Advisory opinion clarifying three provisions of a 1972 order concerning safety claims for its tires

609
Clarification of three proV1s1ons of a 1972 order concerning
safety claims for its tires. [Firestone Tire and Rubber Company,
D-8818]
November 30, 1989
Dear Mr. Haase:
On July 7, 1989, respondent in the above-referenced matter filed
with the 	Commission 	a request 	pursuant to 	Rule 	2.51 	of the
Commission's Rules of Practice for a reopening of the proceeding and
a modification of the order entered therein. 	In the alternative,
respondent requested an Advisory Opinion from the Commission,
pursuant to Rule 2.41, interpreting several provisions of the order in a
manner that would obviate the need for the proposed modifications.
The Commission has determined to issue the requested Advisory
Opinion and, therefore, has not considered whether the proceeding
should be reopened and the order modified.
Firestone is concerned with the interpretation of three aspects of
the order. First, respondent points to the provision in paragraph 3
prohibiting any representation "that respondent's tires will be safe
under all conditions of use," and to paragraph 5, which requires
substantiation for representations "that any of respondent's automo-
bile tires· have any safety or performance characteristic.''
Respondent contends that neither one of the quoted expressions
covers, or should cover, such generalized claims as "Quality you can
trust," "Because so much is riding on your tires," or "Performance,
safety, and price all rolled into one." Firestone argues that such
generalized safety claims do not amount to representations that a tire
is "safe under all conditions of use" or that a tire has a "safety
characteristic.''
The Commission agrees that paragraph 3 of the order was not
intended to apply to all representations regarding tire safety. In
particular, the Commission believes that this provision of the order
does not apply to generalized safety claims, such as those noted above.
In 	reaching this 	conclusion, 	the 	Commission 	notes 	that 	in 	its
administrative complaint against Firestone it cited six Firestone
advertisements as violating the FTC Act and that four of them
explicitly referred to tire safety. Yet in that complaint the Commission
only charged one of those advertisements (the "Safe Tire" advertise-
ment) with being a representation that Firestone tires were safe under

610 	FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS
112 F.T.C.
all conditions of use. The Commission did not allege that the other
advertisements 	that 	explicitly 	made 	safety claims 	(the 	"Safety
Champion" advertisements) also made that representation.
Therefore, it is the Commission's opinion that a generalized safety
claim such as "Quality you can trust," "Because so much is riding on
your tires," or "Performance, safety, and price all rolled into one"
would not constitute a representation, direct or implied, that Firestone
tires will be "safe under all conditions of use" and, consequently,
would not be prohibited under paragraph 3. Of course, any general-
ized safety claim that is unfair or deceptive would still be prohibited by
Section 5(a) of the FTC Act.
The Commission also agrees with Firestone that the substantiation
requirement contained in paragraph 5 of the order was not intended to
apply to generalized safety claims. Such claims do not refer to any
particular safety or performance characteristic and the Commission
has never .interpreted the order to require scientific testing for such
claims.
Therefore, it is the Commission's opinion that a generalized safety
claim would not be subject to paragraph 5's requirement of scientific
testing for any representation, direct or implied, of a safety character-
istic. For example, such claims as "Quality you can trust," "Because
so much is riding on your tires," and "Performance, safety, and price
all rolled into one" are generalized safety claims for which paragraph
5 of the order does not require scientific testing. By contrast, claims
that relate to a specific, objectively verifiable tire characteristic such
as "Tests show our tires are 30% less likely to blow out on the
highway," "The indestructible tire," or "Five times stronger than
steel of the same weight" would require scientific testing.
The second aspect of the order about which Firestone ·is concerned
also involves the substantiation requirement in paragraph 5. This
provision prohibits representations
that any of respondent's automobile tires have any safety or performance
characteristic or are superior in quality or performance to other products unless
each such characteristic was fully a~d completely substantiated by competent
scientific tests, with the results of the test, the original test data collected in the
course of the test, and a detailed description of how the test was performed
available in written form for inspection for at least three years following the final
use of the representation.
Firestone states that it is unsure what is meant by the expression

609
"fully and completely substantiated by competent scientific tests" in
paragraph 5. According to respondent, this phrase might require
"absolute proof'' for claims about safety or performance characteris-
tics, rather than the level of substantiation that is typically required in
Commission orders requiring scientific substantiation.
Paragraph 5 should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the
Commission's Opinion in Firestone (81 FrC 463 (1972)), and with the
Commission's other orders· that contain requirements of scientific
testing. See, e.g., Jerome Milton, Inc., 110 FTC 104 (1988). Moreover,
in the Firestone Opinion the Commission stated that:
In our view a scientific test is one in which persons with skill and expertise in the
field conduct the test and evaluate its results in a disinterested manner using
testing procedures generally accepted in the profession which best insure accurate
results. This is not to say that respondent always must conduct laboratory tests.
The appropriate test depends on the nature of the claim made. Thus a road or user
test may be an adequate scientific test to substantiate one performance claim,
whereas a laboratory test may be the proper test to substantiate another claim.
Respondent's obligation is to assure that any claim it makes is adequately
substantiated by the results of whatever constitutes a scientific test in those
circumstances.
Therefore, it is the Commission's opinion that the expression "fully
and completely substantiated by competent scientific tests" found in
paragraph 5 means substantiated by tests in which persons qualified
by professional training, education and experience formulate and
conduct the tests and evaluate their results using testing procedures
which are generally accepted in the· profession to attain valid and
reliable results.
Finally, Firestone seeks clarification of the Commission's interpre-
tation of paragraph 4 of the order. This provision prohibits respondent
from
making any representation, directly or by implication, regarding the safety of
respondent's tires without disclosing clearly and conspicuously and in close
conjunction with such representation that the safety of any tire is . affected by
conditions of use, such as inflation pressure, vehicle weight, wear, and other
operating conditions (emphasis added).
Firestone concedes that this paragraph covers all safety claims,
whether general or specific, but argues that the required disclosure
need not contain the precise words underlined above. The Commission
agrees. The absence of quotation marks surrounding the above

612 	FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS
Dissenting Statement 	112 F.T.C.
passage in the order and the discussion of this provision in the
Firestone Opinion, 81 FTC at 463-64, indicate that the Commission
intended to leave the exact wording of the disclosure up to Firestone,
as long as any disclosure 	used 	adequately conveys the desired
message.
Therefore, it is the Commission's opinion that paragraph 4 would be
satisfied by a disclosure that states that "tire safety requires proper
care and use," along with a statement directing consumers to their
Firestone retailers for a copy of Firestone's safety brochure.
By direction of the Commission, Commissioner Strenio dissenting.
DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER ANDREW J. STRENIO, JR.
The Commission majority has issued an advisory letter that, among
other things, informs Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. that generalized
safety claims are not covered by paragraph 5 of the 1972 order and
that such claims do not require scientific substantiation. This aspect of
the advisory letter is inconsistent with the existing Commission order
and contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
First, I think that in issuing the order in 1972 the Commission
intended to require substantiation not only for claims about specific
safety attributes, such as "Firestone tires are puncture-resistant," but
also for overall claims such as "Firestone tires are safe." Indeed, the
concurrent Commission opinion took an inclusive approach. The AI.J's
substantiation provision used the expansive phrase, "have any safety
or 	performance 	characteristics." 	The 	Commission 	proceeded 	to
interpret the AI.J's provision as covering, "any representations as to
... quality, safety or performance." Although the Commission changed
other parts of the ALJ's substantiation requirement, it retained the
"any safety or performance characteristics" 	language. 	Thus, 	it
appears that the substantiation provision covers all safety claims,
regardless of whether those claims are specific or generalized.
Second the rationale for treating "generalized safety claims" more
leniently that "specific safety claims" is strained at best. It seems
illogical to allow a possibly lower level of substantiation for the broad
claim of overall safety than _for narrower claims of quality regarding a
subset of safety attributes, such as puncture resistance.
Finally, I am troubled by the majority's implicit suggestion that for
advertising not covered by this order the Commission might require a
lesser standard of substantiation for generalized safety claims. In my

609
view, generalized safety claims such as "Our tires are safe" are
objective and verifiable claims covered by the Commission's ad
substantiation doctrine.
Applying that standard, all safety claims should be substantiated by
scientific evidence as defined by the Commission in the Firestone
opinion. Specifically, a scientific test must be conducted by persons
with skill and· expertise in the field who evaluate the results in a
disinterested manner and use testing procedures generally accepted in
the profession as ensuring accuracy. This is a reasonable and flexible
standard that protects the public without being unduly burdensome to
Firestone-or to any other manufacturer choosing to make safety
claims. In short, this is a standard for safety advertising that the
public deserves and expects. The Commission should insist upon this
standard of safety advertising substantiation rather than endangering
it.
Letter of Request
July 7, 1989
PETITION TO REOPEN PROCEEDING AND MODIFY ORDER
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 45(b) and Rule 2.51 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice, respondent Firestone Tire and Rubber Company,
Inc. ("Firestone") requests that this proceeding be reopened and that
paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of the final order herein be modified. In the
alternative, Firestone requests advice pursuant to Rule 2.41 (d) of the
Commission's Rules of Practice regarding the meaning of these
paragraphs. Firestone's specific requests are as follows:
I. Paragraph 3
[Current language orders Firestone to cease and desist from "Using
the words, 'the safe tire,' or any other word or phrase of similar
import or meaning to describe or designate respondent's tires or
otherwise representing directly or by implication, that respondent's
tires will be safe under all conditions of use."].
A. Delete; or
B. Modify·· by substituting the following language:
"Using the words, 'the safe tire' or otherwise representing, directly

