[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 235 (Tuesday, December 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67720-67722]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-32510]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-98-4208; Notice 2]
MHT Luxury Alloys, Denial of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
MHT Luxury Alloys (MHT) of Torrance, California has determined that
some of the rims it manufactured and marketed fail to comply with 49
CFR 571.120, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120,
``Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars,'' and
has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, ``Defect
and Noncompliance Reports.'' MHT has also applied to be exempted from
the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301--
``Motor Vehicle Safety'' on the basis that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Notice of receipt of the application was published, with a 30-day
comment period, on August 5, 1998, in the Federal Register (63 FR
41890). NHTSA received four comments on this application during the 30-
day comment period. All four commenters recommended the denial of the
application.
Paragraph S5.2 of FMVSS No. 120 states that each rim, or at the
option of the manufacturer in the case of a single-piece wheel, the
wheel disc shall be marked with the information listed in paragraphs
(a) through (e), in lettering not less than 3 millimeters high,
impressed to a depth or, at the option of the manufacturer, embossed to
a height of not less than 0.125 millimeter. These five paragraphs
labeled (a) through (e) require the following labeling:
(a) A designation which indicates the source of the rim's published
nominal dimensions;
(b) The rim size designation;
(c) The symbol DOT, constituting a certification by the
manufacturer of the rim that the rim complies with all applicable motor
vehicle safety standards;
(d) A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the rim by
name, trademark, or symbol; and
(e) The month, day, and year or the month and year of manufacture.
From January 1, 1996 through November 13, 1997, MHT produced and
sold approximately 13,000 rims which are not labeled with four of the
five items required by the standard. However, MHT did permanently place
on the center of the rim on the weather side a mark of ``MHT,''
``NICHE,'' ``NEEPER,'' or other registered trade name of MHT Luxury
Alloys, which it believes is a sufficient designation of the rim's
manufacturer.
MHT supported its application for inconsequential noncompliance
with the following statements:
1. Although the symbol ``DOT'' [and other labeling requirements]
did not appear on the described rims, each rim did comply with all
applicable motor vehicle safety standards.
2. MHT has received no complaints from consumers that (i) the rims
did not comply with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, or
(ii) the rims did not contain the required labeling.
3. The subject rims were initially designed and manufactured for
application on passenger vehicles. MHT's management was not aware of
the labeling requirements and believed that because the rims were
originally designed and manufactured for passenger vehicles, they were
exempt from the labeling requirements.
4. The names ``MHT,'' ``NICHE,'' ``NEEPER,'' and other registered
trade names of MHT are extremely well known in the industry and to the
consumers of motor vehicle rims. MHT believes that a consumer could
inquire at any store, distributor, warehouse, or manufacturer within
the United States as (i) to the identity and general location of MHT,
(ii) be advised that MHT is the manufacturer of rims that bear its name
and its trademarks, and (iii) that MHT is located in Los Angeles
County, California. MHT has consistently responded promptly and fully
to any consumer inquires regarding its products.
5. Upon receipt of a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) letter, dated October 6, 1997, MHT promptly ordered a marking
machine to imprint each new and ``in warehouse'' rim with the required
information. Since November 13, 1997, all rims distributed by MHT have
been marked in compliance with S5.2.
NHTSA received comments from four individuals. One of the comments
was received by NHTSA's Office of Safety Assurance, during the comment
period, and was deemed relevant to the inconsequentiality decision and
was placed in the docket.
The first commenter, Jesse Hsiao, urged the agency not to grant the
application, because the commenter believes: (1) Without labeling, a
consumer cannot determine whether the rims are to be used on a
passenger car or a truck; (2) the MHT rims are specifically designed
for a truck, not a passenger car; and (3) a cap marked with MHT is not
sufficient, because the cap can easily pop off the wheel, or the cap
may not even be placed on the wheel at the time of delivery to the
customer.
