Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP10-002, 73771-73775 [2011-30612]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Notices
Issued in Washington, DC, on November
22, 2011.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for
Regulatory and Legislative Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011–30748 Filed 11–28–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maritime Administration
[Docket Number MARAD 2011
0153]
Requested Administrative Waiver of
the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel
OCEAN VUE; Invitation for Public
Comments
Maritime Administration,
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
As authorized by 46 U.S.C.
12121, the Secretary of Transportation,
as represented by the Maritime
Administration (MARAD), is authorized
to grant waivers of the U.S.-build
requirement of the coastwise laws under
certain circumstances. A request for
such a waiver has been received by
MARAD. The vessel, and a brief
description of the proposed service, is
listed below.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
December 29, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to
docket number MARAD–2011–0153.
Written comments may be submitted by
hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk,
U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M–30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590. You may also
send comments electronically via the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
All comments will become part of this
docket and will be available for
inspection and copying at the above
address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
E.T., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. An electronic version
of this document and all documents
entered into this docket is available on
the World Wide Web at https://
www.regulations.gov.
SUMMARY:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Maritime
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Room W21–203,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone (202)
366–5979, email Joann.Spittle@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As
described by the applicant the intended
service of the vessel OCEAN VUE is:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
Intended Commercial Use of Vessel:
‘‘conduct water tour for vacationers &
tourists.’’
Geographic Region: ‘‘Florida.’’
The complete application is given in
DOT docket MARAD–2011–0153 at
https://www.regulations.gov. Interested
parties may comment on the effect this
action may have on U.S. vessel builders
or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in
accordance with 46 U.S.C. 12121 and
MARAD’s regulations at 46 CFR part
388, that the issuance of the waiver will
have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.vessel builder or a business that uses
U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a
waiver will not be granted. Comments
should refer to the docket number of
this notice and the vessel name in order
for MARAD to properly consider the
comments. Comments should also state
the commenter’s interest in the waiver
application, and address the waiver
criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD’s
regulations at 46 CFR Part 388.
Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78).
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Dated: November 17, 2011.
Julie P. Agarwal,
Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–30595 Filed 11–28–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–81–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition,
DP10–002
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA).
ACTION: Denial of Petition for a Defect
Investigation.
AGENCY:
This notice describes the
reasons for denying a petition (DP10–
002) submitted to NHTSA under 49
U.S.C. Subtitle B, Chapter V, Part 552,
Subpart A, requesting that the agency
conduct ‘‘an investigation of defective
products manufactured by Dayton
Wheel Concepts, Inc. (‘Dayton Wheel’
and American Wire Wheel, LLC
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00190
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
73771
(‘American Wheel’).’’ The petition listed
the allegedly defective products and the
alleged defect (which varied by
allegedly defective product).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob
Young, Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI), NHTSA; 1200 New Jersey Ave.,
SE; Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:
(202) 366–4806.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By a letter
dated December 31, 2009, Mr. Thomas
M. Gisslen; 707 Miamisburg-Centerville
Rd. #158; Dayton, OH 45459, through
his lawyer John R. Folkerth, JR; 109
North Main Street; 500 Performance
Place; Dayton, OH 45402; petitioned the
NHTSA requesting that it investigate
‘‘defective products manufactured by
Dayton Wheel
Concepts, Inc. (‘Dayton Wheel’ and
American Wire Wheel, LLC (‘American
Wheel’)’’ and that the Agency ‘‘order
* * * Dayton Wheel [to] remedy the
indicated design defects and to cease
and desist from the manufacture of the
defective products until such time as
the indicated design defects have been
corrected, that all inventory of such
defective product be impounded and
destroyed, that all defective product be
recalled, and that [Dayton Wheel]
provide the notice specified in 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30119’’ [basically that Dayton
conduct a safety recall of the allegedly
defective product(s) and so notify the
NHTSA].
NHTSA has reviewed the material
provided by the petitioner and other
pertinent data. The results of this review
and our analysis of the petition’s merit
is set forth in the DP10–002 Petition
Analysis Report, published in its
entirety as an appendix to this notice.
For the reasons presented in the
petition analysis report, there is no
reasonable possibility that an order
concerning the notification and remedy
of a safety-related defect would be
issued as a result of granting Mr.