614 	FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS
112 F.T.C.
or by implication, that respondent's tires will be safe under all
conditions of use; provided, that a generalized safety claim will not be
deemed to imply that respondent's tires will be safe under all
conditions of use. For example, claims such as 'Quality you can trust,'
'Because so much is riding on your tires,' and 'Performance, safety,
and price all rolled into one' are generalized safety claims that are not
prohibited under this section. By contrast, absolute claims such as
'skidproof,' 'blowout proof,' 'indestructible,' or 'fail-safe' are prohibit-
ed."; or
C. Advise Firestone that generalized safety claims such as "Quality
you can trust," "Because so much is riding on your tires," and
"Performance, safety, and price all rolled into one" do not represent
directly or by implication that Firestone tires will be safe under all
conditions of use and therefore are not prohibited under paragraph 3.
II. Paragraph 4
[Current language orders Firestone to cease and desist from
"Making any representation, directly or by implication, regarding the
safety of respondent's tires without disclosing clearly and conspicu-
ously and in close conjunction with such representation that the safety
of any tire is affected by conditions of use, such as inflation pressure,
vehicle weight, wear, and other operating conditions."].
A. Delete; or
B. Modify by substituting the following language or substantially
similar language acceptable to Firestone:
1. ''Making any representation, directly or by implication, regarding
the 	safety 	of respondent's 	tires 	without 	disclosing clearly 	and
conspicuously and in close conjunction with such representation that
consumers should see their Firestone retailers for a copy of Fire-
stone's safety brochure"; or
2. "Making any representation, directly or by implication, regarding
the 	safety 	of respondent's 	tires 	without 	disclosing 	clearly 	and
conspicuously and in close conjunction with such representation that
tire safety requires proper care and use"; or
C. Advise Firestone that paragraph 4 is satisfied by a disclosure
that refers consumers to their Firestone retailers for a copy of
Firestone's safety brochure, and/or advise Firestone that paragraph 4
is satisfied by a disclosure indicating that tire safety requires proper
care and use.

609
1\lJVl.:>V.l\.l. vrHUVl'II
III. Paragraph 5
[Current language orders Firestone to cease and desist from
"Representing, directly or by implication, that any of respondent's
automobile tires have any safety or performance characteristic or are
superior in quality or performance to other products unless each such
characteristic was fully and completely substantiated by competent
scientific tests, with the results of the test, the original test data
collected in the course of the test, and a detailed description of how
the test was performed available in written form for inspection for at
least three years following the final use of the representation"].
A. Modify by adding the following language at the end of paragraph
5:
1. ''Provided, that a generalized safety claim will not be deemed
subject to the foregoing requirement of scientific substantiation. For
example, such claims as 'Quality you can trust,' 'Because so much is
riding on your tires,' and 'Performance, safety, and price all rolled into
one' are generalized safety claims that do not require scientific
substantiation .. By contrast, claims that relate to specific, objectively
verifiable tire characteristics such as 'Tests show our tires are 30%
less likely to blow out on the highway,' 'The indestructible tire,' or
'Five times stronger than steel of the same weight' do require
scientific substantiation.''
And, immediately following the above language:
2. "And provided further, that 'fully and completely substantiated
by competent scientific tests' shall mean substantiated by tests in
which 	one 	or 	more 	persons 	qualified 	by 	professional 	training,
education 	and 	experience 	formulate 	and conduct the tests 	and
evaluate. their results using testing procedures which are generally
accepted in the profession to attain valid and reliable results."; or
B. Advise Firestone that generalized safety claims such as "Quality
you can trust," "Because so much is riding on your tires," and
"Performance, safety, and price all rolled into one" are not subject to
paragraph 	5, 	and 	that 	"fully 	and 	completely 	substantiated 	by
competent scientific tests" means substantiated by tests in which one
or more persons qualified by professional training, education and
experience formulate and conduct the tests and evaluate their results
using 	testing 	procedures 	which 	are 	generally 	accepted 	in 	the
profession to attain valid and reliable results.

616 	FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS
112 F.T.C.
The accompanying Memorandum in support of this Petition sets
forth the basis for the requested relief.
Respectfully submitted,
Jack R. Bierig
Of Counsel: 	Richard D. Raskin
Sidley & Austin
Glenn R. Haase
Paul R. Peterson
The Firestone Tire &
Rubber Company
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION TO
REOPEN PROCEEDING AND MODIFY ORDER OR,
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION
Introduction
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 45(b) and Rule 2.51 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice, the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company respectful-
ly requests the Federal Trade Commission to reopen Docket No. 8818
and modify paragraphs 8, 4, and 5 of the final order dated September
22, 1972. See 87 Fed. Reg. 22,977 (October 27, 1972). Alternatively,
Firestone requests an advisory opinion pursuant to Rule 2.4l(d)
interpreting these provisions as applied to generalized claims of tire
safety.
The order is having unintended effects detrimental to consumers
and competition. Entered nearly two decades ago, the order today is
deterring Firestone from providing consumers with truthful, material
product information. In particular, it is preventing Firestone from
making the types of generalized safety [2] claims that its competitors
are making; 1 As a result, consumers are receiving a false picture of
the relative merits of competing tire brands.
In the interest of flexibility, Firestone has submitted a number of
alternative proposals for relief. These proposals range from deleting
particular order provisions to interpreting them through an advisory
opinion. While differing in form, the proposals are directed towards
common goals: they will enable Firestone to disseminate a greater
amount and variety of product information; they will help level the
1. Paragraphs 1-B and III-A of our Petition contain illustrative examples of generalized safety claims.

609
field of competition in the tire industry; and they will make the market
for tires more competitive, to the benefit of consumers. 2
A. 	Paragraphs 3 and 4: The Ban on Unconditional Safety Claims
Paragraphs 	3 	and 	4 of the 	order jointly prohibit claims 	of
unconditional, 	or absolute, tire safety. 	Specifically, paragraph 3
forbids Firestone from using the words "the safe tire" or "otherwise
representing directly or by implication, that [Firestone's] tires will be
safe under all conditions of use." Paragraph 4 requires Firestone to
disclose in close conjunction (31 with any safety representation that
"the safety of any tire is affected by conditions of use, such as
inflation pressure, vehicle weight, wear, and other operating condi-
tions."
For at least three independent reasons, paragraphs 3 and 4 should
be deleted, modified, or clarified thro1:1gh an advisory opinion. First,
since 1979 federal law has required Firestone and all other tire
manufacturers to make point-of-sale disclosures that exceed the
requirements of the order. See pp. 22-29, infra. During the same
period, state liability law has expanded, adding a further incentive for
Firestone to continue providing consumers with this information.
Indeed, Firestone now provides prospective tire purchasers at the
point of sale with extensive safety information that goes well beyond
the requirements of the order or other provisions of law. Firestone's
point-of-sale disclosures provide information that is at once more
detailed, more accurate, more understandable, and more useful to
consumers than the burdensome advertising disclosures required by
paragraph 4. In light of these point-of-sale disclosures, paragraph 4
no longer provides benefits that justify the substantial burdens it
imposes.
Second, the basic factual premise of paragraphs 3 and 4-that,
absent qualifying disclosures, reasonable consumers will interpret
claims of general tire safety as promising absolute safety-is obsolete.
See pp. 30-35, infra. Because [4] consumers today receive a breadth
of explicit safety information at the point of sale, it would be
unreasonable to presume that they lack knowledge of the fundamen-
tals of proper tire care and use. Indeed, a recent consumer survey by
Gallup & Robinson, Inc. confirms that in 1988 reasonable consumers
understand that even a good quality tire is not safe under all
2• The specific terms of Firestone's proposals are contained in the accompanying Petition. The current terms
of the order are set forth in an attachment to the Petition.

