Interpretation ID: aiam0844
Executive Vice President
Denman Rubber Manufacturing Company
Warren
Ohio 44482;
Dear Mr. Webster: This is in reply to your letter of August 14, 1972, requestin information as to whether you may sell tires to a Mr. Harvey Livingston, who is in the business of repairing tires with correctable defects. You ask what assurances you should obtain that the tires are actually repaired and rebranded by Mr.Livingston before their sale by him.; The sale of passenger car tires is subject to the National Traffic an Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, 'New Pneumatic Tires' (49 CFR 571.109). Under these provisions tire manufacturers may sell passenger car tires only in the following circumstances: They may sell tires which conform to the performance and labeling requirements of Standard and the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574), or, they may sell until October 1, 1972, (See our notice of August17, 1972, 37 F.R. 16604) tires which have been reclassified pursuant to paragraph S6 of Standard No. 109. This requires the removal of original labeling and the affixing of new labels which warn against the use of such tires in public highways. These restrictions apply to the sale of passenger car tires to any purchasers including persons such as Mr. Livingston, who wish to repair the tires and resell them.; If you sell *conforming* tires to Mr. Livingston, he would not b required by Federal regulations to remove Denman labeling and to affix his own. Whether or not he did this would depend upon whatever agreement you reach with him. A satisfactory assurance, should you agree with him to follow this procedure, would be a written agreement to that effect, but you should also record the serial numbers of tires which you sell to him. Denman, however, is not permitted to remove its own labeling before sale.; Even if Mr. Livingston affixes the DOT symbol and his ow identification number to the tires, the NHTSA would not necessarily find him responsible should the tire fail to conform to Standard No. 109. Mr. Livingston would be entitled to show that the reason for the nonconformity is not attributable to the work he performed. If he could demonstrate this,Denman could then be found responsible for the nonconformity.; If you sell Mr. Livingston 'reclassified tires', Mr. Livingston woul be required to label the tires as required by Standard No. 109, and to certify their conformity to the Standard before he could sell them as passenger car tires. In this situation, Mr. Livingston would be responsible if the tires failed to conform to Standard No. 109.; We have sent Mr. Livingston a copy of our response. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel