[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Page 56347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-22320]



[[Page 56347]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2002-11778; Notice 2]


Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC, Denial of 
Application for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC (Firestone), a 
Delaware Limited Liability Company, has determined that approximately 
754 30x9.50 R15 LT Widetrack Baja A/T tires produced in the LaVergne, 
Tennessee, plant are not in full compliance with 49 CFR 571.119, 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, ``New pneumatic 
tires for vehicles other than passenger cars,'' and has filed an 
appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ``Defect and 
Noncompliance Reports.'' Firestone has also applied to be exempted from 
the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 
30120(h), on the basis that the noncompliance is inconsequential to 
motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the application was published, with a 30-day 
comment period, on March 18, 2002, in the Federal Register (67 FR 
12084). NHTSA received no comments.
    During weeks 38, 39 and 40 of the year 2001, Firestone's LaVergne, 
Tennessee, plant produced a number of tires that fail to comply with 
the tire marking requirements of FMVSS 119 S6.5(d).
    The markings on the noncompliant tires are:

Max Load 350 Kg at 1985 kPa cold
Max Load 900 Lbs at 50 PSI cold

    The correct markings should have been:

Max Load 900 Kg at 350 kPa cold
Max Load 1985 Lbs at 50 PSI cold

    Firestone submits that the failure of the tires to comply with 
FMVSS 119 S6.5 (d) should be deemed inconsequential to motor vehicle 
safety for the following reasons:

    (1) All of the affected 30x9.50R15LT Widetrack Baja A/T tires 
meet all of the remaining requirements of FMVSS 119.
    (2) The maximum load as stated on the tire in both English and 
Metric units is actually less than the actual maximum load for these 
tires. Therefore, it is not likely the tires would be placed in an 
unsafe, overload situation as a result of the marking noncompliance. 
In fact, if the consumer relies on the markings, the load will be 
significantly less than the tire is capable of carrying.
    (3) While the inflation pressure is incorrect in Metric units, 
the English inflation units are correct. Since the English units are 
correct and English units are the common usage for inflation in 
North America, it is highly unlikely that the subject tires would be 
over inflated as a result of the marking noncompliance.
    (4) The subject tires are correctly marked Load Range ``C'' and 
Load Index 104. By Tire and Rim Association's data, the Load Range 
``C'' and Load Index 104 define maximum load of 1985 pounds and 900 
Kgs at 50 psi and 350 kPa.

    The agency believes the true measure of inconsequentiality with 
respect to the noncompliance with FMVSS No. 119, paragraph S6.5, is 
whether a consumer who relied on the incorrect information could 
experience a safety problem. In the case of this noncompliance, the 
maximum load markings are understated, making it unlikely the tires 
would be overloaded by consumers following the marked maximum load 
values. However, while the corresponding inflation pressure value is 
correctly marked in English units, it is overstated by over 500 percent 
in Metric units. While we recognize that consumers are supposed to 
identify the proper inflation pressure from the tire information 
placard, surveys have shown that some consumers rely on the maximum 
load markings on the tire. A consumer who relied on the Metric markings 
on these tires could over-inflate the tires to unsafe levels, 
potentially resulting in personal injury or tire failure.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the 
applicant has not met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance 
described is inconsequential to safety. Accordingly, Firestone's 
application is hereby denied, and the applicant must provide 
notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118. 
Also, Firestone must provide a cost-free remedy for the noncompliance.

(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 
501.8)

    Issued on: August 27, 2002.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 02-22320 Filed 8-30-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P