[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 29, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58221-58225]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-21786]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Denial of Motor Vehicle Recall Petition

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of petitions for an investigation into alleged defects 
in Firestone Steeltex tires.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of two 
petitions submitted to NHTSA under 49 U.S.C. 30162 by the Law Offices 
of Lisoni &

[[Page 58222]]

Lisoni of Pasadena, California, requesting that the agency commence a 
defect investigation of alleged defects in all Firestone Steeltex tires 
manufactured since 1995 and in those Steeltex tires installed on 
ambulances. After a review of the petitions and other information, 
NHTSA has concluded that further expenditure of the agency's 
investigative resources on the issues raised by the petitions does not 
appear warranted. The agency accordingly has denied the petitions. The 
petitions are hereinafter identified as DP04-004 (All Steeltex tires) 
and DP04-005 (Steeltex tires on ambulances).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gregory Magno, Safety Defects 
Engineer, Office of Defects Investigation (ODI), NHTSA, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-0139.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Petition Review--DP04-004 and DP04-005

1.0 Introduction

    On May 12, 2004 the Law Offices of Lisoni & Lisoni (petitioners) 
submitted two petitions requesting that the Office of Defects 
Investigation (ODI) commence an investigation of Firestone Steeltex 
tires pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30162, and issue a recall order pursuant to 
49 U.S.C. Sections 30118(b), 30119, and 30120. One petition pertains to 
all Steeltex tires manufactured since 1995 (DP04-004), and the other 
pertains to Steeltex tires on ambulances (DP04-005). ODI began a 
technical review of DP04-004 and -005 on May 26, 2004 in accordance 
with the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30162. During the review, ODI:
    <bullet> Analyzed data within its own vehicle owners questionnaire 
(VOQ) database;
    <bullet> Analyzed early warning reporting (EWR) data submitted by 
all tire manufacturers since December 2003;
    <bullet> Examined a total of 190 Steeltex tires, 21 of which had 
been installed on ambulances;
    <bullet> Hired an independent expert to examine 89 failed Steeltex 
tires held by Bridgestone-Firestone North American Tires (Firestone) at 
a storage facility in Marengo, Indiana; \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A ``failed'' tire is a tire that experiences a major 
component (e.g. tread or casing) separation or other event including 
rapid air-loss while driving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> Requested and analyzed data pertaining to Steeltex tire 
performance from Firestone;
    <bullet> Analyzed the petition contents and additional data 
requested from the petitioners;
    <bullet> Witnessed and interviewed the petitioners' consultants 
during their examination of failed Steeltex tires at Firestone's Akron, 
Ohio technical center;
    <bullet> Collected ambulance-specific data from the Ford Motor 
Company (Ford), primary manufacturer of ambulance platforms equipped 
with light truck radial tires over the last ten years;
    <bullet> Interviewed 30 of the ambulance operators cited in the 
petitions; and
    <bullet> Interviewed a local ambulance fleet operator not cited in 
the petitions to better understand approaches to ambulance tire usage 
and maintenance.
    Based on this technical review, ODI has concluded that the 
petitions should be denied.

