Deerfield Beach, Fl-Used Tires News- USTMA-Continuing with their thirty years of illegal Anti-Trust and smear campaign against “Used Tires”.The purpose of this post is to hopefully explain in laymen’s terms that” Bills” become Laws on the Federal and State levels a statute.In cities, it is Ordinances and Variances that are granted by votes of our elected officials. To the very same special interest groups usually who are huge campaign donors and sometimes made up of very legitimate businesses but whose intentions are “Unconstitutional” sometimes violate Anti-Trust Laws or worse, and just plain wrong.They are the ones whose lobbying groups write the Bills or ordinances. Did you know that, yes they write them and then get their friends to introduce them as a bill, a proposed statute or ordinance? That is the procedure of how most laws come into existence.

My Deerfield Beach-based company Used Tire International went to Federal Court in the nineties to defend our “Constitutional Right” to sell used tires in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico which had passed a law that would have helped in some ways recycle discarded “Scrap Tires” but, would have eliminated the sale of “Used Tires” from outside of Puerto Rico, which our company did, sell into Puerto Rico from the US and Europe and Asia. Why you may ask is the Goodyear Blimp my photo for this story because they were one of the many new tire manufacturers who illegally influenced and allegedly” BRIBED” Puerto Rican Senator Freddy Valentin the author of the bill we challenged and won.

So when I see the city of Deerfield Beach think they can trample folks rights and get away with it unchallenged I must challenge it. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of The Press are as sacrosanct as the Second Amendment. Pressuring Deerfield Beach Magazine to remove their magazine cover from the internet which was negative in the eyes of city hall, really?

Using the Sheriff’s office or even the threat of that, against citizens as they spoke out at a meeting. That is as wrong as what Homestead and Riviera Beach have done. Weaponizing any law enforcement agency to promote a cities agenda, un-American. Weaponizing any government agency against a citizen or corporation who are seeking to exercise their “Constitutional Rights” is despicable.

Freddy Valentin can be substituted for the local politician of your choice. They all are influenced if not corrupted by their donors.

Even today the Newly formed USTMA the New Tire Makers Lobbying Group are still at it state by state and their intentions while they will say are to protect the consumer, it is to protect their declining market share and nothing else. They know the truth about unsafe tires they make them. Sometimes they are made so well that they can be used again. They know what makes a tire unsafe is simply not changing it or taking it off a rim which is what they imply amongst other lies and half-truths.

From www.Tirebusiness.com-

Ohio Senate passes used tire bill
By Tire Business Staff

COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Ohio Senate has passed a bill prohibiting the sale of unsafe used tires for road use.

The U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association (USTMA), which sponsored the model legislation, hailed the Dec. 13 vote as an important action to protect motorists from worn-out, damaged or improperly repaired tires.

“This is an important step toward reducing risk posed by unsafe used tires that too often find their way back into service,” USTMA President and CEO Anne Forristall Luke said.

Ohio Senate Bill 223 does not ban all used tires, only those that fail basic safety criteria, the USTMA said.

SB 223 defines unsafe used tires as those with less than 2/32nd-inch tread depth; damage that exposes steel belts or other internal components; improper repairs; or bulges indicating internal damage.

The USTMA is leading a coalition to advance SB 223, the association said. Supporters of the coalition include its tire maker members as well as the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, the Ohio Association of Manufacturers, the Ohio Tire and Automotive Association, the Ohio Conference of AAA Clubs, the Property Casualty Insurance Association and the Tire Industry Association, it said.

A similar USTMA-supported used tire bill was signed into law in New Jersey earlier this year, but another used tire bill was vetoed in Texas.

Arizona approved a bill that was not based on USTMA model legislation, but did officially define waste tires in an effort to keep them from being sold as used tires.

United States Court of Appeals,First Circuit.
USED TIRE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Manuel DIAZ-SALDAÑA, Defendant, Appellee.

USED TIRE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, Appellee, v. Manuel DIAZ-SALDAÑA, Defendant, Appellant.