Gisslen’s petition. Therefore, in view of
the need to allocate and prioritize
NHTSA’s limited resources to best
accomplish the agency’s safety mission,
the petition is denied.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations
of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: November 22, 2011.
Nancy Lummen Lewis,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
APPENDIX
Petition ANALYSIS—DP10–002
1.0 Introduction
On January 27, 2010, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) received a December 31, 2009,
letter from attorney John R. Folkerth, Jr.
E:\FR\FM\29NON1.SGM
29NON1
73772
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Notices
on behalf of his client, Thomas M.
Gisslen, petitioning the agency to
conduct an ‘‘investigation’’ of certain
products manufacturer by Dayton Wheel
Concepts, Inc. (including those branded
‘‘Dayton’’ and ‘‘American Wire Wheel’’)
for a range of alleged defects.1 Mr.
Gisslen (the ‘‘petitioner’’) is ‘‘seeking an
order requiring Dayton Wheel to remedy
the [allegedly] indicated design defects
and to cease and desist from the
manufacture of the defective products
until such time as the [allegedly]
indicated design defects have been
corrected, that all inventory of such
[allegedly] defective product be
impounded and destroyed, that all
[allegedly] defective product be
recalled, and that the manufacturer
provide the [recall] notice specified in
49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30119.’’ In support
of his petition, Mr. Gisslen cites: a
previous NHTSA investigation (PE02–
073) and subsequent safety-related
recall (03E–011) of the subject
motorcycle wheels; a web-forum
discussion concerning the alleged
separation of three spokes in a Dayton
model D452 60-spoke laced wheel
installed on a 1958 MGA, photographs
of purportedly defective Dayton wheel
components, photographs of rim
cracking in the nipple dimple area on a
customer’s Dayton ‘‘BA’’ radially-laced
motorcycle wheel taken proximate to
June 6, 2007, a web-forum discussion
concerning quality concerns with a ‘‘21
inch, forty spoke cross-laced American
Wire Wheel installed on a Harley FXDB
‘‘Street Bob’’; internal Dayton email
concerning wheel component material,
design, and specification, and material
related to alleged test failures of certain
Dayton products. According to the
petitioner, ‘‘Dayton Wheel’s [allegedly]
defective products constitute a
substantial risk of catastrophic personal
injury * * * ’’ 2
On March 9, 2010, NHTSA wrote to
Dayton requesting certain information.
The company’s response was received
by us on May 17, 2010. Included was a
request, filed pursuant to 49 CFR part
512, that certain information provided
not be released to the public.
On July 26, 2010 the petitioner,
through attorney Folkerth, submitted a
letter to Ron Medford, NHTSA’s Senior
Associate Administrator for Vehicle
Safety, covering additional exhibits
primarily concerning alleged product
failures both in the field and during
various laboratory tests. Many of the
exhibits simply duplicated what was in
NHTSA’s public file for this petition
(DP10–002).
On June 24, 2011, the petitioner (no
longer represented by Mr. Folkerth)
submitted additional information by
Email to NHTSA. The thrust of the
email (and a duplicate sent on June 28,
2011) was his opining that Dayton had
not thoroughly and completely
responded to our March 9th inquiry.
For purposes of this analysis,
‘‘Dayton’’ refers to Dayton Wire Wheel,
Inc. including all of its divisions,
subsidiaries (whether or not
incorporated, including American Wire
Wheel and Dayton Wheel Concepts).
In analyzing the petitioner’s
allegations and preparing a response,
we:
✓ Reviewed the petitioner attorney’s
December 31, 2010, and July 26, 2010,
letters and exhibits.
✓ Reviewed the petitioner’s June 24,
2011, email and attachments.
✓ Reviewed the petitioner’s June 28,
2011, email and attachments.
✓ Reviewed data provided by Dayton
in response to our March 9, 2010,
information request.
✓ Reviewed a previous NHTSA
defect investigation (PE02–073)
concerning the alleged sudden and
unforeseen catastrophic failure of
certain motorcycle wheels produced by
Dayton under the brand name
‘‘American Wire Wheel’’ (AWW).