2.0 Background

    Steeltex is a model name applied to the majority of light truck 
radial tires sold by Firestone since 1990. Over this time period, 
Firestone has manufactured in excess of forty million Steeltex tires in 
three load ranges (C, D, and E), two types (all terrain (A/T) and all 
season (R4S, superceded by the R4SII)), and twelve sizes at five 
plants. Steeltex tires have been the primary original equipment (OE) 
tire on many of the largest passenger vans, sport utility vehicles 
(SUV), pickup trucks, and ``cutaways'' (including motor homes (RV) and 
ambulances) sold in that time period. Almost three quarters of Steeltex 
tires produced are Load Range E (LRE) tires that may be inflated up to 
80 psi and can carry between 2,500 lb and 3,400 lb per tire. More than 
half of Steeltex tires are concentrated in three sizes: LT225/75R16, 
LT245/75R16, and LT265/75R16.
    Steeltex tires are light truck radial (LTR) tires comprised of two 
polyester body plies and two steel belts. Within the population of 
Steeltex tires there exist a variety of designs that include obvious 
differences such as tread pattern, sidewall configuration, and tire 
size as well as differences in internal construction such as cord 
configuration, cord gauge, cord angle, and mold shape. LTR tires are 
distinguished from passenger radial (PSR) tires by having heavier cord 
gauges, thicker rubber plies, deeper tread depths, and substantially 
higher inflation pressures. These qualities enable them to carry 
heavier loads and resist chipping and tearing. However, these 
characteristics also increase their sensitivity to usage factors such 
as overload, underinflation, and overspeed. This is due chiefly to the 
heat generated by these factors and the lesser ability of thicker, 
heavier tires to dissipate this heat. Heat promotes a reduction in the 
material properties in all radial tires.
    ODI initiated its first investigation (PE00-040) of Steeltex tires 
on September 9, 2000. PE00-040 was closed on April 9, 2002. The primary 
bases for the decision to close were the fact that the tires under 
investigation displayed failure rates comparable to those of LTR tires 
sold by other major manufacturers and that many of the failures 
reported were influenced by the usage factors cited above. ODI also 
noted that the vehicle type had the largest influence on the likelihood 
of a tire failure causing a vehicle crash.
    ODI revisited the question of Steeltex tire failures during its 
technical review of a petition (DP02-011) from the Law Offices of 
Lisoni & Lisoni in November of 2002. DP02-011 alleged that all Steeltex 
tires manufactured since 1990 were defective, that ODI had undercounted 
VOQs in its database, and that Firestone had deliberately understated 
its failure figures. ODI denied DP02-011 on June 16, 2003 on the basis 
that VOQ and Firestone figures had changed little since the closing of 
PE00-040 and that the petitions added relatively little new data for 
consideration.
    The petitions under consideration here allege that all Steeltex 
tires manufactured since 1995 are defective and that Steeltex tires 
used on ambulances pose an unacceptable safety risk to Emergency 
Medical Service (EMS) operators. Among other things, the new petitions 
contain allegations that Firestone cost reduction efforts compromised 
Steeltex tire durability, and the petitioners' assessment from their 
examination of disabled Steeltex tires in Firestone's custody.

3.0 DP04-004 Analysis (All Steeltex Tires Produced Since 1995)

3.1 VOQs Since the Denial of DP02-011
    During the fourteen months since the denial of DP02-011, ODI has 
received 294 Steeltex tire failure VOQs, approximately three-quarters 
of which reported tread separations.\2\ Fourteen VOQs allege that the 
tire failure led to a crash, of which six involved injuries, with no 
deaths.
    In terms of tire fitment, Class C RVs based on cutaway van chassis 
represent the largest share of VOQs received, with just under half of 
the Steeltex tire failures reported; however, none of these involved a 
crash or injury. RV

[[Page 58223]]