618 	FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS
112 F.T.C.
conditions of use. Reasonable consumers therefore do not interpret
truthful, unqualified claims of general safety as asserting absolute
safety, nor do they make purchasing decisions based on any such
misapprehension.
Third, paragraphs 3 and 4 injure consumers and competition by
suppressing truthful, material information about Firestone tires. See
pp. 35-40, infra. In recent years, Firestone's leading competitors have
emphasized generalized safety themes in their passenger tire advertis-
ing. 	Firestone, 	by contrast, 	has 	been constrained from 	making
comparable claims. As a result of this constraint, consumers today
receive a lesser quantity of truthful product information than they
otherwise would. In addition, consumers are led falsely to believe that
competing brands of tires are safer than Firestone tires. These facts
strongly suggest that, to restore the informational integrity of the tire
market, Firestone should be placed on a more equal footing with its
competitors. [5]
As set forth 	in specific terms in the 	accompanying Petition,
Firestone proposes the following modifications to paragraphs 3 and 4:
1. Delete either or both provisions; or
2a. Modify paragraph 3 to provide that generalized safety claims
will not be deemed to imply that Firestone's tires will be safe under all
conditions of use; and/or
b. Modify paragraph 4 to provide that, in consumer advertising, it is
sufficient for Firestone to disclose that a copy of Firestone's safety
brochure is available at the point of sale, .and/or to disclose that tire
safety requires proper care and use.
Alternatively, Firestone requests an advisory opinion to the effect that
(1) paragraph 3 does not apply to·generalized safety claims, and that
(2) paragraph 4 is satisfied by a disclosure referring consumers to
their Firestone retailers for a copy of Firestone's safety brochure,
and/or by a disclosure indicating that tire safety requires proper care
and use.
B. 	Paragraph 5: The Requirement of Full and Complete
Scientific Substantiation
Under paragraph 5, Firestone may not represent that its tires have
any safety or performance characteristic unless each such characteris-
tic is "fully and completely substantiated by competent scientific
tests." This provision also is having unintended effects detrimental to

609
AUV 1.::,vn.1 urU'HVl'i
the public interest. These [6] adverse effects can be substantially
lessened by clarifying the meaning of paragraph 5 in two respects.
First, the scope of paragraph 5 must be clarified. See pp. 40-44,
infra. As currently phrased, paragraph 5 could be interpreted as
requiring scientific substantiation for all safety and performance
claims. However, three sources-the text of paragraph 5, its history,
and subsequent Commission pronouncements on advertising substan-
tiation-each point towards a different interpretation. These sources
indicate that paragraph 5 applies only to claims regarding specific,
objectively verifiable tire characteristics, not to generalized safety
claims. Generalized safety claims are appropriately considered under
the more flexible reasonable basis standard.
Second, 	the 	type 	and 	amount 	of substantiation 	required 	by
paragraph 5 should be clarified. See pp. 45-4 7, infra. As the order is
currently 	phrased, 	the 	terms 	"fully 	and 	completely" 	could 	be
interpreted as requiring a level of substantiation that is, as a practical
matter, impossible to obtain. By defining these terms in a manner that
would appropriately limit their effect, the Commission would conform
the order to orders recently entered in comparable cases involving
scientific substantiation. In this regard, Firestone proposes that a
definition of "scientific tests" derived from the Firestone opinion be
added to the order. This definition would provide Firestone with
additional [7] guidance and enable it to make a greater variety of
truthful product claims.
Firestone therefore proposes the following modifications to para-
graph 5:
1. Clarify that claims regarding specific, objectively verifiable tire
characteristics are 	within the 	scope of paragraph 	5' s 	scientific
substantiation requirement, but that generalized safety claims are
subject to a "reasonable basis" standard; and
2. Clarify that the phrase "fully and completely substantiated by
competent scientific tests" does not impose a requirement of absolute
proof, but requires substantiation by tests in which one or more
persons qualified by professional training, education and experience
formulate and conduct the tests and evaluate their. results using
testing procedures generally accepted in the profession to attain valid
and reliable results.
Alternatively, Firestone requests an advisory opinion addressing these
two issues.

620 	FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS
112 F.T.C.
Background
A. Proceedings in Docket No. 8818
1. Opinion and Order
The Complaint in Docket No. 8818 focused primarily on two
advertising claims made by Firestone during the late 1960s. [8]
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 81 FTC 398 (1972), aff'd, 481 F.2d 246
(6th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1112 (1973). The first claim was that
Firestone manufactures a "safe tire." The Commission found that
some. consumers might understand the "safe tire" advertisement as
implying that Firestone tires are safe under all conditions of use. 81
FTC at 458. Although the Commission did not dispute the fact that
Firestone tires were generally safe, it determined that the implied
absolute safety claim represented a technological impossibility and
was, therefore, untrue. Id. at 452· & n.15. 3
The Commission rejected, solely on methodological grounds, con-
sumer survey data offered by Firestone on the question whether
consumers viewed the ads as claiming absolute safety. Id. at 453.
Instead, the Commission relied on evidence indicating that "many
people do not follow safe practices in using their tires." Id. at 458.
From this evidence of consumer practices, the Commission inferred
that consumers lack knowledge about the fundamentals of proper tire
care. Id. at 459 n.21. Emphasizing that the law protects not only the
sophisticated consumer, but also "'the ignorant, the unthinking and
the credulous,' " the Commission held that the evidence established a
[9] violation of the Act. Id. at 459 (quoting Charles of the Ritz
Distributors Corp. v. FTC, 143 F.2d 676, 679 (2d Cir. 1944)). As
relief, the Commission imposed paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order. 4
The second claim, that Firestone Wide Oval tires "stop 25%
quicker," was held to be inadequately substantiated. 81 FTC at 451.
Firestone did not contest that the advertisement made an objective
claim for which consumers would expect test support. Id. at 444, 450.
The only question was whether Firestone had relied on adequate
3· The Commission also concluded that the advertisement could be construed as implying that Firestone tires
are "free of all defects." Firestone does not request modification of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Order, which
relate to the free of all defects claim. It therefore addresses this aspect of the proceedings only to the extent
necessary to an understanding of the background of paragraphs 3, 4 and 5.
4• Two Commissioners dissented from the majority's holding on the conditions of use claim and the relief
ordered in paragraphs 3 and 4. Chairman Kirkpatrick found that the implication drawn by the majority was
"remote when contrasted with common knowledge regarding minimal levels of tire care." 81 FTC at 439.
Commissioner Dennison disagreed with the majority's conclusion that Firestone had represented that its tires
"would be safe under all possible conditions of use." Id.

609
substantiating evidence for the claim. That evidence consisted of
comparative data from testing of two Firestone tires in ten runs on the
same day. The tires were tested on the same wet smooth concrete
with the same ·tire pressure and load.
The Commission, finding that the advertisements implied that Wide
Oval tires would stop 25% quicker under all road and weather
conditions, held that the tests were too limited to support such claims.
Further, the Commission held that whether the claims influenced
consumers' purchasing decisions was "not relevant to this proceed-
ing." Id. at 451. As relief, the [10] Commission imposed the scientific
substantiation requirement of paragraph 5. Id. at 475. 5
2. Subsequent Developments
a. Synopsis of Opinion and Order. In October 1975, pursuant to a
program then in effect at the Commission, all tire manufacturers were
mailed a synopsis of the Firestone decision. The purpose of the
mailing was to put tire manufacturers on official notice of the
practices found unlawful in Firestone. See FTC v. Sears, Roebuck &
Co., 1983-2 Trade Cases i1 65,677 at 69,459 (D. Colo. 1983); D.
Bickart, "Civil Penalties Under Section 5(m) of the Federal Trade
Commission Act," 44 U. Chi. L. Rev. 761, 767-68 (1977). The
synopsis reiterated the order's ban on "defect free" and unconditional
safety claims, and it set forth certain substantiation requirements. It
did not, however, contain any disclosure requirement, and it did not
require scientific substantiation. Rather, the synopsis stated that it is
an unfair or deceptive practice to represent that a test exists to
support a representation regarding a safety or performance character-
istic of a tire "unless such is the case." [11]
b. Consent Decree. In February 1976, the United States brought an
enforcement proceeding against Firestone for alleged violations of the
order. Without admitting any of the complaint's allegations, Firestone
agreed to the entry of a consent decree. See 	United States v.
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 	1976-1 Trade Cases i1 60,729 at
68,134 (N.D. Ohio 1976). Under the decree, Firestone paid $50,000 in
civil penalties and $750,000 to produce and run advertisements
designed to inform the public about tire safety. The advertisements
stated that tires are not safe under all conditions of use and that tire
safety depends upon proper maintenance and proper vehicle operation.
6• Two Commissioners also dissented from this portion of the decision. See 81 FTC at 439 (Commissioner
Dennison, concurring in part and dissenting in part); i,d. at 441 (Commissioner MacIntyre, concurring in part
as to the result).

622 	FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS
112 F.T.C.
Id. at 68,135. The consent decree further required Firestone to refer
to its radial tires as steel-belted radials, rather than steel radials, to
avoid the possibility of consumer misunderstanding.
Firestone ran the corrective ads during 1976-77. No subsequent
proceedings have been initiated.
B. The Tire Industry Today
The tire industry has changed significantly since the date of the
proceedings that gave rise to the order. In 1972, Firestone was the
leading manufacturer in a U.S. 	market largely unpenetrated by
foreign competition. Today, Firestone is battling for second place in
replacement market tire sales with [12) Michelin-one of several
foreign 	manufacturers that 	have 	entered 	the 	field 	since 	1972.
Appendix A, Affidavit of Stephen R. Cook, ,I 6. In May 1988,
Firestone was purchased by Bridgestone Corporation of Japan, which
now owns 100% of Firestone stock. Id., ii 9.
Tire marketing practices have changed as well. At one end of the
spectrum, the emergence of the "performance tire" has led to a
variety of very specific, factual advertisements directed at automotive
enthusiasts. Id., ii 10 (and exhibits cited therein). Typically, perfor-
mance tire purchasers are highly informed consumers willing to pay
more for tires that provide better handling and comfort on a high
performance vehicle. Id.
At the other end of the spectrum-in the traditional passenger tire
market-non-specific, family-oriented themes have prevailed. Id.,
,i 11 (and exhibits cited therein). This latter trend is exemplified by
the Michelin "baby" campaign-a series of television commercials
depicting a baby, a set of Michelin tires, and the slogan, "Michelin:
Because so much is riding on your tires." Id. Rather than conveying
specific factual information, these advertisements provide prospective
tire purchasers with general assurances that Michelin tires can be
expected to perform safely and reliably. Id. Notably, they [13) do not
contain any disclosures regarding the conditions of use that affect tire
safety.
The 	baby 	ads 	have 	received 	widespread 	exposure 	since 	the
campaign first appeared in 1985. Id., ,i 12. During the same period,
Michelin's market share has increased appreciably. Several competing
tire manufacturers have responded by making their own generalized
safety 	claims. 	Goodyear, 	for 	example, 	has 	initiated 	marketing
campaigns based on such themes as "Goodyear Take Me Home' and

