[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 21, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Page 60147]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-26509]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2002-13355; Notice 2]


Bridgestone/Firestone, Decision That Application for 
Determination That Noncompliance Is Inconsequential to Motor Vehicle 
Safety Is Moot

    Bridgestone/Firestone has advised the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA) that it determined that approximately 
4,700 P235/75R15 Dayton Timberline A/T tires do not meet the labeling 
requirements mandated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 
No. 109, ``New Pneumatic Tires.'' Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 
30120(h), Bridgestone/Firestone has petitioned for a determination that 
this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the application was published, with a 30-day 
comment period, on October 7, 2002, in the Federal Register (67 FR 
62522). NHTSA received no comment on this application.
    FMVSS No. 109, S4.3(b) and S4.3(c), require that each tire shall 
have permanently molded the maximum permissible inflation pressure and 
the maximum load rating of the tire, respectively. The Sao Paulo, 
Brazil plant produced noncompliant tires during weeks 40 through and 
including week 49 of the year 2001. The subject tires were mislabeled 
as ``Extra Load.'' The actual markings on the subject tires are:

Max load 920 Kg (2028 lbs.) at 300 kPa (44 psi) max press, Extra Load

    The correct markings should be:

Max load 920 Kg (2028 lbs.) at 300 kPa (44 psi) max press.

    Bridgestone/Firestone believes that the noncompliance is 
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety for the following 
stated reasons: ``First, the subject tires with the exception of the 
``Extra Load'' marking meet all the requirements of 49 CFR Part (sic) 
109. Second, the subject tires were tested by Bridgestone/Firestone and 
meet the requirements of high speed, endurance, strength, and bead 
unseat as defined in 49 CFR Part (sic) 109 for the ``Extra Load'' 
designation. Third, the subject tires as shipped from the manufacturing 
plant were identified by tire labels and article number as standard 
load. Thus, the potential for sale of these tires as ``Extra Load'' is 
very small.''
    This mislabeling does not constitute a noncompliance with FMVSS No. 
109. The standard has no requirement that a tire be labeled with the 
words ``extra load'' even when it is designed to accommodate a greater 
load than a standard tire of the same size. The correct maximum load 
rating and the correct maximum inflation pressure are properly molded 
on the tires. These two values, along with other tire information such 
as tire size, are used by consumers in selecting replacement tires.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the tires 
in question do not exhibit a noncompliance with an FMVSS. Therefore, 
Bridgestone/Firestone's petition for an inconsequentiality exemption is 
moot.

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

    Issued on: October 14, 2003.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 03-26509 Filed 10-20-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P