complaints largely involved the Ford E-series dual rear wheel platform 
using LT225/75R16 LRE Steeltex R4S tires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This figure does not include letters mailed to ODI at the 
behest of an August 4, 2004 e-mail from the petitioners to their 
clients. To date, ODI is aware of 27 such letters, the majority of 
which describe tire failures that were reported in the petition, VOQ 
database, or Firestone property damage claim database. All but one 
of these events occurred prior to 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pickup trucks accounted for a third of the VOQs and half of the 
remaining crash reports while Ford Excursions equipped with tires 
subject to Recall 04T-003 accounted for a third of the crashes, and 
half of the injuries. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On February 26, 2004, Firestone announced that it would 
recall approximately 487,000 LT265/75R16 LRD Steeltex A/T tires 
manufactured for OE fitment on MY 2000-2003 Ford Excursion SUVs. 
Firestone estimated that 297,000 of these tires were still in 
service at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Excluding tires subject to Recall 04T-003, the total known Steeltex 
failure VOQ count now stands at 1,451; of which 908 report tread 
separation. Thirty-four VOQs report vehicle crashes, of which 28 led to 
injuries or deaths. A total of 51 injuries and 6 deaths were reported.
3.2 EWR Data
    ODI began receiving EWR data from all major tire manufacturers in 
December of 2003. This includes data on production, adjustments, 
property damage claims, and death and injury claims and notices. 
Scrutiny of these data earlier this year contributed to Recall 04T-003.
    ODI's analysis has found that, in general, Steeltex tire property 
damage claim rates are very close to and in many cases below the LTR 
class average, with a number of major LTR tire manufacturers having 
higher claim rates. In all cases, for each size of Steeltex tires, two 
or more competitors experienced higher property damage claim rates.
    ODI also reviewed the death and injury claim and notice 
(collectively, ``claim'') data and found that Steeltex tires were above 
the industry average for injury-only LTR tire claim rates but had some 
of the lowest fatal LTR tire claim rates. With respect to injury 
claims, two major LTR tire manufacturers experienced higher rates.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ It should be noted that no single tire manufacturer 
consistently ranked the highest in any of the categories described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.3 Tire Analysis
    To determine whether a pattern of failure modes or underlying 
causes existed in Steeltex tires, ODI hired Thomas M. Dodson, an expert 
in tire forensic analysis from a prominent tire and materials test 
lab,\5\ to examine tires at Marengo. A total of 89 Steeltex tires were 
randomly selected from within each of three tire sizes,\6\ half of 
which had been examined by the petitioners.
    According to the report issued by Mr. Dodson, while tire failure 
modes observed at Marengo appeared similar at the macroscopic level, 
they were quite varied when viewed from a close-up perspective. The 
report also stated that the numerous different failure modes observed 
did not indicate the presence of a common or singular underlying cause 
of failure. Furthermore, the report also found that the types of 
conditions and/or appearances observed were consistent with the array 
of modes of failure typically seen in tires of comparable size and 
type. Usage factors such as road hazards, mounting damage, improper 
repairs, and overdeflection figured prominently in Mr. Dodson's 
observations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Smithers Scientific Services of Akron, Ohio furnished the 
expert and issued a report, available in the DP04-004 public file.
    \6\ Three tire sizes account for the majority of tire production 
and property damage claims, and are used on potentially sensitive 
vehicles such as large passenger vans and ambulances: LT225/75R16, 
LT245/75R16, and LT265/75R16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ODI engineer who participated in Mr. Dodson's examinations of 
tires at Marengo also witnessed the petitioners' examination of 74 
Steeltex tires in Akron and observed many of the same contributory 
factors and conditions.
3.4 Firestone Data
    ODI reviewed thousands of claims \7\ received by Firestone over the 
last ten years. After filtering out tires subject to Recall 04T-003, 
misapplications, and the most obvious road hazards and flex-
failures,\8\ all Steeltex tire sizes and lines show failure rates that 
are lower than those observed in peer LRE tires. The four largest LRE 
tire sizes continue to account for 85% of claims and all but one of the 
nonfatal injury crashes that occurred in 2002. Tires manufactured in 
1999 account for the highest number of claims and of injury crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In this case, the term claim refers to lawsuits and claims 
for both property damage and personal injury.
    \8\ Flex failure is caused by operation at extreme levels of 
underinflation, a condition that was identified in some tires by 
both ODI's expert and the petitioners' consultants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ODI also examined Firestone's warranty adjustment data and found no 
signs of a defect trend overall, or in any specific tire lines and 
sizes.
    In summary, the above information indicates that Steeltex tires 
overall do not stand out from their peers in terms of failure rates, 
and there are no indications of a defect trend.