✓ Reviewed information related to
Dayton’s safety recall (03E–011) of the
PE02–073 subject AWW wheels.
✓ Reviewed our consumer complaint
database for any reports concerning
products manufactured by Dayton.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Product
1 Hired on September 6, 2006, Dayton Wheel
(‘‘Dayton’’) terminated Mr. Gisslen’s employment
on September 11, 2007. Gisslen v. Dayton Wheel
Concepts, Inc., et. al. was filed October 6, 2009 on
behalf of Mr. Gisslen alleging he was wrongfully
terminated (Montgomery County Ohio, 2009 CV
15:20 Nov 28, 2011
2.0
Dayton Wire Wheel History
Founded in 1916, today Dayton Wire
Wheel manufactures laced wheels for
sale, predominantly, in the automotive
and motorcycle aftermarket.3 Dayton
wheels were used by the Wright
Brothers and Charles Lindbergh. As an
original equipment supplier in the
1930’s, Auburn, Cord and Duesenberg
automobiles were built with Daytons.
All Dayton wheels are produced in
Dayton, Ohio.
3.0
The Petioners Allegations
The petitioner provided a listing of
the Dayton products he alleges are
defective. While discussing his claims
regarding the ‘‘radial spoke’’ (i.e., the
spokes do not cross another between the
hub and rim) motorcycle wheels in his
letter, the petitioner references an
earlier NHTSA defect investigation
(PE02–073) and its related safety recall
(03E–011) concerning certain
motorcycle wheels assembled by
Dayton.4
3.1 The defective products alleged by
the Petitioner
Mr. Gisslen alleges that the following
Dayton products have the following
‘‘defects:’’ 5
Alleged ‘‘Defect’’
2003–6 BA 40 Radial Spoke Motorcycle Wheel ...............
19″ & 21″ Diameter Front Wheel; 40, 80 & 100 Radial
Spoke Wheel * * * all applications.
40 Radial Spoke M/C wheel * * * all sizes and apps ......
40 Radial Spoke M/C wheel * * * all sizes and apps ......
VerDate Mar<15>2010
✓ Informally interviewed owners of
British cars equipped with Dayton
wheels at three Washington, DC-area
British car shows.
✓ Informally interviewed owners of
motorcycles equipped with Dayton
wheels at three Washington, DC-area
custom motorcycle shows.
✓ Conducted a wide-ranging, webbased, search for any information
(included forum threads) concerning
alleged sudden, catastrophic failure of
Dayton products.
The information gathered and
reviewed during this comprehensive
effort fails to establish that a defect
trend exists in any of Dayton’s products
(including those identified by the
petitioner). Consequently, the petition is
denied.
Jkt 226001
Hub cracking at spoke flange.
Rim (rolled edge) cracking (splitting) between dimples (spoke holes).
Rim (rolled edge) cracking (splitting) between dimples (spoke holes).
Incorporating non-conforming spokes and nips [nipples] increasing risk of cracking
and nip-spoke thread engagement failure.
08163). Subsequently, Mr. Gisslen petitioned the
Agency.
2 John R. Folkerth, Jr., Esq., to Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Washington, DC, 31 December 2009, page 5.
PO 00000
Frm 00191
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3 Dayton continues to supply original equipment
wheels to some vehicle mfrs., including the Morgan
Motor Company of County Worcestershire in the
UK.
4 Folkerth, pages 1–2
5 Ibid, pages 4–5.
E:\FR\FM\29NON1.SGM
29NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Notices
Product
Alleged ‘‘Defect’’
All Automotive Wire Wheels ..............................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3.2 NHTSA’s Earlier Investigation and
Recall
Unlike random spoke breakages and/
or other infrequent laced wheel issues,
sudden, unforeseen wheel collapse is of
particular concern to NHTSA, especially
when involving motorcycle wheels. On
October 10, 2002, NHTSA opened
Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 02–073
after receiving one owner’s complaint
alleging the sudden, unforeseen collapse
of a ‘‘High Performance Super Spoke’’
aftermarket rear motorcycle wheel. This
wheel had been produced by American
Wire Wheel, Inc. (AWW), a division of
Hulcher Enterprises in Denton, Texas.
