Tire manufacturers are objecting to a proposed federal tire labeling system that “takes the guesswork out of buying the best tires for your vehicle,” according U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “Our proposal would let consumers look at a single label and compare a tire’s overall performance as it relates to fuel economy, safety and durability.”
The Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) opposes placing labels on individual tires.
In written comments to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the RMA said its members believe that to establish effective information requirements regarding tire efficiency, the program should instead adhere to these standards:
• Provide information at point of sale;
• Provide meaningful information that is easy to understand by consumers;
• Provide a wide range of tire efficiency choices across the rating scale to each consumer about replacement tire choices appropriate for the consumer’s existing vehicle;
• Be cost effective to minimize the cost effect of this information to consumers.
“Since consumers shopping for replacement tires are limited in their tire selections by requirements of their existing vehicle, it is important to design a rating system that maximizes the tire efficiency choices across the rating scale for each consumer,” the RMA wrote. “The appeal of a rating system will depend on whether a consumer has ‘good’ choices appropriate for his vehicle across the rating scale,” the organization asserted.
In June, NHTSA proposed a tire fuel efficiency rating system that would be printed on a paper label on every replacement car tire sold in the U.S. The rating system would rank tire fuel efficiency on a 0-100 point scale. The proposed rule also would rate wet traction capability and tread wear. The regulation was required by energy legislation enacted by Congress in 2007.
The RMA said that NHTSA’s proposed rating approach would not provide consumers with useful information about fuel efficiency of replacement tires suitable for their vehicles. Under the NHTSA proposal, a typical consumer shopping for a replacement tire for a specific vehicle would have a choice only along a 20- to 30- point spread on the 100 point scale, according to the association
“The proposed rating scale gives consumers an illusory view of the tire efficiency choices available to them for their vehicle and does not assist consumers in purchasing fuel efficient tires for their vehicle,” the RMA wrote in its commentary.
“On the other hand, this rating approach encourages consumers to purchase smaller tires and could promote the purchase of tires with inadequate load-carrying capacity to safely carry the load of the vehicle. Although many tire dealers would discourage and in many cases would not sell a tire with a rated load capacity insufficient for the vehicle, NHTSA should not promote a system that could lead to this type of safety concern.”
RMA said that NHTSA should develop a system that promotes tire efficiency regardless of vehicle class.
“Unfortunately, since the proposed system would not favorably rate any tires suitable for larger vehicles, it would send the message to owners of these vehicles that they have no fuel efficient tire choices, so they should not base tire purchasing decisions on this information,” the RMA wrote.
The RMA also expressed opposition to the proposed tire rating system label as a means of providing point of sale information to consumers.
“RMA proposes that NHTSA mandate that tire retailers have the rating information available to consumers in the dealer showroom or waiting area. RMA recommends that NHTSA give tire retailers options for making this information available and require that each retailer choose one or more options that suits their business model and needs. Options could include: Tire manufacturer brochures, tire manufacturer product catalogues, in-store online access to the NHTSA Web site, tire manufacturer Web sites or the tire retailer’s Web site containing the rating information.”
The RMA estimates that initial costs for manufacturer testing and reporting would range from more than $14 million to $53 million, while annual costs could amount to $12 million to more than $34 million.
Initial costs for the proposed tire labeling requirements would range from about $22 million to more than $30 million, while the annual cost estimates range from $11 million to nearly $17 million. The RMA said NHTSA has underestimated the industry’s costs.
“The tire industry has long supported the concept of providing information to consumers about its products at point of sale and welcomes the opportunity to begin providing consumer information about a tire’s contribution to vehicle fuel economy,” the RMA noted.
NHTSA is to issue a final set of rules by December.
For more information, visit www.nhtsa.gov and www.rma.org.