4.0 DP04-005 Analysis (Steeltex Tires on Ambulances)

4.1 ODI VOQs
    ODI has received over 100 VOQs relating to ambulances over the last 
ten years, 28 of which involve tires, four of which reported concerns 
with valve stem durability or accessibility, or sidewall cracks. Of the 
24 VOQs that report tire failures, two involved Michelin tires. One of 
the Michelin complaints reported multiple sidewall failures that 
stopped occurring after the fleet converted their OE rubber valve stems 
to metal clamp-in valve stems.
    The VOQs that report Steeltex tire failures involve Type I and Type 
III ambulances based on the Ford F-350 and E-350/-450 dual rear wheel 
platforms. Most of these failures occurred on the rear axle. None of 
the 22 VOQs allege a crash, injury, or death. Most incidents took place 
in 2000 and 2001, with the most recent incident occurring in August 
2003.
4.2 Firestone Data
    Over the last ten years, Firestone has received a total of eight 
claims relating to Steeltex tires on ambulances. Six of these are 
claims for property damage only, while the remaining two are personal 
injury claims involving a total of three injuries, including one death. 
One of the injury claims was dismissed because the injury could not be 
substantiated and the LT245/75R16 LRE tire involved displayed the 
classic flex failure mode associated with severe underinflation, while 
the other claim, involving the death and a non-fatal injury, is still 
open.
    Overall, the property damage claims are confined to Steeltex R4S/
R4SII tires, mostly involving LT225/75R16 LRE tires. With the exception 
of a misapplied LRC tire and two failures due to extreme 
underinflation, failure times varied from two to five years in service.
4.3 Ford Data
    Ford produced the vast majority of LTR tire-equipped ambulance 
platforms, totaling almost 60,000 over the last ten years. Dual rear 
wheel vehicles, which were predominantly fitted with Steeltex tires, 
account for two thirds of ambulance production, with Type III E-350/-
450 cutaways accounting for almost half of overall production.
    Ford informed ODI that it chooses tire fitments for ambulance 
package-equipped vehicles based on the tire's ability to meet speed and 
load requirements. It has further stated that it discourages vehicle 
modifiers that convert cutaways into finished ambulances from changing 
the OE tire fitments provided by Ford.
    Ford has received sixteen tire-related complaints concerning 
ambulances over the last ten years, a quarter of which relate to valve 
stem leakage or tire

[[Page 58224]]

misapplication. The sole reported injury crash involved a Uniroyal tire 
failing on the right rear position of a MY 1997 Type II ambulance in 
2001. One additional crash was reported in 2002 that involved a patched 
tire and no injuries.
    Review of the failure data reported to ODI, Firestone, and Ford 
indicates that Steeltex tire failures on ambulances are spread out over 
a significant period of time, and often involve usage factors such as 
misapplication, valve stem concerns (as evidenced by the complaints 
regarding valve stem durability and access), and road hazards. 
Additionally, analysis indicates that Steeltex tires were, until 2003, 
the predominant tire used in dual rear wheel ambulance applications 
and, thus, uniquely exposed to tire issues associated with ambulance 
operation.