Nos. 97-2347, 97-2348.
Decided: September 11, 1998
Before SELYA and BOUDIN, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER,* Senior District Judge.Sylvia Roger-Stefani, Assistant Solicitor General, with whom Carlos Lugo-Fiol, Solicitor General, and Edda Serrano-Blasini, Deputy Solicitor General, Federal Litigation Division, Puerto Rico Department of Justice, were on brief, for appellant. Joan S. Peters, with whom Andrés Guillemard-Noble and Nachman, Guillemard & Rebollo were on brief, for appellee.

In an effort to attack the mounting problem of solid waste disposal, the Puerto Rico legislature in 1996 enacted the Tire Handling Act, also known as Law 171. This act establishes a comprehensive scheme for the handling and disposal of used tires. Among other things, it requires tire vendors to accept customers’ used tires at no extra charge for processing or disposal, prohibits the burning of tires and depositing of tires in landfills except under certain conditions, regulates the storage and recycling of tires, establishes import fees, sets up a fund for handling scrap tires, creates incentives for recycling and developing alternative uses for scrap tires, and imposes penalties for noncompliance with its provisions. The legislature identified the disposal of tires as a particular problem because of the fire hazard they present, the public health hazard they create from disease-carrying mosquitoes breeding in water that accumulates inside discarded tires and the large amount of space they occupy, diminishing the useful life of landfills.

Used Tire International, Inc. (“UTI”) is an importer of used tires into Puerto Rico. It brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief against appellant Manuel DíazSaldaña as Secretary of the Treasury to bar enforcement of certain provisions of Law 171. Those provisions are: Article 5(B) which prohibits the import of tires that do not have a minimum tread depth of 3/32”; Article 5(D) which requires tire importers to file a bond in an amount equivalent to the cost of handling and disposing of the imported product and provides for execution of the bond in the event that 10% of a representative sample of a shipment does not qualify; Article 6 which imposes a charge on all imported tires; Article 17(A)(1) which provides for distributions from a tire handling fund, created from the charge imposed on importers of tires, to recyclers, processors and exporters of tires; and Article 19(A) which imposes a $10.00 fine on persons selling or importing tires that do not have a minimum tread depth of 3/32.” Following a hearing on UTI’s request for a preliminary injunction at which both sides presented testimony, the district court issued an opinion and order, granting the injunction against enforcement of Articles 5(B), 5(D) and 19(A) and denying it with respect to Articles 6 and 17(A)(1). Puerto Rico appealed the order and UTI cross-appealed. The parties have stipulated that we may treat Puerto Rico’s appeal as being from a final adjudication of the invalidity of Articles 5(B), 5(D) and 19(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1292(a)(1).

PUERTO RICO’S APPEAL

The district court concluded that Articles 5(B) and 19(A) facially discriminate against interstate commerce by banning the importation of a class of tires that may be legally sold and used in Puerto Rico. In reaching that conclusion it rejected the Secretary’s argument that Law 171 is non-discriminatory because the 3/32” requirement applies equally to importers and sellers of used tires. The argument was premised on the first sentence of Article 19(A) which states:

Every person who sells or imports tires ․ that do not have a minimum depth of 3/32” ․ shall pay a fine of $10.00 per tire.

The court rejected this interpretation of the statute as implausible on the strength of the second sentence of Article 19(A) which states:

This provision shall apply to those who fail to comply but have not had their bond executed, according to what is pointed out in Article 5(D) [which requires all tire importers to post a bond].

It read that provision as making the penalty applicable only to those who have filed bonds, i.e., importers of used tires.

We agree with the district court’s interpretation. The reference to “those ․ who have not had their bond executed” and the cross-reference to Article 5(D) dealing with importers of used tires makes it clear that only those sellers of used tires who are also importers are the subject of Article 19(A). Moreover, as UTI points out, it would make little sense for the legislature to penalize sellers of noncomplying used tires taken in trade-in (i.e., locally-generated used tires) for to do so would simply accelerate the time when used tires are discarded as scrap and dumped in a landfill. On appeal, the Secretary merely reiterates that the penalty applies equally to sellers and to importers but has offered “only rhetoric, and not explanation.” See Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt, 504 U.S. 334, 343, 112 S.Ct. 2009, 119 L.Ed.2d 121 (1992). We conclude, therefore, that Article 19(A) discriminates against sellers of imported used tires because only they and not sellers of locally-generated used tires are subjected to the penalty and, consequently, that Article 5(B) discriminates against importers of used tires because Law 171 singles them out in barring the import of tires with less than 3/32” tread depth.1