While preparing its inquiry to AWW,
NHTSA found the company had sold its
assets to Dayton Wheel Concepts of
Dayton, Ohio (Dayton) on September 3,
2002. Included in the purchase were all
materials related to AWW’s production
of ‘‘Super Spoke’’ model wheels.
NHTSA’s Office of Chief Counsel (NCC)
reviewed materials related to that sale
confirming that it involved only a
transfer of AWW’s assets. Subsequently,
NCC requested information from Dunn
& Bradstreet concerning AWW’s current
status and was told the company was no
longer in business.
On October 31, 2002, Dayton received
ODI’s request for information
concerning the Super Spoke wheels.
Allegedly, prior to receiving the inquiry,
only one alleged failure had been
disclosed to Dayton by AWW. However,
in reviewing AWW’s files while
preparing its response to our inquiry,
Dayton found documentation of nine
other Super Spoke spoke-related
failures, occurring between February
2000 and September 2002. Of the nine
found (for a total of 10 reports), 2
involved injury crashes and all
concerned rear wheels manufactured by
AWW of Denton, TX. Here is a
representative owner statement
concerning his August 4, 2002, incident:
‘‘I was riding with a group of people. The
rider next to me saw the wheel hopping. I felt
it and tried to look down. [It] felt like I hit
a bump, that’s when the bike dropped and all
hell broke loose.’’
Photos included with the owner’s
documentation show the wheel
collapsed when all 40 spokes pulled
away from the hub. On August 24, 2001,
15:20 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
Defective design, material & fabrication increasing risk of cracking and failure.
Extension lug bolts and nuts securing spline-mounted wheels incorporating improper
material and manufacturing processes.
Non-conforming spokes and nips incorporated into wheel assembly, resulting in loss
of thread engagement and total failure.
AWW paid the owner $4,177.62 to settle
his claim.
During the time it was gathering and
reviewing material responsive to ODI’s
October 31 information request, Dayton
assembled 32 Super Spoke wheels using
components produced by AWW prior to
Dayton’s asset purchase. Of these, 24
were rear wheels. On January 21, 2003,
Dayton shipped the rear wheels to both
Custom Chrome and Drag Specialties,
wholesale distributors specializing in
aftermarket motorcycle parts.
On February 12, 2003, Dayton
recalled all of the wheels it produced
(32). In its ‘‘Part 573 Defect and
Noncompliance Report’’ filed with the
agency for recall 03E–011, it said it was
taking this action after determining the
wheels ‘‘have the potential for complete
failure while in use due to steel spokes
pulling out of the machined aluminum
hub’’ with a ‘‘potential for vehicle crash
and resultant serious injuries to riders
and passengers.’’ In its remedy, Dayton
provided, without cost, a wheel of
different design to each affected
customer.
4.0
Consumer Complaints
In analyzing this petition’s merit,
NHTSA was interested in any verifiable
real world failure allegations indicating:
(a) the sudden, unforeseen collapse of
any Dayton product including those
cited by the Petitioner and, (b) if such
incidents existed, did their frequency
indicate a defect trend existed?
4.1 Real World Failures Cited by the
Petitioner
With his December 31, 2010, letter
and June 24, 2011, email the petitioner
alleged there were seven real-world
incidents involving Dayton wheels. Of
these, four involved automotive wheels
and three concerned motorcycle wheels.
He also provided information
concerning one alleged failure of a
motorcycle drive pulley produced by
Dayton.
4.1.1 British-Cars.net—Automotive
Wheels
The petitioner included a report he
found on a web-based forum at BritishCars.net which he characterized as: ‘‘A
recent wheel failure report surfaced at
british-cars.net. Fortunately no one was
PO 00000
Frm 00192
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
injured. The failure event was three
spokes pulling out of the hub on a single
wheel.’’ 6 Subsequently, we found the
subject wheel (a Dayton model D452)
was installed on a 1958 MGA owned by
a British car enthusiast in West Chester,
PA.
The owner posted three different
threads, the first on or about February
4, 2008, detailing his experience with
the Dayton wheels. His primary concern
was his impression that Dayton was not
willing to honor the wheels’ warranty.
