The answer is: He can't, because nobody is supplying him with any information.

What the consumer needs to know:

There are five questions which the consumer needs to have answered with regard to just what he's getting when he buys a tire for his car. He needs to know:

(1) How strong the body of the tire is.

(2) How many miles of service the tire tread will deliver, as compared to some "standard."

(3) What kind of antiskid qualities the tire has, as compared to some "standard.”

(4) What limitations there are, if any, on the maximum speed the tire will sustain.

(5) How much load the tire will carry at a particular inflation pressure.

From a tire-engineering point of view, there are other factors to be considered, but our company feels that the factors listed are the primary ones. If the consumer can be given some "ball park figure" for these items, he will be in a pretty good position to make up his own mind as to what kind of a tire he needs for his particular driving conditions.

Tire engineers are fond of pontificating about how "complex" the problems of tire service requirements are.

We agree; they are complex.

But if the consumer can be given the ball park figures mentioned above, he will certainly be in a much better position to decide for himself just what kind of a tire he needs. At present, he can't judgefor the simple reason that he is given practically no figures, ball park or otherwise, on which to make a decision.

Compulsory inspection: The best tire ever made is not very safe if it has been misused or worn to the point of imminent failure. It's a sad fact that many drivers never take a close look at their tires. As a result, there are thousands of tires running right at this very moment which are a menace to every other driver traveling the same highway. There are some States which require periodic vehicle inspections, including the tires. But there are many States which do not require any periodic inspection of any kind.

We feel that some form of compulsory periodic vehicle inspection is needed in all 50 States.

Retreaded tires: A large percentage of the vehicles on the American highways right now are running on retreaded tires. If a system of grade labeling or some minimum quality standard is set up for new tires, it would seem necessary that something similar should be set up to cover retreaded tires.

From an administrative point of view, this will be more difficult. There are thousands of retreading shops in this country, each one having its own particular idea as to what "quality control" means.

From the retreader's point of view, one of the biggest problems is that he can't look at a tire and determine how much strength is left in the tire carcass. Some tires today are not built to retain an adequate carcass strength over the life of two treads. In our opinion, they should not be retreaded. Most tires being built today will retain ade

quate carcass strength over the life of two treads. Some premium tires can be be retreaded as many as half a dozen times, just as the airlines do with their jet aircraft tires.

The retreader's problem is that he simply can't distinguish which is which. We feel that one way of solving this problem would be to start with the new tire. Some statement could be molded into the sidewall such as, "This tire may be retreaded not more than time (s)." The number of times could be based on the new tire's original carcass strength, plus some sort of a factor which would take into consideration the percentage loss in carcass strength within a certain number of miles. After a period of, for example, 5 years from the date this type of new tire first hit the market, it would be illegal for a retreader to retread any other type of worn-out tire carcass.

This would at least provide the consumer with some kind of a builtin protection regarding the carcass strength of any retread which he might buy.

Rubber Manufacturers Association minimum standards: The Rubber Manufacturers Association's minimum tire quality standards are certainly a step in the right direction, but their principal weakness, from the consumer's point of view, is that they are strictly voluntary as far as compliance by the manufacturer is concerned. If the manufacturer does not wish to comply, he doesn't have to. In fact, if a manufacturer wants to start selling a tire made of chewing gum and old neckties, he can do so. There is presently nothing to prevent him from so doing-except the pressures of the marketplace.

We think that the American consumer deserves a little more protection than he has gotten from the "pressures of the marketplace." We think that it's time the consumer was given some facts about what he's getting when he buys a tire. The American consumer may not be a tire engineer, but he's no idiot. If we will supply him with a few basic facts, he is perfectly capable of deciding what type of tire most suits his particular driving needs.

Our recommendations: The McCreary Tire & Rubber Co. feels that the job of furnishing these facts to the consumer is not nearly as difficult as some people in the tire industry have claimed. We feel that there are four things which are needed:

(1) Some kind of minimum tire quality standard.

(2) Some kind of tire grade labeling.

(3) Compulsory periodic vehicle inspection-including tiresin all 50 States.

(4) A method of assuring some minimum tire carcass strength in all retreaded tires.