The district court, having concluded that Articles 5(B) and 19(A) are invalid, did not reach the bonding requirement under Article 5(D). That article provides that “[e]very tire importer shall file ․ a bond ․ equivalent to the total cost of the handling and disposal of the imported product. Should more than 10% of a representative sample of a shipment of imported tires fail[ ] to meet [the 3/32” standard] ․ the totality of the bond shall be executed.” Plainly the bonding requirement imposes burdens, costs and risks on importers of used tires not borne by sellers of locally-generated used tires and thus provides added support for the conclusion that Articles 5(B), 5(D) and 19(A) together facially discriminate against interstate commerce.

The inexorable increase in the volume of solid wastes and the health and environmental consequences attendant on their disposal present legislatures and courts with vexing problems. See Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617, 630, 98 S.Ct. 2531, 57 L.Ed.2d 475 (1978) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). We may assume that Puerto Rico’s purpose in enacting Law 171 was to serve the best interests of all its citizens. But no matter how laudatory its purpose, “it may not be accomplished by discriminating against articles of commerce coming from outside the [Commonwealth] unless there is some reason, apart from their origin, to treat them differently.” Id. at 626-27, 98 S.Ct. 2531.2 In Philadelphia, the Supreme Court struck down a New Jersey statute that prohibited the importation of waste originating out of state. The crucial question, the Court said, was whether the statute was “basically a protectionist measure, or whether it can fairly be viewed as a law directed to legitimate local concerns, with effects upon interstate commerce that are only incidental.” Id. at 624, 98 S.Ct. 2531. To answer that question, the Court saw no need to resolve the dispute between the parties whether the purpose was to serve parochial economic interests or to save the environment for “the evil of protectionism can reside in legislative means as well as legislative ends.” Id. at 626, 98 S.Ct. 2531. New Jersey’s law, it held, fell within the area that the Commerce Clause puts off limits to state regulation because it “imposes on out-of-state commercial interests the full burden of conserving the State’s remaining landfill space.” Id. at 628, 98 S.Ct. 2531.

Puerto Rico’s legislation barring the importation of certain used tires is essentially indistinguishable from New Jersey’s.3 It, too, places the burden of conserving its landfill space on those engaged in interstate commerce, the importers of used tires. And it is essentially indistinguishable from the Alabama statute imposing an additional disposal fee on wastes generated outside the state, struck down in Chemical Waste. See also Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, 504 U.S. 353, 112 S.Ct. 2019, 119 L.Ed.2d 139 (1992) (striking down statute barring disposal of solid waste generated in another county); Trailer Marine Transport Corp. v. Rivera Vazquez, 977 F.2d 1, 10 (1st Cir.1992). The costs associated with the required bond and the penalty upon the sale of noncomplying imported tires, moreover, resemble a tariff on goods that may be lawfully sold in the state because they are imported from another state, “[t]he paradigmatic example of a law discriminating against interstate commerce.” West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy, 512 U.S. 186, 193, 114 S.Ct. 2205, 129 L.Ed.2d 157 (1994). Because the Secretary has failed to come forward with a showing that Articles 5(B), 5(D) and 19(A) advance a legitimate local purpose that cannot be adequately served by reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives, see New Energy Co. v. Limbach, 486 U.S. 269, 278, 108 S.Ct. 1803, 100 L.Ed.2d 302 (1988), they cannot withstand scrutiny under the Commerce Clause.4

UTI’S CROSS-APPEAL

UTI cross-appeals from the district court’s denial of injunctive relief against enforcement of Articles 6 and 17. We review the denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. See Ross-Simons of Warwick, Inc. v. Baccarat, Inc., 102 F.3d 12, 16 (1st Cir.1996). The appealing party “bears the considerable burden of demonstrating that the District Court flouted” the four-part test for preliminary injunctive relief. E.E.O.C. v. Astra USA, Inc., 94 F.3d 738, 743 (1st Cir.1996). That test requires plaintiff to show probability of success on the merits as well as irreparable injury, the balance of harm tipping in plaintiff’s favor, and absence of adverse effect on the public interest. See, e.g., Starlight Sugar, Inc. v. Soto, 114 F.3d 330, 331 (1st Cir.1997).