Subsequently, the issue was resolved to
the owner’s satisfaction. At no time did
the wheel collapse nor was vehicle
controllability compromised by the
separation of three spokes on one wheel.
4.1.2 Scott’s Classic Imports—
Automobile Wheels
The petitioner’s December 31 letter
included six photographs of a Dayton
model D450 15x4 wheel intended for
use on Austin Healey, Lotus, MG and
Triumph automobiles. According to
Dayton, this September 2005 warranty
submission for broken spokes came
from a now defunct used car dealer in
Plympton, MA. No wheel collapse, or
loss of vehicle control, was reported.
4.1.3 The BA Motorcycle Wheel
The Petitioner included information
concerning a 40 spoke, radially laced,
rear motorcycle wheel installed on a
1998 Harley FLHRCI ‘‘Road King
Classic.’’ Known internally as the ‘‘BA’’
wheel, it was a redesign of the ‘‘Super
Spoke’’ wheel produced by American
Wire Wheel of Denton, Texas and later
recalled by Dayton. In February 2006,
the owner contacted Dayton to report
that the wheel rim had cracked and
would not hold air. After receiving the
6 Ibid,
E:\FR\FM\29NON1.SGM
page 2.
29NON1
EN29NO11.034</GPH>
Motorcycle Drive Pulleys and Rotors * * * all sizes and
apps..
Automotive wheel lugs and nuts .......................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
73773
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Notices
wheel, Dayton found that, as a result of
overloading, the rim was cracked 270
degrees circumferentially. At no time
did the wheel collapse.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
4.1.4 V–Twin Forum.com—Motorcycle
Front Wheels
The petitioner also included two
forum threads from V–Twin
Forum.com, both concerning a front
wheel installed on a Harley-Davidson
motorcycle, one radially-laced of an
unspecified make or size and the other
cross-laced.
The first posting, by ‘‘TacomaWA12’’
on February 9, 2006, alleges a crash
occurred while riding his Harley FLSTC
when the front ‘‘rim metal between the
spokes failed and literally split the rim
in two.’’ He claims the bike sustained an
estimated $4,400 in damage. The thrust
of his post was ‘‘how can I find out who
made the wheel?’’ because, as the ‘‘3rd
or 4th owner,’’ the wheel manufacturer
was unknown to him. There have been
no entries on this thread since February
22, 2006, and the identity of the wheel
manufacturer is unknown. Dayton has
no record of this alleged failure and
NHTSA has been unable to locate the
owner to ascertain whether Dayton
produced the wheel which allegedly
failed.
The second thread concerned a 21’’
forty spoke, cross-laced front motorcycle
wheel produced under the brand name
‘‘American Wire Wheel’’ by Dayton and
installed on Harley FXDB ‘‘Street Bob.’’
Beginning on September 20, 2008, the
customer (aka ‘‘Sponk’’) provides a
laundry list of complaints: slow
delivery, poor bearing quality, fitment
problems, and slow air loss. At no time
was a wheel collapse indicated or
alleged.
4.1.5 Motorcycle Drive Pulleys
Appendix K of the petitioner’s
December 31 letter purports to
document manufacturing defects with
Dayton-produced motorcycle belt-drive
pulleys for Harley-Davidson fitment.
Appendix L is a photo of an alleged
customer pulley with a complete hub
separation occurring in the summer of
2007. Dayton confirms that this is a
customer’s pulley but states it was
improperly installed. Witness marks on
the hub indicate improper fasteners
were used to secure the pulley to the
hub.
4.1.6 Complaints Identified in Gisslen
Email 7
On June 24, 2011, the Petitioner
(Gisslen) alleged that two real-world
7 Email from Thomas Gisslen to Robert Young,
June 24, 2011, page 2.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
incidents, within the scope of our
December 31 inquiry, had not been
identified by Dayton in its March 9,
2011, response. Both incidents involved
Swedish customers who had fitted
Dayton wire wheels to their
automobiles. The first, reported to
Dayton in March 2011 (and revealed to
the Petitioner during discovery in his
civil suit against Dayton), involved an
air leakage problem with the Dayton
wheels installed on a late-model Ford
Thunderbird. No wheel collapse was
reported.