609
"the Perfect Tire for You." Id., ,i 12 (and exhibits cited therein).
General Tire Company has run a series of ads based on themes of
concern for family welfare. Id. Sears has marketed its Roadhandler
tires under the slogan, "Tough tires you can trust." Id. And B~F.
Goodrich has marketed a tire called the ''Lifesaver GT4 All Seasons
Radial." Id. 	None of these advertisements contains a disclosure
stating that tire safety is affected by conditions of use.
Firestone, by contrast, has been constrained by the order from
making 	comparable 	claims. 	Id., 	,i,i 13-18. 	To 	illustrate, 	when
Firestone considers making a generalized safety claim, it .must take
into 	account the 	inevitable 	dampening effect of the 	disclosure
mandated by paragraph 4. Id., ,i 14. It must also weigh the risk that,
even with the disclosure, the claim will run afoul of paragraph 3. Id.,
,i 15. Even if the claim is viewed as properly conditional under
paragraphs 3 and 4, [14] Firestone still must consider whether
paragraph 5 requires it to substantiate the claim through scientific
testing~ Id., ,i 16. If it does, then Firestone must weigh the costs of
obtaining such substantiation against any remaining benefits of the
claim-if indeed the claim can be scientifically substantiated at any
cost. Id. In making each of these calculations, Firestone must take
into account the substantial penalties, in terms of adverse publicity as
well as $10,000 per day fines, that it would incur if the Commission
were to find a violation of the order. Id., ,i 13.
Faced with these substantial barriers to the making of accurate,
effective safety claims, Firestone has been inhibited from responding
to its competitors' safety advertising. Id., ,i 17. After some early
experiments during the 	1970s with commercials that made the
disclosure, Firestone in recent years has simply refrained from making
safety claims. Id. Instead, it has relied primarily upon image or price
advertising. Id., ,i 17, and exhibits cited therein. Yet, by any objective
standard, Firestone's tires are as safe as any available in the market
today. Appendix A, Affidavit of Bruce E. Lindenmuth, ,i,i 4-10 (and
exhibits cited therein). [15]
C. The Gallup & Robinson Survey
Recently, 	Firestone commissioned Gallup & 	Robinson, 	Inc. 	of
Princeton, New Jersey to conduct an extensive survey of current
consumer knowledge and perceptions of tire safety and tire advertis-
ing. The survey was performed in September, 1988 according to a
two-part research protocol. In the first part, Gallup & Robinson's

624 	FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS
112 F.T.C.
telephone interviewers asked one thousand tire purchasers from
throughout the United States to respond to a variety of statements
and questions about tire safety. Cook Affidavit, ,i 21; see App. B. In
the second part, two hundred tire purchasers at malls in ten major
cities were interviewed following exposure to each of two sample
Michelin commercials. Id.; see App. C. In the planning and perfor-
mance of both phases of the survey, Gallup & Robinson followed
generally recognized research techniques to ensure a high level of
scientific accuracy. Id., ,i 22.
The Gallup & Robinson survey provides a wealth of valuable
information about the characteristics of today's tire buyers. Four
findings in particular relate to issues addressed in this proceeding.
These findings and their supporting data are discussed below. (16]
Finding #1: Tire purchasers know that the safety of any tire is
affected by conditions of use.
An overwhelming majority of tire purchasers knows that tire· safety
is affected by a variety of maintenance and operating conditions.
When asked whether they frequently think of or follow particular
precautions to maintain tire safety, 97 .8% of respondents mentioned
checking tire pressure and 96.1 % mentioned checking tire wear and
damage. App. B, Table 22. An additional 88.7%, 86.7% and 85.4%,
respectively, knew that wheel alignment, frequent fast starts and
stops, and tire rotation also affected tire safety. Id. A mere 0.6%
expressed the view that "nothing could be ddne" to help maintain tire
safety. Id.
Even when presented with the abstract question whether "condi-
tions of use" affect tire safety, a substantial majority of respondents
gave the correct answer. For example, 83.8% rejected the statement
that "a good quality tire will be safe under all conditions of use" in
favor of the statement that "the safety of a good quality tire depends
in part upon the operating conditions under which it is used, such as
inflation pressure, vehicle weight, and/or wear." App. B, Table 12.
Asked to rate on a scale of 0-10 their level of agreement with a
variety of statements, respondents gave the highest mean rating
(9.12) to the statement that "To be safe, tires need proper care and
maintenance.'' Id., Table 15. The lowest mean agreement rating (17]
(2.75) was given to the statement that "Tires are safe under all
conditions of use." Id., Table 19. 6
6· See also App. B, Table 11 (87. 7% of respondents view tire safety either as a shared responsibility of driver
anrl m1m11f8cl.11rer or as larirelv the driver's resoonsibilitv): i.d., Table 16 (second lowest mean agreement

609
Finding #2: Perceptions of safety influence the purchasing
decision, including the decision to pay a higher price.
Tire purchasers· place a high premium on safety. The statement that
"Tire safety is a highly important consideration in buying a tire for my
car" received a mean agreement rating of 8.98-the second highest
rating of all statements in the survey. App. B, Table 13. From a list of
ten factors that may influence the purchasing decision, respondents
rated "good traction and skid resistance in rain and snow" (9.16) and
"above average in safety" (8.90) as the two most important. Id.,
Tables 6-7. Moreover, 66.7% of respondents indicated a high level of
agreement with the statement that ''Increased tire safety is some-
thing I'd pay more for." Id., Table 17. [18]
Finding #3: Consumers perceive tires manufactured by
Firestone's leading competitors as being safer than
Firestone tires.
A clear majority of survey respondents (81.9%) agreed with the
view that "some tire brands are safer than others." Id., Table 23. 7 Of
this group, 29.1% mentioned Firestone as a "safer" tire, while 57.1%
and 50.9% mentioned Goodyear and Michelin, respectively. Id., Table
24. Asked whether one brand more than other brands "currently
advertises itself or implies in its advertising that it is a "safe tire," "
8.6% named Firestone, 28.8% named Goodyear, and 42.3% named
Michelin. Id., Table 26.
Finding #4: Tire purchasers view the Michelin baby ads as
making a generalized safety claim.
By overwhelming percentages, consumers .perceive the Michelin
baby ads as conveying a safety message. After viewing commercial A,
90.0% of respondents in the mall intercept survey agreed that the ad
asserted that "Michelin is a safe tire." App. C, Commercial A, p. 5.
For commercial B, the figures were even higher: 93.0% perceived a
"safe tire" claim. Id., Commercial B, p. 5. When asked to report the
"main idea" of the ads, 84.5% and 66.0%, respectively-without any
rating (3.17) for statement that "Any tire produced by a major manufacturer today can be considered blow-out
proof'); id., Table 20 (third highest mean agreement rating (8.87) for statement that "An otherwise safe tire
can become potentially dangerous if driven without proper regard for weather conditions, road surface
conditions, or if the car itself is driven recklessly"); id., Table 21 (86. 7% of respondents mention "check proper
tire pressure" in response to unaided question regarding actions which can be taken to help maintain tire
safety).
7• Similarly, the statement "Assuming the same price range, all major brands of tires are equally safe"
received the third lowest mean agreement rating (4.35). App. B, Table 14.

626 	FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS
112 F.T.C.
prompting-[19]mentioned safety themes. Id., Commercial A, p. 2;
Commercial B, p. 2.
Moreover, the respondents' comments to a series of open-ended
questions indicate that many drew a direct link between the safety
claims and the idea that Michelin tires are "worth more." 8 Forty-two
percent of respondents mentioned the cost/safety link in their open-
ended responses to commercial B. App. C, Commercial .B, p. 3. Even
for commercial A, which makes no explicit textual reference to cost,
5.5% mentioned this theme. Id., Commercial A, p. 3. The open-ended
comments further demonstrate that most respondents came away
from the baby ads with subjective feelings of safety and security,
rather than specific factual knowledge about the characteristics of
Michelin tires. See, e.g., id., Commercial A, p. 25; id., p. 31; id.,
Commercial B, p~ 40. (20]
Argument
Section 5(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(b),
provides that the Commission shall reopen an order to consider
whether it should be modified if the respondent "makes a satisfactory
showing [of] changed conditions of law or fact." A satisfactory
showing is made when the request to reopen "identifies significant
changes in circumstances .and shows that the changes eliminate the
need for the order or make continued application of the order
inequitable or harmful to competition." Interco, 53 Fed. Reg. 9108,
9109 (1988), modifying 43 Fed. Reg. 48991 (1978). The petitioner
bears the burden of making a satisfactory showing that the requisite
changed conditions1 exist. Id.; Louisiana-Pacific Corp., Docket No.
C-2956, letter to John C. Hart (June 5, 1986) at 4. 	:
Section 5(b) also provides that the Commission may reopen and
modify an order when, although changed circumstances do not require
reopening, the Commission determines that the public interest so
requires. To obtain review on this ground, the 	petitioner must
demonstrate some affirmative need to modify the order. Damon
Corp., Docket No. C-2916, letter to Joel E. Hoffman, Esq. (March 24,
1984) at 2. Among the reasons supporting order modifications on this
8· As one respondent stated:
The main idea was, that for whatever reason, you should have Michelin tires because they are safer and
more dependable and your family is worth the more money .... They got that across verbally-just a
statement-and that is only their opinion. They didn't show any comparative tests or anything.... I was
thinking that you should buy Michelin no matter what the cost.
App. C, Commercial B, p. 9.

