This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily
Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal
Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official
electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.
The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal
Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the
corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the
daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial
informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal
Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status.
For complete information about, and access to, our official publications
and services, go to
About the Federal Register
on NARA's archives.gov.
The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable
regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of
establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned
publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that
the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with
the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for
legal research should verify their results against an official edition of
the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML
rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not
provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.
Notice
Enter a search term or FR citation e.g.
88 FR 38230 FR 78782024-13208USDA09/05/24RULE0503-AA39SORN
Choosing an item from
full text search results
will bring you to those results. Pressing enter in the search box
will also bring you to search results.
Choosing an item from
suggestions
will bring you directly to the content.
This table of contents is a navigational tool, processed from the
headings within the legal text of Federal Register documents.
This repetition of headings to form internal navigation links
has no substantive legal effect.
There is no table of contents available for this document.
Related Documents
Enhanced Content - Related Documents
FederalRegister.gov uses the agency dockets published with the document to display related documents.
Document page views are updated periodically throughout the day and are
cumulative counts for this document. Counts are subject to sampling,
reprocessing and revision (up or down) throughout the day.
Page views
30
as of
10/17/2026 at 2:15 pm EDT
Other Formats
Enhanced Content - Other Formats
This document is also available in the following formats:
This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.
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:
The correct markings should have been:
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:
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.
( printed page 56347)
Max Load 350 Kg at 1985 kPa cold
Max Load 900 Lbs at 50 PSI cold
Max Load 900 Kg at 350 kPa cold
Max Load 1985 Lbs at 50 PSI cold
(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.