By Miles Moore, Senior Washington Reporter
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (Feb. 8, 2013) — The model tire repair bill co-written by the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) and the Tire Industry Association (TIA) is now being debated before the Maryland legislature.
HB 122, sponsored by Del. Dereck E. Davis, D-25th District, was the subject of a Feb. 6 hearing before the Maryland House Committee on Economic Matters, which Del. Davis chairs.
Testifying favorably on the bill at the hearing were representatives of TIA, the RMA and the Chesapeake Automotive Business Association. No one testified against the bill, though the American Automobile Association has come out in opposition, Roy Littlefield, TIA executive vice president, told Tire Business.
"HB 122 is a carefully balanced initiative that can improve motorist safety with minimally intrusive regulation on those who fail to follow decades-old and well-known tire repair practices," said Daniel Zielinski, RMA senior vice president-public affairs, in a printed statement distributed at the hearing. Mr. Littlefield also testified, but his remarks were not printed.
The bill states that auto and tire repair facilities may not repair tires unless they demount them from the rim; perform a visual and tactile inspection of tires' interiors and exteriors; or repair punctures or cuts in the tread area with a patch and rubber stem or combination repair unit.
HB 122 would make it illegal to repair any tire that has 2/32-inch tread depth or less; that has a puncture or cut in the sidewall, shoulder or belt edge; that has a puncture or cut more than ¼-inch in diameter or width; that already has a non-compliant repair; or requires a patch that would overlap an existing patch.
The law mandates a $500 fine for each violation of the above provisions.
According to the fiscal and policy note on HB 122 prepared by the Maryland Department of Legislative Services, the bill could have a meaningful negative impact on small businesses that repair tires.
"A facility that repairs tires by an alternative method may have to make a significant operational change to adhere to the bill's requirements," the document said. "The effect on expenditures from such an operational change cannot be estimated, but a facility may have to purchase new tools and spend more time on each customer's repairs."
Representatives of the tire industry have discussed the bill and the necessity for it extensively with Maryland legislators, according to Messrs. Littlefield and Zielinski. But although no one testified against the bill at the Feb. 6 hearing, committee members had a lot of questions there, they said.
"These legislators asked the question, 'Why do you need to do this?'" Mr. Littlefield said. "They're nervous about putting new regulations on consumers."
One committee member—Del. Rick Impallaria, D-7th District—once owned an auto body repair shop and had the strong opinion that a plug-only tire repair is acceptable, according to Mr. Zielinski.
"We said in response that if you don't look for the damage, you're gambling with customer safety," he said.
The strongest questions came from Del. Benjamin F. Kramer, D-19th District, according to Messrs. Littlefield and Zielinski. Del. Kramer sponsored the tire aging bill TIA and the RMA successfully fought last year, and intimated at the hearing that he would reintroduce it in this session, they said.
The Maryland state legislative session begins in January and lasts 90 days, according to Mr. Zielinski. To hope to get the tire aging bill to a vote before adjournment, Del. Kramer would have to introduce it in mid-February, he said.
To reach this reporter: [email protected]; 202-662-7211.