609
basis are the need to increase the availability of truthful product
information, General Motors, 104 FTC 511,512 (1984), modifying 85
FTC 27 (1975); [21] competitive disadvantage to the respondent,
Damon Corp., 101 FTC 689, 690 (1983), order to show cause in
Docket No C-2916 (1978); and obsolescence of the order's factual
premises. Reader's Digest, 102 FTC 1268, 1269 (1983), modifying 79
FTC 696 (1971); Sterling Drug, 101 FTC 375 (1983), modifying 84
FTC 547 (1974). In determining whether the public interest warrants
modification, the Commission will balance the reasons favoring the
requested modification against any reasons not to make the modifica-
tion. Interco, supra, 53 Fed. Reg. at 9109.
Rule 2.4l{d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice governs advisory
opinion requests by respondents subject to Commission orders. Under
the rule, a respondent may request advice as to whether a proposed
course of action would comply with the order. "On the basis of the
facts 	submitted, 	as 	well 	as 	other information 	available 	to 	the
Commission, the Commission will inform the respondent whether or
not the proposed course of action, 	if pursued, would constitute
compliance with its order." Id. [22]
I. 	CHANGED CONDITIONS OF LAW AND FACT AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST
WARRANT DELETION OR CLARIFICATION OF PARAGRAPHS 3 AND 4;
ALTERNATIVELY, THE COMMiSSION SHOUW ISSUE AN ADVISORY
OPINION INTERPRETING THESE PROVISIONS AS APPLIED TO
GENERALIZED SAFETY CLAIMS.
A. 	Firestone's Current Point-of-Sale Disclosures, Many of
Which A re Required or Encouraged by Intervening
Changes of Law,' Obviate Any Necessity for Lengthy
Advertising Disclosures.
In light of changed legal and factual circumstances, paragraph 4's
lengthy disclosures are no longer necessary. Federal law now requires
Firestone and all other tire manufacturers to provide prospective tire
purchasers with detailed tirEtsafety information at the point of sale.
Further, state liability laws provide a powerful incentive for tire
manufacturers to disseminate ·additional safety information, beyond
the requirements of federal law/In any event, quite apart from the
requirements of the law, Firestone today provides prospective tire
purchasers with a comprehensive tire safety manual, written in plain
~nglish. Because Firestone's point-of-sale disclosures are far more
extensive, useful, and readily accessible to the consumer than the

628 	FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS
112 F.T.C.
advertising disclosures mandated by paragraph ·4, .that provision no
longer confers benefits sufficient to outweigh its substantial costs.
1. Changes in Federal Law. Since 1979, regulations of the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") have required
Firestone and all other tire manufacturers to make [23] informational
handouts available at the point. of sale to prospective tire purchasers.
See 49 C.F.R. § 575.104(d)(A)(2)(ii). 9 The handouts must state
verbatim that "[t]he relative performance of tires depends upon the
actual conditions of their use ... and may depart significantly from
the norm due to variations in driving habits, service practices and
differences in road characteristics and climate." 49 C.F.R. § 575.104,
Fig. 2 (emphasis supplied). They must additionally state verbatim that
"[e]xcessive speed, underinflation, or excessive loading, either sepa-
rately or in combination, can cause heat build-up and possible tire
failure." Id. Identical disclosures must be made on a label affixed to
the tread surface of the tire. 49 C.F.R. § 575.104(d)(B).
The significance of the NHTSA regulations is two-fold. First, the
point-of-sale disclosures that they require encompass the substance of
paragraph 4's mandatory advertising disclosure-i.e., that tire safety
is affected by conditions of use. The regulations thus ensure that
Firestone and all other tire manufacturers will continue to inform
consumers of the conditional limitations on tire safety. Indeed, the
regulations may have [24] played a role in bringing about the high
level of consumer awareness reflected in the Gallup & Robinson
survey. See pp. 15-16, supra.
Second, NHTSA is "the federal agency with specific statutory
authority to regulate traffic safety." American Motors Corp., supra,
105 FTC at 195. NHTSA's formative statute specifically empowers
the. agency to promulgate consumer information regulations. See 15
U.S.C. § 1401(d); 49 C.F.R. pt. 575. The NHTSA regulations quoted
above thus reflect a judgment by the agency with primary responsibil-
ity for regulating tire safety as to the type of information consumers
need. Notably, the regulations do not include any requirement of
disclosures in print, radio, or television advertising.
2. Changes in State Law. Quite apart from the changes in the
federal requirements, state liability law has expanded dramatically
9· The information must be provided "without charge and in sufficient quantity to be available for retention
by prospective purchasers or sent by mail to a prospective purchaser upon his request." 49 C.F.R. § 575.6(c).
It should be emphasized that this information is made available to prospective purchasers prior to sale, as well
as to actual purchasers after sale. See n.10, infra; cf. Jili,rest<me, 81 ITC at 459 & n.20.

609
since 1972, adding a further incentive for Firestone to make extensive
safety disclosures. Under the law of virtually every state, ·a failure to
warn consumers about the potential dangers. associated with the use
of a product may expose a manufacturer to tort liability. 	See
Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 388. Damages can run as high as
the millions of dollars to a single plaintiff. Firestone is committed, on
principle, to protecting consumers from harm in every way possible.
Even apart from its sense of corporate responsibility, however, the
(25] 	expansion 	of state 	liability 	laws 	ensures 	that 	Firestone's
economic self-interest will remain closely aligned with the interests of
consumers.
3. Changes in Firestone's Consumer Information Practices .. The
consumer safety information that Firestone today provides at the
point of sale far exceeds the requirements of either the order, the
NHTSA regulations, or state law. Exhibit 24 to the Affidavit of
Stephen R. 	Cook 	includes 	a copy of Firestone's current 	"Tire
Maintenance Warranty and Safety Manual." 10 · The seven-page section
of the Manual devoted to safety begins with a plain English version of.
paragraph 4's mandatory disclosure: "Any tire, no matter how well
constructed, may fail in use as a result of punctures, impact damage,
improper inflation, overloading, or other conditions resulting from use
_or misuse." Cook Affidavit, Exh. 24, at 4. The section proceeds with a
series of detailed safety disclosures, for example: (26)
Driving on tires with too little air pressure is dangerous. Your tires will get
overheated. This can cause a sudden tire failure that could lead to serious personal
injury.
* * *
Driving on tires with too much air can be dangerous. The tires are more likely to be
cut, punctured, or broken by sudden impact. Serious personal injury could result.
* * *
Driving your vehicle in an overloaded condition is dangerous. Overloading causes
excessive heat to build up. in your tires. This can lead to sudden tire failure and
serious personal injury while the tire is overloaded or at some later date.
* * *
Driving on damaged tires is dangerous. A damaged tire can suddenly fail causing
serious personal injury.
10· Firestone provides copies of this Manual to all purchasers of replacement market Firestone tires and to all
purchasers of vehicles that include Firestone tires as original equipment. Cook Affidavit, ,i 20. It also makes
the Manual available free-of-charge to all prospective purchasers of replacement tires at the point of sale. Id.;
cf. Firestone, 81 FTC at 459 & n.20. The Manual is provided separately and in addition to the informational
handouts and tire labels required by the NHTSA regulations. Id.

630 	FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS
112 F.T.C.
* * *
Driving your vehicle with an improper mix of tires is dangerous. Your car's
handling characteristics can be seriously affected. You could have an accident
resulting in serious injury.
Id., Exh. 24, at 4-8.
These disclosures provide ample protection against any remote risk
that .actual or potenti~l Firestone buyers could be misled by truthful,
unqualified safety claims. Not only are they more specific than the
paragraph 	4 	disclosure, 	they 	are 	considerably 	more 	clear 	and
understandable. Moreover, they are provided in a format that can be
easily transported and examined at the consumer's convenience. [27]
Taken together, these changes of law and fact make clear that any
informational benefits the order may have provided in 1972 are now
available through alternative, less costly sources. This case is thus
closely comparable to the Commission's 1985 proceedings revising its
Guides Against Deceptive Advertising of Guarantees. See Analysis of
Revisions to Guides Against Deceptive Advertising of Guarantees, 50
Fed. Reg. 18462 (May 1, 1985) [hereinafter "Analysis of Revisions"].
Prior to the enactment of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the
Guides had required that advertisements containing warranty claims
disclose "lengthy and relatively complicated information" regarding
the warranty's conditions and limitations. 50 Fed. Reg. at 18469. The
Commission found that the Magnuson-Moss Act ensured that consum-
ers would have access to this detailed information at the point of sale,
obviating the necessity for lengthy advertising disclosures. Id.
As an additional reason for modifying the Guides, the Commission
found that lengthy advertising disclosures were not an effective
means of providing consumers with useful warranty information. The
record showed that consumers did not benefit from such detailed
disclosures in the context of a print, radio, or television advertisement.
The 	Commission 	concluded 	that 	"examination 	of the 	warranty
document prior to purchase, when there is an opportunity for detailed
study and comparison is a [28] far more effective approach for
obtaining information." Id. at 184 70. 11
ll. See also Analysis of Revisions, supra, 50 Fed. Reg. at 18464, quoting American Association of
Advertising Agencies' Remarks in Response to Fl'C Request for Comments on Revising Guarantee
Advertising Guides ("When time is precious, seconds spent providing excessively technical data about
warranty provisions that are readily available at the point of sale often add relatively little to the
advertisement's principal purpose."); Benejmal Corp., 108 Fl'C 168 (1986), rrwdifying 94 Fl'C 425 (1979)
(deleting requirement that respondents disclose all guarantee terms in advertising and replacing it with less
burdensome requirement).