Our company stands ready at any time to work with the other members of the tire industry in arriving at these objectives.

Senator HARTKE. Thank you very much, Mr. McCreary, for a statement that is extremely cogent. You express a measure of confidence in the manageability of this problem. May I, for the record, ask your own background in the field?

Mr. MCCREARY. I spent 6 years in the production and technical end of our business, and then spent 3 years in the field in two different sales territories, and have been connected with the general management of our company since then.

Senator HARTKE. And do you manufacture automobile tires?

Mr. MCCREARY. Yes.

Of the 14 tire manufacturers in this country, we are about the 12th, I would guess, in terms of size. Our company, this year, will do about $12 million worth of business. We are very small in terms of an industry in which the top two are over a billion dollars in sales. I think Goodyear went over $2 billion last year for the first time.

So we are a rather small member of the tire industry, but we have been in business for 50 years. We celebrated our 50th anniversary just last week. I think that we are qualified to speak out on the particular subject involved here.

Senator HARTKE. Your survival in that kind of competition over the past 50 years has suggested that we should listen to you. Mr. MCCREARY. It wasn't easy, I will say that.

Senator HARTKE. How many brands of tire do you make?

Mr. MCCREARY. All of our tires-with an exception which does not exceed 1 percent of last year's sales-all of our tires were sold under our own brand name, McCreary. We sell our tires through independent tire dealers, and most of our dealers also carry major brands of tires.

The dealer takes us on as a companion line in addition to his major brand. We do very little consumer-type advertising. We are primarily truck tire manufacturers, rather than passenger tire manufacturers, which, to some extent, explains why the consumer has never heard of us.

I would imagine that people in the trucking industry would have heard of our name. The average consumer has not. Until, or unless, there is available to the consumer these "ball park" figures which enable him to make a rational comparison, there really isn't much validity to the argument that the pressures of the marketplace will assure the survival of the worthy.

Senator HARTKE. When we propose legislation which seeks to require a fuller disclosure of the product, the argument is made that the discipline of the marketplace insures that only the worthy survive.

What kind of discipline can the consumer apply in the marketplace if there isn't some rule of thumb such as you have outlined in the five items that you gave? How effective is a consumer in the tire market if he hasn't the foggiest notion whether one tire is better than another, or what the maximum safe speed is?

Mr. MCCREARY. As a consumer, your influence over what the manufacturer is offering is very little, if any, if you don't really know what you are getting. I think this is the big problem here.

If the consumer knew what he was getting; if the American consumer knew that in some cases he was riding around in a brandnew car, for example, on which the tires are overloaded rather seriously; if he should be so brave as to fill up all the seats with adults; if the average consumer knew this, I don't think they would do this.

But no one ever told him he was riding around on overloaded tires. We think it is time that someone did tell him.

Senator HARTKE. If the tire purchaser had available to him the information that you suggest under your five headings, would he not be more able to exert pressure in the marketplace?

Mr. MCCREARY. I would think that you would be in a much better position to do so than you are now.

Senator HARTKE. Why don't we insure that the marketplace is enlightened in that way?

Mr. MCCREARY. That we should, and I think it should be done through some kind of Federal legislation because from our company's standpoint, the worst thing that could happen would be for each of the 50 States to pass a slightly different law regarding quality standards or grade labeling for tires that would require us to produce different tires for sale in the State of Pennsylvania and different tires for New York, and different tires for Ohio, and so on.

This would be rather intolerable from our point of view. We would much rather have uniform legislation applying to all 50 States. I am sure the major rubber companies would sooner have this than even we, because we only do business in the eastern half of the country.

Senator HARTKE. Is it a fair statement, or does it simplify it too much to say that until specific information on each brand is available to the consumer, the dominant force and pressure in the marketplace is dependent upon which advertising program is most effective?

Mr. MCCREARY. I think that is correct. As someone said here earlier, it just depends on what the salesman tells you when you walk in to buy a tire. If he says you ought to buy this one, the chances are, you will buy this one. If he doesn't say anything, and in a great many cases they don't, you will, I guess, buy the tire that is the cheapest.