The second commenter, a tire dealer located in Southern California,
stated serious concerns about the future liability problems with MHT
wheels and urged the agency to require MHT to recall the non-complying
truck wheels. This commenter made the following statements: (1) MHT
should be forced to provide evidence that its truck wheels comply with
all safety standards. Truck and Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV) wheels
require a much higher maximum load capacity than passenger vehicle
wheels; (2) MHT's statement that it did not believe it had to mark the
wheels, because the rims were originally designed for passenger cars,
is dishonest and does not make sense; (3) MHT's statement that subject
truck rims were initially designed for passenger vehicles is incorrect.
Wheels for passenger vehicles have different offsets, different center
bore, different center pad, different bolt patterns, and different load
capacities, than the wheels designed for trucks and SUVs; (4) MHT's
statement that their management was not aware of the labeling
requirements is not true. MHT wheels are manufactured in Progressive
Custom Wheels' foundry, where all wheels, except MHT's, are stamped
with the appropriate labeling; (5) Many MHT truck wheels are sold
without the MHT, Niche, or Neeper trade marks. MHT sells some wheels
directly to new car dealers. In many cases, these wheel caps bear the
car manufacturer's name (i.e. Ford, Toyota, etc.). Without the marking
on the wheel, the consumers will be confused about the origin of their
wheels. It will be very difficult, if not impossible, to trace the
wheels to MHT; and (6) As of September 1998, MHT continued to
distribute unmarked wheels.
The third commenter, Richard E. Rice, provided general comments
regarding MHT's application. The commenter made the following
statements: (1) Since
[[Page 67721]]
the MHT wheels were manufactured initially for passenger vehicles--what
testing was done to determine whether the wheels could be used for
truck weight capacities?; (2) Since the MHT truck wheels have no
markings, the tire retail stores installing the wheels would not know
whether the wheels met the weight capacity for a certain application.
All the wheels that we sell, except MHT wheels, have DOT markings that
show the maximum weight capacity; (3) a cap marked with MHT is not
sufficient, because the cap can easily pop off the wheel, or the cap
may contain only the car manufacturer's name; (4) the MHT management
has been in the wheel manufacturing business for decades. The owner and
MHT management ran the American Racing Wheel Company, the largest wheel
manufacturing company in the United States, with contracts to make
original equipment wheels for Ford and General Motors. It is
inconceivable that they did not know the laws pertaining to marking
their wheels. Also it is unbelievable that they would try to make
anyone believe they had simply redesigned car wheels, so that they
would be exempt from governing laws. Truck wheels have different
offsets and bolt patterns, so they require different molds; and (5) the
commenter has seen MHT wheels that cracked and failed. Many MHT
customers don't know from where their wheels came or how to contact the
responsible party.
The fourth commenter, who submitted information to NHTSA's Office
of Safety Assurance, stated that: (1) MHT claims that it permanently
placed at the center of all of its non-complying wheels a logo bearing
one of the MHT's trade names. However, a variety of MHT's non-complying
wheels have been and continue to be sold with logos bearing the trade
name of entities other than MHT. At times, MHT non-complying truck
wheels have been sold by MHT directly to car dealers bearing the logos
of Toyota, Lexus, Infiniti, and other car manufacturers. For example,
MHT's Neeper N-7, Pyro, and Syncro truck wheels, and MHT's Niche Prima,
Gefell, and Runner truck wheels have been sold bearing Toyota logos.
