retreaders a minimum of $250 per mold, would be especially detrimental to retreaders as small business and would leave only the largest retreaders in business. F. Effective Dates
[sbull] The Alliance recommends that NHTSA establish a uniform September 1, 2004 effective date for all vehicle requirements to permit individual vehicle manufacturers to phasein the labeling and owner's manual information changes on a practicable and cost effective timetable. The Alliance and other vehicle industry members note that the agency should allow optional early compliance.
[sbull] GM states that an appropriate phasein schedule cannot be determined for the changes in applicability of FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 until they have been given an opportunity to assess the impact of the tire performance NPRM.
[sbull] RMA, RAC, ITRA, TANA and GRRF suggest that a phasein of more than five years would be necessary to implement the changes proposed in the NPRM because the mold life expectancy is up to five years and there is not enough mold shop capacity in the world to rework the existing molds to comply with the proposed labeling. GRRF specifically requests that the effective dates be revised to apply to new tire designs, but not to existing designs,
[[Page 69609]]
until, at the latest, September 1, 2007 for Pmetric and September 1, 2008 for LT tires.
G. Defining ``Reasonable Amount of Luggage''
[sbull] The Alliance and GM state that providing such a definition would serve no safety need and would interfere with what is a competitive matter among manufacturers. Further, they state that the agency's efforts to specify load limits on the vehicle placard and discussing load limits in the owner's manual adequately address the safety aspects of vehicle loading and obviate any need for agency to define ``reasonable amount of luggage.
[sbull] ERTRO suggests that the agency consider specifying ``maximum luggage capacity'' instead of a ``reasonable amount of luggage'' to avoid possibility of overloading.
[sbull] GRRF opposes the agency's deferring to vehicle manufacturers the responsibility for ensuring that a vehicle is equipped with tires which have a load capacity that are suitable for the declared maximum permissible mass of the vehicle or each axle of the vehicle.
H. Foreign/International Standards
[sbull] CU states that it supports NHTSA's decision to forego harmonizing or adopting foreign or interna

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

For technical and policy issues: Mr. Roger Kurrus, Office of Planning and Consumer Programs. Telephone: (202) 3662750. Fax: (202) 4932290. Mr. Joseph Scott, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, Telephone: (202) 3662720. Fax: (202) 3664329.

For legal issues: Nancy Bell, Attorney Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC20. Telephone: (202) 3662992. Fax: (202) 3663820.

All of these persons may be reached at the following address: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.