Article 6 imposes a charge on each imported tire, whether new or used, varying with the dimension of the wheel rim. The revenue received from this charge is placed in an Adequate Disposal Tire Handling Fund, created under Article 17, to subsidize the cost of processing and recycling used tires. The district court held that Article 6 does not discriminate against interstate commerce because the charge is imposed on all tires entering Puerto Rico, no tires being manufactured in Puerto Rico. See Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland, 437 U.S. 117, 125, 98 S.Ct. 2207, 57 L.Ed.2d 91 (1978). UTI argues that the charge discriminates because it is not imposed on locally-generated tires. Those tires, of course, pay the charge when they enter Puerto Rico as new tires. The district court found that those tires nevertheless enjoy an economic advantage because the charge is not passed on in the price of locally-generated used tires. Whatever the basis for that finding, we find nothing discriminatory in a one-time charge imposed on the importation of every tire, new or used. The only used tires that may enjoy an advantage are those that were imported new or used before Law 171 became effective (some of which were presumably imported by UTI). But their advantage is temporary and is the result, not of discrimination, but, rather, of the inevitable phasing in of the new law. Because we find that Article 6 “regulates evenhandedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest, and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental,” Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 142, 90 S.Ct. 844, 25 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970), we affirm the district court’s ruling denying injunctive relief.

Article 17(A)(1) provides for the distribution out of the Adequate Disposal Tire Handling Fund of the revenue derived from the import charge. Out of the revenue collected, handlers of tires to be processed or recycled in Puerto Rico are to receive a maximum of 91% of the handling and disposal fee and exporters up to 46%. UTI contends that this provision facially discriminates against tire exporters. The district court found, and it is not disputed, that UTI is not a scrap tire exporter and thus not hurt by the law. Accordingly, it lacks standing to attack this article. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992).

UTI seeks to avoid its disability by arguing that Article 17 together with Article 6 create a tax-subsidy program similar to that found to be invalid in West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy, 512 U.S. 186, 114 S.Ct. 2205, 129 L.Ed.2d 157 (1994). West Lynn struck down a Massachusetts milk pricing order which imposed an assessment on all milk sold by dealers in Massachusetts, two-thirds of which came from out of state, and then distributed all of it to Massachusetts dairy farmers. Even though the assessment and the subsidy, separately, could be lawfully enacted, together they constituted a scheme under which out-of-state producers were required to subsidize competition by local high cost dairy farmers, neutralizing advantages possessed by lower cost out-of-state producers. Id. at 194, 114 S.Ct. 2205. The Puerto Rico import charge is distinguishable because it does not subsidize local dealers at the expense of those engaged in interstate commerce.5

CONCLUSION

We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s order respecting injunctive relief.

FOOTNOTES

1. Because no new tires are manufactured in Puerto Rico, all new tires are imported along with used tires. New tires in due course enter the local trade as locally-generated used tires when they are taken in trade-in or bought for resale by local tire dealers. At that point, they compete with imported used tires.

2. “Puerto Rico is subject to the constraints of the dormant Commerce Clause doctrine in the same fashion as the states.” Trailer Marine Transport Corp. v. Rivera Vázquez, 977 F.2d 1, 7 (1st Cir.1992).

3. The Secretary urges us to apply the balancing analysis explicated in Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 142, 90 S.Ct. 844, 25 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970). That analysis-weighing burdens against benefits-is inapposite, however, because this is not a law that “regulates evenhandedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest” whose “effects on interstate commerce are only incidental.” Id. at 142, 90 S.Ct. 844. While we do not doubt the benefits to Puerto Rico’s citizens from extending the useful life of their landfills, the Philadelphia line of cases teaches that the Commerce Clause does not permit those benefits to be achieved at the expense of interstate commerce through discriminatory legislative means.

