Motor vehicle safety standards; exemption petitions, etc.: MHT Luxury Alloys,
FR, December 08, 1998 › Notices › National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Linked as:Text
Federal Register: December 8, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 235)NoticesPage 67720-67722From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
DOCID:fr08de98-105
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Docket No. NHTSA-98-4208; Notice 2MHT 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 filedan 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
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. 98-32510Filed12-7-98; 8:45 amBILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Sponsored links
This document cites
- US Code - Title 49: Transportation - 49 USC 30118 - Sec. 30118. Notification of defects and noncompliance
- Code of Federal Regulations - Title 49: Transportation - 49 CFR 1.50 - Delegation to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator.
- Code of Federal Regulations - Title 49: Transportation - 49 CFR 571.120 - Tire selection and rims and motor home/recreation vehicle trailer load carrying capacity information for motor vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds).
See other documents that cite the same legislation