609
Similarly, in this case, Firestone's point-of-sale disclosures do a far
better job of protecting consumers from unsafe practices and unwise
purchasing decisions than any advertising disclosure could possibly do.
Rather than merely reciting a list of some of the conditions that may
affect tire safety-as paragraph 4 requires-Firestone's point-of-sale
handouts affirmatively advise consumers of precautions they can take
to reduce the hazards associated with these conditions. Moreover, they
provide this information in a format that consumers can study at their
leisure-unlike a fleeting reference in an advertisement. Firestone's
point-of-sale handouts are at once more complete, more informative,
and· more readily understood by consumers than the lengthy and
ambiguously-worded disclosure of paragraph 4. [29)
Simply put, Firestone's point-of-sale disclosures provide consumers
with a higher .quantity and quality of safety information at a lesser
cost ·than the mandatory advertising disclosures of paragraph 4.
Furthermore, given the changes in federal and state law that have
taken place. since the order was entered, it is inconceivable that
Firestone would cease providing consumers with this sort of safety
information. In light of the superior information consumers receive
today through alternative channels, paragraph 4 no longer provides
benefits that can justify the substantial burdens it imposes. 12 [30]
B. 	Reasonable Consumers Today Are Not Misled by Truthful,
Unqualified Claims Regarding a Tire's General Safety.
Paragraphs 3 and 4 presume, in effect, that reasonable consumers
do not know that tire safety depends upon proper maintenance and
use. As explairied in the preceding section, however, consumers today
receive 	at 	the 	point 	of 	sale 	a 	significant 	quantity 	of 	readily
understandable tire safety information. See pp. 22-29, supra. This
12· Firestone believes that this consideration warrants deletion of paragraph 4. As alternatives, however, it
has proposed that paragraph 4 be clarified-either through modification or an advisory opinion-to permit
Firestone simply to disclose that safety information is available at the point of sale, or to permit a more simply
stated disclosure. See Petition, at ,i,i 11-B, 11-C. In this regard, we note that paragraph 4 does not explicitly
require a verbatim disclosure of all of the illustrative conditions of use listed in that provision, Moreover,
having reviewed the record of the FTC proceedings and the proceedings in connection with the 1976 consent
decree, we know of nothing to indicate that the Commission intended that such a verbatim disclosure be made.
On the contrary, the Commission in its opinion explained that the purpose of paragraph 4 was simply to
ensure that safety representations "be properly qualified to indicate that safety of any tire is affected by
conditions of use." 81 FTC at 464. And the 1976 consent decree required corrective advertising that would
"effectively communicate to viewers" that "proper tire safety depends upon the consumer taking specific steps
for the proper maintenance of his tires and upon the manner in which he operates his vehicle." 1976-1 Trade
Cases il60,729 at 68,135. In short, the purpose of paragraph 4 was to ensure that the concept of conditional
safety be conveyed to consumers, not to compel Firestone to use the particular twenty-two words contained in
the disclosure clause of that paragraph.

632 	FEDERAL TRADE· COMMISSION DECISIONS
112 F.T.C.
information includes specific caveats concerning the conditions of use
that affect tire safety, as well as advice concerning proper care and
use. See p. 28, supra. In this environment, it would be inappropriate to
presume that consumers lack knowledge of something so fundamental
as the necessity for proper tire care and use.
Indeed, the Gallup & Robinson survey supports the conclusion that
an overwhelming majority of tire purchasers knows that tire safety is
affected by a variety of maintenance and operating conditions. For
particular conditions of use, such as tire pressure and tire wear, the
percentage of informed consumers ranks in the high nineties. See pp.
15-16, supra. Less than 1% believe that they can do "nothing" to
affect tire safety. See p. 16, supra.
These figures strongly suggest that if Firestone, like its competi-
tors, were permitted to advertise the general safety [31] of its tires,
consumers would not misperceive the ads as claiming absolute safety.
Even if they did, they would be unlikely to believe the absolute safety
claim, and even more unlikely to base a purchasing decision upon it.
Under the Commission's deception standards, therefore, permitting
Firestone to make such claims would raise no appreciable risk of
consumer harm-certainly no risk sufficient to warrant the continued
imposition of paragraphs 3 and 4. See Cliffdale Associates, 103 FrC
110, 164-66 (1984).
To be sure, one can presume-and the survey indicates-that a
very small percentage of consumers lacks an appreciation of the
fundamentally conditional nature of tire safety. But the law of
deception does not, and cannot, protect every consume·r from every
conceivable misapprehension, no matter how outlandish or unreason-
able. See, e.g., Thompson Medual Co., 104 FrC 658 (1984), affd,
791 F.2d 189 (D.C. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 107 S. Ct. 1289 (1987);
Heinz W. Kirchner, 63 FrC 1282, 1290 (1963), affd, 337 F.2d 751
(9th Cir. 1964). As the Commission's recent case law and policy
emphasize, the appropriate inquiry is whether the particular represen-
tation or omission is 	likely to 	materially mislead 	a 	reasonable
consumer. 	Cliffdale Associates, supra, 	103 FrC at 165; Policy
Statement on Deception (October 14, 1983), reprinted in 5 Trade
Reg. Rep. (CCH) ,i 50,455, at 56,071 (Oct. 31, 1983). Any lesser
standard would inhibit "the flow of useful, accurate information to
[32) consumers" without providing any corresponding benefits in

609
consumer protection. Thompson Medical Co., supra, 104 FfC at
788. 13
The Commission's decision in Reader's Digest Association, 102
FTC 1268 (1988), illustrates the application of these principles in the
context of an order modification proceeding. A 1971 cease and desist
order prohibited Reader's Digest from using fake currency or other
"simulated items 	of value" 	in 	connection with 	its sweepstakes
promotions. Id. at 1269. In petitioning for reopening and modification
,in 1988, Reader's Digest submitted surveys showing that consumers
were not in fact misled by such items, along with evidence that its
competitors often used them in their own 	promotions. 	Id. 	The
Commission, finding that simulated items of value were "unlikely [33]
to mislead consumers," deleted the prohibition from the order. Id.
Similarly, in this case, Firestone's survey evidence and current
consumer information practices suggest that-whatever the case in
1972-reasonable consumers today 	are 	not 	misled 	by truthful,
unqualified claims of general tire safety. 14 The fact that the instant
order involves safety, as well as economic, considerations should not
alter this conclusion. The safety threat targeted by paragraphs 3 and
4 is premised on the notion that an appreciable percentage of
consumers lacks knowledge about the fundamental characteristics of
tires. Once the presumption of consumer ignorance is removed, the
threat to safety falls with it. Cf. Sterling Drug, supra, 101 FfC at
377 (modifying order due to change in scientific opinion regarding
potential health benefits of respondent's product). [34]
Deleting paragraphs 8 and 4 would not, it should be emphasized,
enable Firestone to make express claims of absolute safety (for
18· The Commission need not decide whether the law of deception has changed since the order was entered in
1972. It should be noted, however, that-as to all three elements of deception-the F'i,rest<me opinion relied on
differently worded formulations than the Commission now uses. First, the Commission required "a capacity
and tendency" to mislead, 81 FTC at 398, rather than a "likelihood" that the representation would be
misleading. Cliffdale Associates, supra, 103 FTC at 166. Second, it viewed the representations from the
perspective of "the vast multitude of consumers," including "'the ignorant, the unthinking and the
credulous,' " 81 FTC at 459 (quoting Charles of the Ritz Distributors Corp. v. FTC, 143 F.2d 676, 670 (2d
Cir. 1944)), rather than from the perspective of a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances. Cliffdale
Associates, supra, 103 FTC at 165. Finally, the Commission rejected any necessity of showing "materiality,''
81 FTC at 451, as required under recent decisions. See Cliffdale Associates, supra, 103 FTC at 165-66.
14· Interestingly, a majority of respondents in the mall intercept phase of the survey did view the sample
Michelin commercials as claiming safety under all conditions of use. These respondents, however, had been
carefully instructed to report only what they thought the commercial said or implied. They were not asked to
report upon the perceived truth of the claim. Given the survey's further conclusion that consumers are well
aware of the inherent limitations upon tire safety, it is unlikely that even those consumers who viewed the
Michelin ads as claiming absolute safety would believe, much less act upon, such a claim. In any event, as
explained below, Firestone's inability under the order to air a comparable claim results in a clear competitive
disadvantage. See pp. 35-40, infra.