The second, occurring in 2005,
involved alleged spoke breakage on
Dayton wheels installed on a modified
Jaguar. No wheel collapse was reported.
Neither of the alleged ‘‘failures’’
documented in these ‘‘complaints’’ were
within the scope of our December 31
inquiry.
4.2 Real-World, In-Scope, Complaints
Received by Dayton Wire Wheel, Inc.
In requesting customer complaint
information from Dayton, we limited the
scope of our inquiry to those products
identified in the Petitioner’s December
31st letter:
Subject Products:
1. 2003–06 BA 40 spoke, radiallylaced, motorcycle wheel;
2. 19 inch, 40 spoke, radially-laced,
motorcycle wheel;
3. 19 inch, 80 spoke, radially-laced,
motorcycle wheel;
4. 19 inch, 100 spoke, radially-laced,
motorcycle wheel;
5. 21 inch, 40 spoke, radially-laced,
motorcycle wheel;
6. 21 inch, 80 spoke, radially-laced,
motorcycle wheel;
7. 21 inch, 100 spoke, radially-laced,
motorcycle wheel;
8. All motorcycle drive pulleys;
9. All motorcycle brake rotors;
10. All extension spline-mounting
lugs;
11. All extension spline-mounting lug
nuts; and
12. All automotive wire wheels.
and the alleged defect was defined as:
Alleged defect: For Subject Products Nos.
1 through 7: any rim and or hub cracking
and/or spoke/nipple thread failure resulting
in wheel collapse [emphasis added]. For
Subject Product Nos. 8 and 9: any fracturing
PO 00000
Frm 00193
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
of the pulley or rotor [emphasis added]. For
Subject Product Nos. 10 and 11: Any failure
resulting in clamping force reduction and
wheel separation [emphasis added]. For
Subject Product No. 12: any fracturing of the
spoke head and/or any stripping of spoke/
nipple threads resulting in wheel collapse
[emphasis added].8
According to Dayton, the company ‘‘has
never had a report or instances where
any problem or issue with Subject
Products Nos. 1–7 resulting in a wheel
collapse. Similarly, Dayton has never
had any report or instance where a
problem or issue with Subject Products
Nos. 10 and 11 resulted in wheel
separation. Dayton has never had any
report or instance where any problem or
issue with Subject Product No. 12
resulted in wheel collapse. With respect
to Subject Products Nos. 8 and 9,
Dayton has had one instance where a
pulley failed * * * as a direct result of
improper mounting.’’ 9
4.3 Real-World Dayton Product Failure
Reports in NHTSA’s Consumer
Complaint Database
Using the broadest possible search
criteria 10 we found five complaints
involving Dayton products. Of these,
four concerned the ‘‘Super Spoke’’
motorcycle wheels recalled by the
company on February 12, 2003, (03E–
011). The fifth documented this
petition.
4.4 Real-World Dayton Product Failure
Allegations on the Web
Using the broadest possible web
search criteria,11 we found no reports of
Dayton product collapse and/or
separation.
4.5 Real-World Dayton Product
Experience
In an effort to gather additional
information about consumer experience
with Dayton products, particularly as it
relates to wheel collapse/separation or
motorcycle drive pulley collapse, we
attended three local British car shows
and the same number of custom
motorcycle shows. While there, we
found some owners displaying vehicles
8 Letter from Richard P. Boyd to Charlie
Schroeder, March 9, 2010, page 2.
9 Folkerth, page 2.
10 Our searches included those where the
manufacturer was identified as ‘‘Dayton’’ and/or
‘‘American Wire Wheel’’ (including wild cards). In
the event the wheel manufacturer was not
specifically identified, we searched for those
complaints where ‘‘wheel’’ or ‘‘sprocket’’ appeared
in the complaint summary and then manually
reviewed each for any involving a Dayton product.
11 We searched the web using readily available
search engines including Google, Bing, and Yahoo
for any information related to Dayton product
failures. We then looked for those involving
collapse and/or separation.
E:\FR\FM\29NON1.SGM
29NON1
EN29NO11.035</GPH>
73774
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2011 / Notices
equipped with Dayton wheels and/or (in
the case of motorcycles) drive sprockets.
