Interpretation ID: nht73-1.18

DATE: 10/10/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Motor Vehicle Administration

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in further response to correspondence dated July 10, 1973, between the Maryland Department of Transportation and Mr. Bernard Nolan. Mr. Nolan had written to the Maryland State Attorney General's Office regarding the practice of tire dealers of selling tires that have been relabeled "tube type" by their manufacturer, while representing that it was not necessary, and may even be unsafe, to install tubes in them. You attach a memorandum to you from Mr. Thomas J. Widerman which concludes that the practice does not violate any Federal or State law but recommends that Maryland's proposed tire safety standards be amended to prohibit the practice. You indicate to Mr. Nolan that you are forwarding the matter to this agency for appropriate action.

We believe this practice involves at least a technical violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a) (1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)) prohibits, among other things, the sale of motor vehicle equipment manufactured after the effective date of an applicable safety standard that does not conform to the standard.

We believe a person who sells a "tube type" tire as a tubeless tire is at least representing that the tire will meet the Federal standard applicable to tires, No. 109, without a tube. Accordingly, we believe that it is appropriate under the Safety Act to test that tire to the standard as a tubeless tire and, if failure occurs, to initiate civil penalty proceedings against the tire seller. That seller may also be liable for civil penalties for certifying the tire as conforming in a false and misleading manner (Sec. 108(a)(3) of the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(3)).

I am therefore referring the matter to our enforcement personnel with the recommendation that they inquire into the matter.

However, I also concur with the recommendation of Mr. Widerman that a specific prohibition against this practice be made part of Maryland law. NHTSA's enforcement procedures are civil in nature, and involve determinations that products fail to meet technical tests which are time-consuming and costly to run. State criminal procedures would, in our view, be far more effective than NHTSA's procedures in dealing with situations such as this.

Sincerely,

July 10, 1973

E. Wallace -- Dept. of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Ed:

A little slow perhaps, but here is a section of the B.F.Goodrich "Space Saver Spare" tire you asked me for.

We are trying spring plates in the molds to get the prescribed branding below the curb rib as now required. As you can see it will not be visible for(Illegible Word) to see it when it is in the trunk and folded as is normally the case,(Illegible Word) his we must also put it below the tread edge as you can see it on the section. This means a "double" branding job on these tires.

I gathered from Mike Peskos concluding remarks after our meeting on our petition that he felt there was a good chance of us getting some relief from this multiple and unnecessary branding.

Any suggestions or ideas your office may have which can be accomplished by rewording and/or rewriting the petition to make acceptance more likely will be appreciated.

Please call any time you feel further discussion on the petition is necessary or might help solution of our problems in this area.

Yours very truly,

B.F.GOODRICH TIRE COMPANY,

A Division of The B.F.Goodrich Co. --

F. S. Vukan