The latest example is the Niche Bahn M-805 truck wheel for the Lexus
LX470, which has been sold at times bearing a modified Lexus logo. The
commenter provided a picture indicating this issue; (2) MHT claims that
since November 13, 1997, all rims distributed by MHT have been marked
in compliance with 49 CFR 571.120. On May 22, 1998, MHT wrote to DOT
making this claim, and further claimed to have notified all of its
distributors of the non-compliance and promised to correct all non-
complying wheels stocked by its distributors by marking them as
required. However, MHT did not stop selling non-complying wheels or
even manufacturing brand new non-complying wheels when it claimed it
did. Also, the MHT distributors did not stop. For example, in late
March 1998, MHT manufactured a brand new wheel, the Niche Bahn M-805
for the Lexus RX470 vehicle, and in April 1998 shipped a number of such
non-complying wheels from its warehouse to Lexus car dealers. Even at
the beginning of August 1998, MHT distributors were selling wheels
without any markings pursuant to 49 CFR 571.120. The commenter provided
pictures indicating this issue; (3) MHT claims in its application that
it has received no complaints that its rims did not contain the
required labeling. However, MHT has received specific complaints about
the problems raised by the non-compliance. The commenter provided a
letter addressed to Mr. Palmer of MHT, dated September 30, 1996, in
which it is noted that MHT wheels are lacking the appropriate and
required labeling; (4) MHT claims in its application that its truck
rims were initially designed and manufactured for passenger vehicles,
and that subsequently ``bolt patterns were modified so that the same
rims that had been designed for passenger cars could be mounted on
light trucks and sport utility vehicles* * *.'' However, MHT's truck
wheels are specifically designed, manufactured, and marketed for trucks
or sport utility vehicles. The only similarity between some of MHT's
truck wheels and passenger wheels might be the ornamental design of the
wheel face. Otherwise, at least the size, offset, center bore and
mounting pad, and load capacity of the wheels, in addition to the bolt
pattern, are significantly different between the two categories of
wheels. The commenter provided pictures showing the N146 Syncro
passenger car wheel and the N146 Syncro truck wheel in MHT's Concept
Neeper catalog. The commenter states that it is clear that the six-lug
truck wheel requires a larger center bore and mounting pad and was
manufactured as a different rim and in a different mold than the
corresponding passenger car wheel. If MHT indeed merely changes the
bolt pattern of its passenger vehicle wheels and then sells them as
truck wheels, then serious safety concerns arise; (5) Many of MHT's
wheel styles are manufactured and marketed solely for trucks and sport
utility vehicles. For example, MHT's Concept Neeper Style N141 Pyro and
Niche Style M402 Treck wheels were designed and sold solely for trucks
and sport utility vehicles. The commenter provided MHT Concept Neeper
and Niche catalogs as examples; (6) MHT claims that it will be
extremely difficult if not impossible to contact the great majority of
consumers who have purchased or possess non-complying wheels. Many, and
probably most, purchasers pay with cash and leave no record with the
retail seller as to the consumer's identity. However, many purchasers
acquire MHT wheels from car dealers who keep consummate and detailed
records of all their transactions. A recall of a large portion of the
wheels manufactured, at least those sold by car dealers, should not be
difficult to implement; and (7) MHT's non-compliance results in an
inability to trace rims back to MHT. The consuming public might be
confused and deceived, and MHT's retailers and distributors, through no
fault of their own, might be in the path of liability. The commenter
urges DOT to investigate the matter further.
The purpose for the labeling requirements in FMVSS No. 120 is to
provide the vehicle user with information for the safe operation of the
vehicle by ensuring that the vehicle is equipped with rims of
appropriate size and type designation. Without proper labeling, an
individual cannot determine the rim's size and type designation.
Therefore, the vehicle user cannot readily determine the proper size
tire for the rim and the vehicle. Without this required information
displayed on the rim, a tire too large for the rim could be mounted,
resulting in a failure. If an oversize tire is not properly seated on
the rim, the tire could separate from the rim on the vehicle while
traveling down the highway. This presents a clear and distinct safety
hazard. Also, without the knowledge of the load carrying capabilities
of the wheel, the possibility of overloading exists. Overloading of a
rim presents the possibility of a structural failure as the vehicle is
traveling on the road. In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
decided that the applicant has not met its burden of persuasion that
the noncompliance it describes is inconsequential to safety.
Accordingly, its application is hereby denied.
(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120, delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and
501.8).
[[Page 67722]]
Issued: December 1, 1998.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 98-32510 Filed 12-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P