4. Severability is not an issue. Article 22 states: “The provisions of this Act are independent from one another, and should any of its provisions be declared unconstitutional ․ the decision ․ shall not affect or invalidate any of the remaining provisions unless the Court’s decision so state[s] expressly.”

5. The foregoing discussion sufficiently disposes of UTI’s claim that Articles 6 and 17 violate the due process and equal protection clauses.

SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge.

Again I as I wrote above, I can not and will not be stifled by Mayor Ganz or any other elected official when it comes to Constitutional Rights. Citizens should not have to fear the Sheriff removing them from a commission meeting if it because of speech when it is their turn to do so. Mayor Ganz is not a DICTATOR

HE SHOULD WELCOME CITIZENS AND LOCAL BUSINESSMEN LIKE MR. HERZ WHO TAKE THE TIME AND ARE INVOLVED IN THEIR CIVIC DUTY.

Part of this was from Deerfield-News.com about how governments violate citizens and corporations Constitutional Rights, everyday!

Deerfield Beach-No Citizen or Corporation Should Have Their Constitutional Rights Violated-And Yes You Can Fight City Hall And The States And Territories And Win!

Used Tire News-Usedtires.com has confirmed record sales for 2017 online direct to consumer of used tires. That is right used tires are being sold and shipped UPS or Fedex direct to consumers.This years cyber Monday sales are just the tip of the iceberg for US online used tire sales.
This business is not new ,but has exploded with the rest of online tire sales.Used Tires are being sold on websites direct to consumers,Amazon and Ebay as well as Facebook and Craigslist are also popular platforms for used tire sales.
Used Tires in High performance and high end sizes seem to be the key for used tire dealers entering the online market.Used tires online has been something many tire dealers were skeptical of just a few years ago.Used tires which as an American industry sold closer to 45 million units last year export,wholesale and retail. New tire makers estimated the 30 million were sold last year.We are not sure where this tire manufacturers group get their numbers of our sales from,that said who cares.
Used tires online a new and true market for the sale of used tires.

Deerfield Beach,Fl-Used Tire News-Shame on you Crowley Maritime,exploiting an already tragic situation.You certainly would be better served having your Public Relations and Social Media department answer comments on your Facebook,than other employees.I do not need one of your second mates telling me anything.You are big boys you set up a Facebook page have your social media people respond. You can tell your second mate Nate to do his job,your media relations do theirs.Greedy bastards you are exploitng a tragedy by giving out PR statements that are BS.
Help the people that made you Billionaires do the right thing!!!!!

Deerfield-News.com-Deerfield Beach,Fl-Again there will be plenty of time for Crowley and the other US Flagged Vessels protected by The Jones Act,to make plenty of billions more!

Now is not the time to be promoting via social media The Jones Act,now is the time to suspend it!

Let’s get the help to Puerto Rico and it’s citizens the fastest way possible and that means suspending temporarily The Jones Act.

Deerfield News I understand distribution is a problem and there are containers in the port.There are drivers that will not drive 9000 gallons of fuel without police or National Guard protection.The situation is complicated,That said suspend The Act for 90 days to allow whomever can deliver fastest is what needs to be done along with a lot of other things.I am a long time Crowley customer as well as Sea Star,Sea Barge,been shipping used tires from Deerfield Beach/Fort Lauderdale and Germany to Puerto Rico since 1988.

Drivers cannot get from their homes to the port the roads are still not passable in all places. I understand the difficulties,The Jones Act is the last monkey wrench needed.
CROWLEY MARITIME CORPORATION

·
The domestic maritime industry, of which Crowley is a part, has responded to Hurricane Maria in a big way. The American Maritime Partnership reports 3,000 containers filled with goods were expedited and arrived in Puerto Rico ahead of the storm. U.S. carriers have moved approximately 9,500 containers of goods to the island after Maria; the Jones Act fleet deployed in Puerto Rico has the capacity to carry more than 4,000 containers per week to the island; and the largest U.S. container ship in the trade can carry enough cargo to fill 1,900 cargo planes. Learn more here: http://crow.ly/2yHWdhu

COMMENTS ON CROWLEY’S FACEBOOK PAGE.