634 	FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS
112 F.T.C.
example, "skidproof' or "indestructible"). Such claims would be as
untrue today as in 1972-and express false claims are deemed
deceptive under Section 5 regardless of whether reasonable consum-
ers would believe them. Thompson Medical Co., supra, 104 FTC at
788 n.6. 15 Deleting these provisions would merely eliminate the
obsolete presumption that consumers view generalized safety claims
as asserting absolute safety. It would thereby enable Firestone to
compete on a more equal footing with its competitors.
Short of deleting paragraphs 3 and 4, the Commission should clarify
these provisions either through modification or an advisory opinion.
The Commission should make clear, first, that generalized safety
claims do not imply absolute safety and are therefore not prohibited
by paragraph 3. See 	Petition 	at ,i,i 1-B, 1-C. In 	addition, 	the
Commission should advise Firestone that [35] verbatim recitation of
the conditions of use listed in paragraph 4 is not necessary. See
Petition at ,i,i 11-B, 11-C. These clarifications-whether issued in the
form of an order modification or an advisory opinion-would limit the
deterrent effects of paragraphs 3 and 4 and enable Firestone to
disseminate a greater amount of safety information to consumers.
C. 	Paragraphs 3 and 4 Injure Consumers and Competition by
Suppressing Truthful, Material Information about Firestone
Tires.
Paragraphs 3 and 	4 are 	more than 	merely 	unnecessary. 	As
reasonably interpreted by Firestone, these provisions result in positive
harm to consumers and competition. Specifically, paragraphs 3 and 4
deprive consumers of accurate, important information about Firestone
tires. In addition, they cause Firestone to suffer a severe competitive
disadvantage.
Paragraphs 3 and 4 effectively prohibit Firestone from making
generalized safety claims comparable to those of its competitors. For
example, if Firestone wanted to broadcast the Michelin baby commer-
cials, it would be required as a prominent part of the advertisement to
disclose that "the safety of any tire is affected by conditions of use,
15· See also Tire Advertising and Labeling Guides, 16 C.F.R. pt. 228, Guide 17 ("Absolute terms such as
'skidproof,' 'blowout proof,' 'blow proof,' and 'puncture proor should not be unqualifiedly used unless the
product so described affords complete and absolute protection from skidding, blowouts, or punctures, as the
case may be, under any and all driving conditions."). Moreover, even without paragraphs 3 and 4, general
principles of deception law would prohibit Firestone from making implied claims of unconditional safety.
Thompson Medical Co., supra, 104 FTC at 789. Given the Gallup & Robinson findings, however, it is highly
unlikely that a claim would arise which a reasonable consumer would interpret as implying unconditional
safetv.

609
such as inflation pressure, vehicle weight, wear, and other operating
conditions. 16 [36] Firestone's marketing personnel believe that the
making of this disclosure would simply cause confusion in the minds
of consumers. Cook Affidavit, it 14. Rather than conveying assur-
ances of general reliability and safety, the revised commercial _would
have a tendency to pique consumer anxiety. Id.; compare Analysis of
Revisions, supra, 	50 Fed. Reg. 	at 18470 (excessive advertising
disclosure requirements may have par_adoxical effect of depriving
consumers of genuinely useful information).
Moreover, 	even 	if Firestone 	made the disclosure 	required 	by
paragraph 4, it would be far from clear whether the commercial would
pass muster under paragraph 3. On the one hand, the inclusion of a
paragraph 4 disclosure in an ad making a generalized safety claim
could be viewed as making the claim "conditional" and therefore
permissible under paragraph 3. But this interpretation, while logically
appealing, would render paragraph 3 .mere surplusage. [37]
Alternatively, the Commission could take the position that, even
with the disclosure, the ad makes an absolute safety claim and is
therefore forbidden. This interpretation · would infuse paragraph 3
with some independent force, but would be logically self-contradicto-
ry: it would presume that an advertisement that explicitly mentions
conditions of use could be viewed as making an unconditional claim.
Furthermore, this interpretation would be wholly inconsistent with
one of the key findings of the Gallup & Robinson survey-that
consumers know that the safety of any tire is affected by conditions of
use. See p. 16, supra. Regardless of which interpretation is correct,
the critical point is that Firestone is reasonably apprehensive of
making safety representations-with or without paragraph 4 disclo-
sures-for fear of violating paragraph 3.
Thus, paragraphs 3 and 4, taken together with the potentially
devastating penalties for violating a Commission order, 	have 	a
profound deterrent. effect. 	As 	a 	practical 	matter, 	they 	prevent
Firestone from telling consumers a basic fact: that Firestone tires, no
16· Given the overwhelming percentages of respondents in the Gallup & Robinson survey who viewed the
sample Michelin commercials as making a safety representation, there can be no question that the baby
commercials would be subject to the disclosure requirements of paragraph 4. Seep. 18, supra. Less clear is
whether Firestone must, in making any safety claim, run a disclosure that uses the precise language of
paragraph 4. See n.12, supra. Rather than risk noncompliance and its attendant penalties, Firestone has
assumed that the disclosure must contain substantially all the tenns of paragraph 4. It recognizes, however,
that it may be interpreting paragraph 4 too stringently. Firestone has therefore requested, as an alternat,ive to
deleting paragraph 4, that the Commission clarify whether a more limited disclosure would suffice. See
Petition, at -il'II 11-B, 11-C.

636 	FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS
112 F.T.C.
less than other lead brands, can be expected to perform safely and
reliably and to provide a reasonable measure of protection for oneself
and one's family. 17 [38)
Firestone's inability to make this point impairs the informational
integrity of the tire market in two ways. First, it decreases the total
amount of truthful product information available to consumers. This
fact alone warrants modification of the order. Chesebrough-Pond's,
106 FTC 567, 570 (1985), modifying 63 FTC 927 (1963) ("When an
order no longer serves any useful purpose and impedes truthful
advertising, it is clear under the statute and the rules that it should be
set aside"). Moreover, the adverse impact of this informational loss is
heightened by the singular importance of safety considerations in
shaping the purchasing decision. See General Motors, supra, 104 FTC
at 512 (1984) (modifying order to correct unintended restriction on
dissemination of material information to consumers).
Second, the order has the effect of distorting the messages that do
reach consumers. The Gallup & Robinson survey [39) shows that
consumers today believe that Michelin and Goodyear tires are actually
safer than Firestone's. See pp. 	17-18, supra. 	By any objective
standard, however, this is not true. Seep. 14, supra. The result of this
consumer misperception, from Firestone's perspective, is a frustrating
competitive disadvantage. The ultimate harm, however, is to the
consumer, who must make purchasing decisions based on a false
picture of the relative merits of the competing products. See Damon
Corp., supra, 101 FTC at 692; Interco, supra, 53 Fed. Reg. at 9109.
The harm inflicted upon consumers is not a mere abstraction.
Truthful advertising plays an "indispensable role in the allocation of
resources in a free enterprise system." Bates v. State Board of
Arizona, 	433 	U.S. 	350, 	364 (1977); 	Virginia 	State Board of
Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S.
748, 765 (1976). Restraints on truthful advertising are thus. "inher-
ently likely to produce anticompetitive effects." Massachusetts Board
17• The risks under paragraph 3 are theoretically somewhat smaller with respect to specific safety claims.
Such claims, by their very nature, are limited to particular tire characteristics and are therefore less likely to be
viewed as claiming unconditional safety. However, specific claims are still subject to the disclosure
requirements of paragraph 4 and the substantiation requirement of paragraph 5.
Moreover, the benefits of making specific safety claims may be smaller as well, particularly in the marketing
of passenger tires. As the marketing practices of Firestone's competitors attest, the average purchaser of
passenger tires is simply not interested in reeeiving highly technical tire information. Cook Affidavit, 'I! 14; see
al,so Millman, "Product Claims Not Believable," Advertising Age, March 5, 1984, at 1 (reporting research data
indicating that consumers view specific product claims as "somewhat unbelievable" overall). In terms of
materiality to the purchasing decision, therefore, general assurances of safety can.be uniquely informative and
effective.

609
of Registration in Optometry, 5 Trade Reg. Rep. (CCH) ,I 22,555 at
22,244 (June 21, 1988). Economic theory would predict that the
order, by interfering with the flow of accurate product information
and imposing an artificial competitive disadvantage, may result in
higher prices or ·less choice for consumers. 18 [40)
In short, in the current tire marketing environment, paragraphs 3
and 4 are having the opposite of their intended effects. Rather than
preventing deception, they are contributing to a distorted picture of
the relative safety of competing tire brands. Rather than preventing
unfair competition, they are causing Firestone to suffer a severe
competitive disadvantage. And rather than protecting consumers,
they may be causing consumers to receive less for their purchasing
dollar, with no corresponding benefits in increased safety.
II. 	CHANGED CONDITIONS OF LAW AND FACT AND THE PUBLlC
. INTEREST REQUIRE CLARIFICATION OF PARAGRAPH 5;
ALTERNATIVELY, THE COMMISSION SHOULD ISSUE AN ADVISORY
OPINION INTERPRETING PARAGRAPH 5.
Paragraph 5 of the order is ambiguous in two respects. First,
paragraph 5 is unclear as to whether generalized claims fall within its
scope. Second, paragraph 5 is unclear as to the type and amount of
substantiation it requires. Each of these ambiguities adds to the
deterrent effects of the order, causing further harm to consumers and
competition. Appropriate clarifications of these ambiguities-either
through addition of [41] clarifying language or through an advisory
opinion-would substantially reduce their unintended anticompetitive
effects.
A. 	Paragraph 5 Was Intended to Apply to Claims Regarding
Specific, Objectively Verifiable Tire Characteristics, Not to
Generalized Safety Claims.
Paragraph 5 requires Firestone to have scientific substantiation for
any representation, direci or implied, that its tires "have any safety or
performance characteristic.'' Firestone believes that the intent of this
provision was to require scientific support for all claims regarding .
specific safety or performance characteristics-such as stopping
18· See Report of the American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law, Special Committee to Study the
Role of the Federal Trade Commission 17-18 (1989):
"[I]t is generally desirable to treat similarly-situated· firms alike. This is more than a matter of simple
fairness. When only one competitor is handicapped, competition is distorted. Unless the market is perfectly
competitive, such distortion also will injure consumers, who will face less choice, higher prices, or lower
quality than they would otherwise."