5.0 Petition Allegations

    The petitioners made numerous allegations,\9\ which primarily 
restate those in DP02-011: that ODI has undercounted Steeltex VOQs; 
that the volume of complaints \10\ gathered is evidence of a safety 
defect trend; and that the subject tires contain manufacturing and 
material defects. In contrast to DP02-011, the petitioners have now 
examined a number of failed Steeltex tires in Firestone's custody and 
have characterized their findings as evidence that the tires are 
defective in design and manufacture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Allegations and supporting information were provided in 
three submissions: Petitions DP04-004 and DP04-005 dated May 12, 
2004; a submission dated July 20, 2004 that includes video tapes of 
the Marengo tire inspections, copies of VOQs, and additional 
complaint information; and a technical report dated July 29, 2004.
    \10\ Many of these complaints allege failure modes such as flex 
failures, and impact breaks that are different from tread 
separation--the failure mode identified in the petitions. We further 
note that these failures can be caused by many different conditions, 
including usage factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ODI has reviewed the materials submitted in the petitions and found 
that they do not demonstrate the existence of a safety-related defect 
trend or warrant the opening of a defect investigation. The petitions 
allege a wide array of defects throughout the various sizes, load 
ranges, and designs of Steeltex tires manufactured by Firestone since 
1995. These include inferior raw materials, inadequate component 
gauges, improper splices, improper curing, inadequate rubber-wire 
adhesion in the steel belts, and various other design and manufacturing 
deficiencies. ODI's analysis of all of the available tire failure data 
does not indicate that the Steeltex tires contain a defect condition 
and certainly do not support the petitioner's claims of such a broad 
range of defects.
    The petitioners did not conduct any testing or laboratory analyses 
to support these claims and some of the claims are in direct conflict 
with others. For example, the current and prior petitions allege that 
the Steeltex tires contain the same defect as the Wilderness A/T tires 
previously recalled by Firestone and identify inadequate rubber-wire 
adhesion, as allegedly demonstrated by ``shiny brass'' in the belt 
wire, as one of the primary causes. Extensive lab analyses of hundreds 
of Wilderness A/T tires performed by ODI, Firestone, and Ford during 
the course of EA00-023 found good steel cord-rubber adhesion and that 
Wilderness A/T tire tread separations involved fatigue crack growth 
through the skim rubber between the two steel belts, rather than at the 
interface between the rubber and steel. Likewise, many of the tires 
examined at Marengo displayed crisp multi-level tear patterns in the 
skim rubber, suggesting good steel cord-rubber adhesion. The report 
submitted by the petitioners at the end of July contains many similar 
internal contradictions and scientific errors.\11\
    The petitioners' resubmission of allegedly undercounted Steeltex 
VOQs contained many of the same errors highlighted in the DP02-011 
denial: Fully one-fifth of these complaints involved tires sold by 
Firestone's competitors,\12\ non-Steeltex Firestone tires,\13\ 
contained no failure summary or description, or reported conditions 
that were not tire failures such as vibrations and rapid wear. In the 
end, somewhat more than half of the original number of complaints 
submitted by the petitioners alleged a Steeltex tread separation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, Page 6 of the July 29, 2004 report 
misidentifies (tire) rubber ``reversion'' as the return of 
vulcanized rubber to its pre-cure state in the presence of high 
temperatures. This conflicts with established polymer science that 
identifies rubber reversion as a continuation of the vulcanization 
process, leading to a decline in its desirable physical properties. 
Likewise, statements made on Page 8 mischaracterize the reasons for 
adding natural rubber to tires as being its heat resistance relative 
to that of synthetic rubber.
    \12\ For example: VOQ <greek-i> 748972 reported multiple tread 
separations on Michelin LT225/75R16 tires on a Ford E-350 RV.
    \13\ For example: VOQ <greek-i> 733402 reported road hazard 
damage to a Wilderness A/T P265/75R16 tire on a 2000 Chevrolet 
Silverado.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DP04-004 Exhibits E and F contain information concerning the 
petitioners' tire examinations at Marengo. While the petitioners used 
former Firestone employees as consultants, they applied forensic 
condition codes that are not used by Firestone and in many cases do not 
accurately describe a disabled tire condition. Many basic mistakes were 
made, including the misstatement of the DOT code or consumer's name in 
almost a third of the records.
    The petitioners make numerous references to the C95 cost reduction 
program \14\ conducted by Firestone in the mid 1990s as evidence of 
unacceptable reductions to Steeltex tire quality.\15\ Firestone has 
stated that many of the recommendations cited by the petitioners were 
never implemented. The petitioners have attempted to link Firestone's 
search for lower cost materials to a labor dispute at a carbon black 
supplier from which Firestone buys relatively little material. The 
petitioners also allege that lighter steel cords were used, reducing 
steel cord-rubber adhesion; yet ODI has observed signs of strong steel 
cord-rubber adhesion in most of the Steeltex tires that it examined. 
The petitioners have alleged that process times were shortened leading 
to undercure of Steeltex tires, and that such tires would fail early in 
service, but we note that failure data show that these tires generally 
fail well into their service lives, on average after three years of 
use, and halfway through their tread life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Information concerning C95 was submitted by the petitioners 
to ODI in April 2003 during ODI's technical review of DP02-011. The 
document submitted included a list of 153 potential cost-reduction 
recommendations.
    \15\ More details concerning these allegations can be found in 
the petitioners' July 29 technical report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DP04-005 alleges that Steeltex tires endanger ambulance operators 
and contains two references to press reports of patients dying as a 
result of ambulance tire failures, 41 signed statements from EMS 
companies, and additional contact information contained in Exhibits A 
and B.
    ODI has found significant inconsistencies in this information. For 
example, one of the alleged fatal ambulance crashes involved a Type II 
ambulance that left the road and rolled over. Closer investigation 
found that that there was no evidence of a pre-crash tire failure, and 
that the vehicle was in fact fitted with Michelin tires. Two of the 
complainants that filed signed statements included in DP04-005 were not 
EMS services and did not operate ambulances;\16\ the vehicle crash 
experienced by the Kinross EMS was not caused by a tire failure;\17\ 
and fully