Howard Levy
Howard Levy You should be the first ones saying to Waive The Jones Act Temporarily the right thing to do.People are dying,not the time to promote the Jones Act. SHAME ON CROWLEY!
www.usedtires.com
A long time customer and shipper.I read your promotional piece on FB and in your shipping trade magazine,nonsense BS!
I understand The Jones Act,please do not insult those of us who have to live under it and are subject to it.
Do The Right Thing Call For It To Be Suspended!

Used Tires News-Deerfield Beach,Fl-The RMA is now US Tire Manufacturers Asssociation their members, enemy number one of the used tire retailer and used tire exporter.Well even with the “Big Bucks” they spent “LOBBYING” which I use loosely they have been dealt a defeat in Texas!

This organization should be under investigation by DOJ and FTC for violating U.S Anti Trust laws or worse.For the better part of three decades they have been trying to eliminate the sale of used tires.

They began in Venezuela continued throughout South America with a smear campaign and “Lobbying” (code word for bribe and or illegally influence) local officials,either by getting them elected to office or appointed and then using their authority to restrict or eliminate the sale of used tires.They tried in Puerto Rico and we made a “Constituional Challenge” in The Federal Court and to this day have a Permanent Injunction restraining Puerto Rico from interfering with interstate commerce the “Dormant Commerce Clause” and thus used tires sales in PR.

House Bill 2744 had been pushed through both the Texas House and Senate ,yet Governor Gregg Abbott vetoed it and said”Texas does not need to impose new criminal penalties on people who put tires on cars”.
The Governor gets it used tire dealers are in most cases new tire dealers who also repair tires something the USTMA and their members do not do in their retail stores.Used Tire dealers,flat Fix shops still repair and patch tires that are repairable.Instead of embracing the used tire industry and pushing for more training for all tire dealers USTMA has now begun to use it’s influence with TIA a group that represents tire dealers.We urge TIA to reconsider it’s recent shift in positon and work with used tire dealers.Let us not invent a category of “known versus unknown used tires” that is nonsense.

Deerfield Beach,Fl Used Tires News-Usedtires.com has German used tires in the following sizes available.

QTY
185-65-15-75
195-60-15-67
195-65-15-75
205-60-15-37
205-65-15-40
215-60-15-1
225-60-15-8
205-70-15-10
205-60-16-95
205-65-16-3
215-60-16-60
25-65-16-73
225-60-16-20
225-70-16-6
245-70-16-5
255-70-16-2
265-70-16-2
215-40-17-6
215-45-17-25
225-45-17-110
235-40-17-4
235-45-17-80
245-45-17-5
245-45-17-31
255-40-17-7
255-35-18-40
225-40-18-85
235-40-18-20
255-40-18-12
275-40-18-6
265-40-18-1
225-35-19-4
235-35-19-1
235-40-19-11
245-40-19-27
255-35-19-16
255-40-19-10
235-40-20-2
245-40-20-2
245-45-20-1
255-40-20-5
255-45-20-5
1098 pieces
Contact us at [email protected]
www.usedtires.com
954-573-5012

UsedTires.com-USED TIRE NEWS-BREAKING NEWS

FROM PATERSON PRESS NORTHJERSEY.com

PATERSON – City officials are asking the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office to look into possible corruption in Paterson’s tire recycling program in response to allegations raised by an NBC New York report broadcast Tuesday evening.

NBC reported a discrepancy between the revenue Paterson had reported getting for tire collections at the city’s Department of Public Works recycling yard and the payments the city made to a private firm to haul away the tires.

The NBC story included interviews with anonymous DPW employees, who said private companies were paying off municipal workers at the yard to allow them to engage in the illegal practice of dumping extra tires for free.

A city policy says that private companies are supposed to pay $1 for every tire they haul to the municipal recycling yard. But NBC reported that companies were paying just $20 for shipments of dozens of tires.

Paterson officials said they decided to notify the Prosecutor’s Office of the allegations after NBC made inquiries about the situation.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/Paterson-Tire-Problem-Whistleblower-Corruption-Investigation-New-Jersey-414346503.html
Report By NBCNEWYORK.com