No problems with the Dayton products,
of any sort, were claimed by any of
those we queried.
5.0
Dayton Product Evaluations
5.1 Petitioner Documentation
In support of his claim that the
subject products are ‘‘defective’’ thus
constituting ‘‘a substantial risk of
catastrophic personal injury,’’ the
petitioner cites a number of tests and
analyses conducted on behalf of
Dayton * * * the last of these dated
February 22, 2006.12 The Petitioner has
characterized these as documented test
failures.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
5.2 Dayton Documentation
In responding to both the petitioner’s
allegations and item numbers 6 and 9 of
our March 9, 2010, inquiry, Dayton
provided additional information and
context. Two items are relevant here:
First, the Finite Element Analysis
conducted by RHAMM Technologies,
LLC of Dayton, Ohio on behalf of
Dayton in January 2006 was later found
flawed because the analysis parameters
did not account for work-hardening of
the spoke material. Additionally,
RHAMM could not define a real-world
failure point within the reasonably
expected load limits.13
The second relevant item concerns
the allegation that testing conducted by
Standard Test Labs (STL) on Dayton’s
behalf, was invalid. According to
Dayton, when this allegation was first
made, sometime in 2006, it retained the
services of Rexnord Technical Services
of Milwaukee, WI to assess STL’s testing
and results. Rexnord’s analysis
validated STL’s tests and results.14
6.0 NHTSA Analysis
In assessing the petitioner’s claim that
the subject Dayton products are
defective, NHTSA reviewed all
reasonably available information to
determine whether the products were
failing in real-world use and, if so, how
frequently? After conducting a
comprehensive effort to uncover reports
of Dayton wheel separation and/or
collapse or motorcycle drive pulley
failure, we found no such reports
concerning Dayton wheels and one
(from 2007) involving a drive pulley, the
latter apparently resulting from
improper installation. If, as the
12 John R. Folkerth, Jr., Esq., to Ronald Medford,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Washington, DC, 26 July 2010, attachment 8.
13 Letter from Jeffrey P. Hinebaugh to Richard P.
Boyd, NHTSA, Washington, DC, 14 May 2010, item
number 9.
14 Ibid.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 Nov 28, 2011
Jkt 226001
petitioner alleges, the testing results
(from 2003–2006) indicated Dayton was
producing and selling sub-standard
wheels and pulleys, it would follow that
real-world failures would have
occurred, certainly in the last five years.
NHTSA found no such evidence.
7.0 Conclusion
Based on the foregoing analysis, there
is no reasonable possibility that an order
concerning the notification and remedy
of a safety-related defect would be
issued as a result of granting Mr.
Gisslen’s petition. Therefore, in view of
the need to allocate and prioritize
NHTSA’s limited resources to best
accomplish the agency’s safety mission,
the petition is denied.
[FR Doc. 2011–30612 Filed 11–28–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA–2011–0223 (Notice No.
11–12)]
Information Collection Activities
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces that the Information
Collection Requests (ICR) abstracted
below will be forwarded to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and comments. The ICRs
describe the nature of the information
collections and their expected burden.
A Federal Register Notice with a 60-day
comment period soliciting comments on
these collections of information was
published in the Federal Register on
September 14, 2011 [76 FR 56872]
under Docket No. PHMSA–2011–0223
(Notice No. 11–9).
DATES: Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on or before
December 29, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding
the burden estimate, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for
PHMSA, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503. Comments are
invited on: whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Department, including
whether the information will have
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00194
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
73775
practical utility; the accuracy of the
Department’s estimate of the burden of
the proposed information collection;
ways to enhance the quality, utility and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
A comment to OMB is most effective if
OMB receives it within 30 days of
publication.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steven Andrews or T. Glenn Foster, U.S.
Department of Transportation,
Standards and Rulemaking Division
(PHH–10), Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, East Building,
2nd Floor, Washington, DC. 20590–
0001, Telephone (202) 366–8553.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of
Federal Regulations requires Federal
agencies to provide interested members
of the public and affected agencies an
opportunity to comment on information
collection and recordkeeping requests.