If the salesman points to two tires and says this one is $12, and that one is $25 and if you, as the consumer, can't see any difference, the chances are you will buy the cheaper one, thinking there isn't any difference, or whatever difference there is isn't worth the difference in price.

Senator HARTKE. Or a consumer might think he is acting responsibly toward his family and the traveling public, and assume that the $25 purchase is a prudent purchase because it must be twice as good as the other.

Mr. MCCREARY. That's right. As I pointed out in my statement, if you are going to do a lot of high-speed driving-80 miles an hour or over-you might be doing yourself and your family a disservice to buy an extra heavy premium tire with built-in puncture sealing and all this, because at speeds in excess of 80 miles an hour, these tires will generate a lot of internal heat.

This is a very dangerous situation. If you get it hot enough, it tends to come apart. This is no good. You are better off, really, with a more inexpensive product. There is nothing on the sidewall of the tire anywhere that would inform the consumer one way or the other.

Senator HARTKE. If Congress does not enact a labeling bill for tires. maybe we will have to consider creating an Office of Tire Counselor. Mr. MCCREARY. In our opinion, something is needed along these lines. We feel that the average American driver is beginning to get the idea that he wants some kind of protection when he goes to buy a tire. He doesn't know what he is getting, and this is beginning to worry a lot of them.

Senator HARTKE. Do you know of any other tire manufacturer who agrees with you?

Mr. MCCREARY. No, I do not. I suspect that maybe some of them feel this way, but not as strongly as we do. One of the reasons we feel so strongly about this subject is, very simply, that our company is

not engaged in the manufacture of these so-called promotional tires which are designed to sell at a rather low retail price.

Not being in this business, this makes it rather difficult for us to compete with the low-priced tires. As I have said before, if you are offered a tire for $10, and another tire for $25, and if you, as a consumer, are not aware of the quality differences, chances are that you will elect to take the cheaper one.

If somewhere on the sidewall of the tire it should specify that the $10 carrier has maximum carrying capacity of 1,000 pounds, and the $25 tire maximum carrying capacity was 1,600 pounds, this might tell you something.

If there were speed limitations on the sidewall of the tire to the effect that the cheaper tire is not approved for driving in excess of 40 miles per hour, for example, this might tell you something as a consumer.

But, at the present time, there is nothing that appears anywhere on any tire that I know of, other than, perhaps, aircraft tires, that puts any sort of a maximum speed limitation on the product. There is nothing on the sidewall that says what the maximum rated carrying capacity is.

We feel that the consumer has a right to know at least how much this particular tire that he is looking at is rated to carry.

Senator HARTKE. I thank you very much for expressing your point of view. It is one with which I generally agree.

TESTIMONY OF ALLAN BRATMAN, PRESIDENT, MARKET TIRE CO., ROCKVILLE, MD., ON S. 1643

Mr. Chairman, I appear today on behalf of Market Tire Co., of Maryland, Inc., at the kind invitation of Senator Nelson. I am accompanied by Mr. Earl W. Kintner and Mr. Ralph S. Cunningham, Jr. of the law firm of Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn, Washington, D.C. These gentlemen advise our company on the legal implications of tire marketing.

At the outset we wish to commend you for holding this public hearing. We believe that the marketing of automobile tires in the Washington metropolitan area and throughout the Nation presents a pattern of abuses which is unparalleled. We believe that this hearing is a necessary step toward eradicating this pattern of widespread abuses.

Market Tire Co. operates a chain of retail tire stores concentrated primarily in the Washington metropolitan area. We believe that Market Tire Co. may be of assistance to the committee because marketing patterns at the retail level affect the consumer most intimately.

Our company endorses the objectives of S. 1643. Market Tire Co. has been on record for years as favoring a uniform system of grade rating and quality rating for tires. We believe that the necessity for such a system has increased rather than diminished since our first public statement on this important matter.

S. 1643 speaks of minimum safety and performance standards for tires. Minimum safety standards are certainly desirable in any event. However, we believe it may be helpful to you to point out that minimum safety standards alone will not terminate deception in the retail marketing of tires or adequately protect the consumers of this country.

Today, virtually every tire manufacturer produces and markets many lines of tires, each with differing construction standards and