California legislators addressing proposed law mandating disclosure of a tire's age

Citing the dangers of tire degradation in older tires sold as a “new” product, California lawmakers are considering legislation requiring tire dealers to inform customers of a purchased tire’s date of manufacture prior to them walking out the door.

Two measures – likely to be combined into a single regulation as debate moves forward – are pending before the Assembly. Both are opposed by several tire industry organizations, saying they impose a cumbersome burden and that there is scant scientific evidence that merely discerning a given tire’s age can determine its on-the-road performance. Such a law would also harm consumers wishing to save money by purchasing used tires, they note.

Proponents contend the safety risks of tires produced more than six years ago necessitates notification to protect the motoring public. They also anticipate that other states will follow California’s lead in pursuing the issue.

“Whether the industry likes it or not, it’s coming,” according to automotive consumer advocate Sean Kane at Safety Research & Strategies. “This is not something that’s going to go away,” he says, referring to similar legislation being prepared in Hawaii, New Jersey and New York.

“We have thousands of documents relating to tire failure,” Kane reports. “A tire may look brand new but be degraded inside.”

Notification would be a win-win situation all involved, reducing the likelihood of suspect tires reaching the marketplace, he says. “At the end of the day, if the dealers are disclosing the information to their customers they will be in a safer place,” Kane tells Motor Age. “I don’t see what the objections would be to simple disclosure.”

It would result in extra work and time delays, according to Dan Zielinski, spokesman for the Rubber Manufacturers Association. “The tire retailer has to find out the age of the tire before they mount it on the car,” he says.

If a customer is on the telephone requesting that the installation be done in time for an after-work pick-up, “I have to pull your tires (from stock) right now and tell you how old they are,” explains Zielinski.

He adds that one of the bills being considered in California initially contained a provision asserting that notification would not protect anyone involved in the sale from legal jeopardy. “It would create new causes of action against members of the tire industry,” Zielinski says. “This bill is more about giving lawyers the opportunity to sue.”

(That particular section is expected to be removed as the measure wends its way through the legislative process; Kane and other proponents are in favor of the deletion.)

The tire industry’s supply chain and the related tracking programs should routinely account for a tire’s date of manufacture, Kane observes. “They have a system that doesn’t track the products appropriately,” he says. “That information doesn’t filter down to consumers very well. They’ve done a very poor job of getting information to the dealers and the customers.”

Regarding tire dealers, he notes how “you’re between a rock and a hard place, and you need the support of the tire manufacturers” to make the date data readily available.

Kane goes on to contend that tire repair specialists are often unable to decipher the sidewall codes. “We’re finding most tire dealers don’t have the training in place for the tire-changers to read them.”

A tire’s age can be determined by checking the identification number on the sidewall that begins with the letters “DOT” – the last four digits represent the week and year the tire was manufactured.

“Requiring disclosure of tire age by dealers will greatly assist motorists in discerning whether the tires that are being sold are in fact reasonably new and whether they are within the recommended manufacturer guidelines” says California Assemblyman Mike Davis, author of Assembly Bill 496.

AB 496 reads in-part that a tire dealer must “provide a written disclosure to the customer prior to the sale or installation of any tire about the risk associated with tire age in English, Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese and Korean…and requires a consumer to initial a statement that they have received such information.”

AB 323, introduced by Assemblywoman Mariko Yamada, is similar in scope.

“The issue of tire age degradation was first addressed in the U.S. in response to the Ford-Firestone tire debacle,” says Davis. “Experts concluded that age degradation played a role in the catastrophic failure of these tires, and a growing number of tire manufacturers and automakers issued tire age replacement guidelines for the U.S. market,” he adds.

“Most vehicle manufacturers now recommend the replacement of tire tires after six years of age, regardless of tread depth. Warnings about the hazards associated with tire age degradation date back to the early 1990s,” Davis continues, “but these warnings are often buried in vehicle owner’s manuals or in bulletins issued by tire makers to their dealers. According to NHTSA’s (the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration) 2007 Report to Congress on Tire Aging, insurance data show that California is one of five states in which most tire failure claims originate, and 84 percent of the those claims are for tires over six years old.”