638 	FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS
112 F.T.C.
distance and puncture protection"-but not to require such support for
generalized safety claims. To the extent generalized safety claims
impliedly assert that test support exists, they should be subject to the
more flexible reasonable basis standard. See Pfizer, Inc., 81 FTC 23
(1972); 	Policy 	Statement 	Regarding 	Advertising 	Substantiation,
reprinted in 104 FTC 839 (1984) [hereinafter "Advertising Substan-
tiation Statement"].
Firestone's interpretation of paragraph 5 is supported by each of
three sources. First the text of paragraph 5 explicitly limits its scope
to 	safety 	or 	performance 	"characteristics." 	Generalized 	safety
claims-for example, the claims made by the Michelin baby commer-
cials-relate to no particular [42] tire "characteristic." They would
therefore appear to fall outside the scope of paragraph 5.
Second, the history of the proceedings in this matter supports
Firestone's interpretation. In the original proceeding, the Commission
never contended-even as an alternative theory of relief in its
complaint-that Firestone's "safe tire" ·or "Safety Champion" ads
lacked appropriate substantiation. See 81 FTC 398-403. These ads
were apparently not viewed as conveying the sorts of claims for which
consumers would expect test support. The Commission raised the
substantiation issue only in connection with the "stops 25% quicker"
claim. This claim, the Commissio~, found, was the type of "specific
advertising claim" for which consumers would expect "substantial
scientific data" in support. Id. at 451 (emphasis supplied).
Third, Firestone's interpretation is consistent with the Commis-
sion's 	subsequent 	pronouncements 	on 	advertising Substatitiation.
Under current standards, substantiation is required for "objective"
product claims-that is, 	claims that "represent explicitly or by
implication that the advertiser has a reasonable basis supporting these
claims." Advertising Substantiation Statement, supra, 104 FTC 839;
see also Thompson Medical Co., supra, 104 FTC 813 n.37. As a
threshold matter, it might be questioned whether generalized safety
claims make any objective assertion for which consumers .expect test
support. 	[43] 	Although the 	Gallup 	& Robinson 	survey did 	not
specifically 	explore 	this 	question, 	the 	open-ended 	responses 	of
respondents viewing the sample baby commercials notably do not
reflect any expectation of test support-scientific or otherwise-for
Michelin's generalized safety claims. See App. D, Commercials A and
B, Verbatim Testimony.
Even assuming that some test support is called for, however, the

609
appropriate level is a reasonable basis rather than "full and complete
substantiation by competent scientific tests." The Commission has
stated that "[a]bsent an express or implied reference to a certain level
of support, and absent other evidence indicating what consumer
expectations would be, the Commission assumes that consumers
would expect a 'reasonable basis' for claims." Advertising Substantia-
tion Statement, supra, 104 FTC 839-40. Firestone does not contest
that consumers generally expect scientific support for specific safety
or performance claims. Generalized claims, however, are inherently
more subjective in nature, more difficult (and expensive) to verify, and
less likely to be viewed by consumers as implying test support. As
such, they are appropriately made subject to a more flexible stan-
dard.19 [44]
In short, Firestone's proposed clarification-whether implemented
through order modification or an advisory opinion-would comport
with the text and history of paragraph 5 as well as the Commission's
subsequent case law and policy. In conju,nction with Firestone's
proposals for paragraphs 3 and 4, the clari.fi~ation would enable
Firestone 	to 	convey 	a 	greater 	quantity 	and ,_quality 	of 	safety
information to consumers. By contrast, requiring scientific substantia-
tion for non-specific safety claims would subject Firestone to a higher
standard than its competitors and impose prohibitive costs.
B. 	Paragraph 5 Was Intended to Require Scientific
Substantiation, Not Absolute Proof, for Claims
within Its Scope.
Firestone is also uncertain as to the type and amount of scientific
testing required under paragraph 5. This uncertainty acts as a further
deterrent to the making of truthful safety and performance claims. In
this regard, Firestone requests additional clarification to paragraph 5.
[45]
First, Firestone requests clarification that the terms "fully and
completely" are not to be interpreted literally. Strictly construed,
these terms would require a level of substantiation that is impractica-
19· An alternative interpretation of paragraph 5 is that it is a "fencing-in" provision purposely designed to
subject Firestone to a more restrictive standard than its competitors. See FTC v. National Lead Co., 352 U.S.
419 (1957). But today.:.._nearly seventeen years after the order's entry and thirteen years after the consent
decree-there is no reason to impose unique burdens upon Firestone. As in lnterco, SUJYra, fencing in is "no
longer necessary either to dissipate the effects of respondent['s] past conduct or to prevent its recurrence." 53
Fed. Reg. at 9109; see also Magnavox Co., 102 FTC 807 (1983), modifying 78 FTC 1183 (1971) (terminating
fencing-in provisions after twelve years); Occidental Petroleum Corp., 101 FTC 373 (1983), modifying 83
FTC 1374 (1974) (terminating fencing-in provisions after nine years).

640 	FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS
112 F.T.C.
ble, if not impossible, to obtain. As explained in the Affidavit of Bruce
E. Lindenmuth, tire safety and performance is affected by innumera-
ble variables that cannot be "fully and completely" accounted for by
any known test or set of tests. Id., ,i 11. Among other factors, tire
safety and performance depends upon road conditions, driver mainte-
nance and skill, vehicle type and features, and tire variability. Id. As a
practical matter, it is impossible to run· tests that control for all of
these factors. Id.
Moreover, even if Firestone could obtain absolute proof for a
particular, highly qualified claim, the costs of procuring such proof
would outweigh the value of the claim. See ul., ,i 14. Firestone would
have to test numerous tires, run· them for many thousands of miles,
and repeat the tests numerous times. It would not be able to obtain
complete results until the tested tires had been used for a substantial
period of time. By then, Firestone's opportunity to benefit from the
claim might. have passed.
The Commission has often emphasized that the required level of
substantiation must not be set so high as to "prevent consumers from
being 	told 	potentially 	valuable 	information 	about 	[46] 	product
characteristics." Thompson Medical Co., supra, 104 FTC 823; see
also General Motors, 104 FTC 512. Firestone therefore believes that
the terms "fully and completely" were not intended to be interpreted
literally. Rather, Firestone believes that these terms are properly
viewed as merely reinforcing paragraph 5's basic requirement of
scientific substantiation. But unless and until the Commission clarifies
these terms, Firestone must take seriously the risk that anything less
than absolute proof may be viewed as insufficient.
In numerous recent cases, the Commission has imposed orders
requiring substantiation by "competent scientific tests," but not
including any additional requirement of "full and complete" substanti-
ation. See, e.g., General Motors, supra, 104 FTC 512; Sterling Drug,
supra, 101 FTC 379; RR International, 94 FTC 1312, 1334 (1979).
A scientific testing requirement provides a high level of consumer
protection without the unintended in terrorem effects caused by the
order in its current form. The proposed clarification, which incorpo-
rates the phrase "fully and completely" into the general definition of
"scientific tests," would therefore serve the public interest.
Finally, Firestone requests that a definition of "scientific tests" be
added to the order. The proposed definition derives directly from the
Firestone opinion. See 81 FTC 463. In addition, it contains several

609
refinements reflected [4 7] in the consent order in RR International,
supra, 94 FTC 1334. See also Associated Mills, Inc., 54 Fed. Reg.
1946, 1947 (January 18, 1989) (proposed consent order).
Specifically, · the 	proposed 	clarification, 	like the .order in 	RR
International, states that Firestone must use testing procedures that
are generally accepted in the profession to attain "valid and reliable
results." The Fi,restone opinion refers to testing procedures which
"best insure" accurate results, 81 FTC at 463, a formulation which is
at best vague and at worst unduly stringent. As revised, the order
would provide Firestone with additional guidance and substantially
reduce the costs and risks of making truthful product claims. [48]
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Firestone respectfully requests that
the Commission reopen this proceeding and modify the final order or,
in the alternative, that the Commission provide Firestone. with an
advisory opinion.
Respectfully submitted,
Jack R. Bierig
Of Counsel: 	Richard D. Raskin
Sidley & Austin
Glenn R. Haase
Paul R. Peterson
The Firestone Tire &
Rubber Company