[[Page 58225]]

one third of the EMS services contacted by ODI did not experience a 
tire failure while driving.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ One was a general contractor (North East Lighting 
Protection) and one was a state environmental agency (Florida Bureau 
of Environmental Response).
    \17\ A Kinross EMS representative advised that the petitioner 
has misquoted them. Kinross EMS has experienced two Steeltex tire 
failures, both attributed to valve stem extension leakage on its 
vehicles. The crash itself was unrelated to tire failure and 
occurred as a result of driving in icy conditions.
    \18\ In these instances, complainants reported valve stem 
leakage, vibration, bulges, and irregular wear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.0 Discussion

    In determining whether to open a defect investigation into a 
product, ODI typically considers a number of factors, dependent upon 
the alleged defect and component at issue. The decision whether to re-
open an investigation into Firestone Steeltex tires was based on 
consideration of a number of matters identified during the course of 
the technical review. These considerations were discussed at length 
above and include such items as the number and trend of owner 
complaints, claims and adjustment data, the number and severity of 
injury claims, and evidence of a possible source and mode of failure.
    Standing alone, no one factual consideration was dispositive. For 
example, the fact that the adjustment or property damage claims rates 
for Steeltex tires may have been comparable to or lower than competitor 
tires, was but one factor. Other information was considered as well, 
such as the number and severity of injury incidents associated with the 
tires, and the variety of failure conditions observed during ODI's tire 
examinations.
    As noted in the denial of DP02-011, the subject Steeltex tires 
represent an immense and diverse population of tires that are used in 
the harshest LTR tire applications. The data continue to show that the 
rate of Steeltex tire failures is similar to that of other tires in 
similar uses.
    The petitioners' data and VOQs show that Class C RVs, representing 
a relatively small segment of vehicles that use Steeltex tires, account 
for the largest share of recent failures, but a very small share of the 
crash numbers. Class C RVs are an especially severe LTR tire 
application because, by design, they operate very close to the tires' 
rated capacities, are subject to tire pressure maintenance concerns, 
and accumulate mileage at a lower rate than most other vehicles 
equipped with LTR tires.
    Additionally, the independent tire failure expert ODI retained to 
examine an assortment of failed Steeltex tires was unable to find 
evidence of any specific type or mode of failure in the tires. His 
examination concluded that the tires demonstrated evidence of a wide 
variety of failure modes, all of which were consistent with the failure 
modes typically seen in tires of comparable size and type, regardless 
of manufacturer.
    With regard to ambulance applications in particular, tire 
examinations and interviews conducted by ODI, and surveys conducted by 
Firestone have uncovered evidence of significant tire maintenance 
concerns (many of which also apply to RVs). ODI examined 21 ambulance 
tires and found many of the same conditions observed at Marengo, 
including flex failures and unrepaired road hazards. The dual rear 
wheel arrangement on many ambulances often renders the inner valve stem 
inaccessible, making it difficult to assure that proper pressures are 
maintained. Up to a third of the vehicles surveyed by Firestone 
evidenced substantial underinflation of their tires. This is especially 
significant because, like RVs, ambulances operate very close to the 
maximum carrying capacity of their tires most of the time.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Based on these and other operational and maintenance issues 
identified in dual rear wheel tire applications during the course of 
this review, NHTSA plans to conduct outreach activities to the EMS 
and RV communities in an effort to improve vehicle/tire loading and 
tire pressure maintenance conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7.0 Conclusions

    Based on ODI's analysis of information submitted in support of the 
petitions, additional complaint and claims information gathered since 
the DP02-011 denial, and its examination of failed Steeltex tires, it 
is unlikely that NHTSA would issue an order for the notification and 
remedy of a safety-related defect in the subject tires at the 
conclusion of the investigations requested by the petitioners. 
Therefore, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize NHTSA's 
limited resources to best accomplish the agency's safety mission, ODI 
is denying the petitions to reopen the Steeltex investigation. ODI will 
continue to monitor the performance of these tires for any signs of an 
emerging defect trend.

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

    Issued on: September 24, 2004.
Kenneth N. Weinstein,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 04-21786 Filed 9-28-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P