This notice identifies information
collection requests that PHMSA will be
submitting to OMB for renewal and
extension. These information
collections are contained in 49 CFR
Parts 172 and 173 of the Hazardous
Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR
Parts 171–180). PHMSA has revised
burden estimates, where appropriate, to
reflect current reporting levels or
adjustments based on changes in
proposed or final rules published since
the information collections were last
approved. The following information is
provided for each information
collection: (1) Title of the information
collection, including former title if a
change is being made; (2) OMB control
number; (3) abstract of the information
collection activity; (4) description of
affected persons; (5) estimate of total
annual reporting and recordkeeping
burden; and (6) frequency of collection.
PHMSA will request a three-year term of
approval for each information collection
activity and, when approved by OMB,
publish notice of the approvals in the
Federal Register.
PHMSA requests comments on the
following information collections:
Title: Testing, Inspection, and
Marking Requirements for Cylinders.
OMB Control Number: 2137–0022.
Summary: Requirements in § 173.301
for qualification, maintenance and use
of cylinders require that cylinders be
periodically inspected and retested to
ensure continuing compliance with
packaging standards. Information
E:\FR\FM\29NON1.SGM
29NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73771-73775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30612]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP10-002
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
ACTION: Denial of Petition for a Defect Investigation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice describes the reasons for denying a petition
(DP10-002) submitted to NHTSA under 49 U.S.C. Subtitle B, Chapter V,
Part 552, Subpart A, requesting that the agency conduct ``an
investigation of defective products manufactured by Dayton Wheel
Concepts, Inc. (`Dayton Wheel' and American Wire Wheel, LLC (`American
Wheel').'' The petition listed the allegedly defective products and the
alleged defect (which varied by allegedly defective product).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Young, Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI), NHTSA; 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE; Washington, DC
20590. Telephone: (202) 366-4806.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By a letter dated December 31, 2009, Mr.
Thomas M. Gisslen; 707 Miamisburg-Centerville Rd. 158; Dayton,
OH 45459, through his lawyer John R. Folkerth, JR; 109 North Main
Street; 500 Performance Place; Dayton, OH 45402; petitioned the NHTSA
requesting that it investigate ``defective products manufactured by
Dayton Wheel
Concepts, Inc. (`Dayton Wheel' and American Wire Wheel, LLC
(`American Wheel')'' and that the Agency ``order * * * Dayton Wheel
[to] remedy the indicated design defects and to cease and desist from
the manufacture of the defective products until such time as the
indicated design defects have been corrected, that all inventory of
such defective product be impounded and destroyed, that all defective
product be recalled, and that [Dayton Wheel] provide the notice
specified in 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30119'' [basically that Dayton conduct
a safety recall of the allegedly defective product(s) and so notify the
NHTSA].
NHTSA has reviewed the material provided by the petitioner and
other pertinent data. The results of this review and our analysis of
the petition's merit is set forth in the DP10-002 Petition Analysis
Report, published in its entirety as an appendix to this notice.
For the reasons presented in the petition analysis report, there is
no reasonable possibility that an order concerning the notification and
remedy of a safety-related defect would be issued as a result of
granting Mr. Gisslen's petition. Therefore, in view of the need to
allocate and prioritize NHTSA's limited resources to best accomplish
the agency's safety mission, the petition is denied.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR
1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: November 22, 2011.
Nancy Lummen Lewis,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
APPENDIX
Petition ANALYSIS--DP10-002
1.0 Introduction
On January 27, 2010, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) received a December 31, 2009, letter from
attorney John R. Folkerth, Jr.
[[Page 73772]]
on behalf of his client, Thomas M. Gisslen, petitioning the agency to
conduct an ``investigation'' of certain products manufacturer by Dayton
Wheel Concepts, Inc. (including those branded ``Dayton'' and ``American
Wire Wheel'') for a range of alleged defects.\1\ Mr. Gisslen (the
``petitioner'') is ``seeking an order requiring Dayton Wheel to remedy
the [allegedly] indicated design defects and to cease and desist from
the manufacture of the defective products until such time as the
[allegedly] indicated design defects have been corrected, that all
inventory of such [allegedly] defective product be impounded and
destroyed, that all [allegedly] defective product be recalled, and that
the manufacturer provide the [recall] notice specified in 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30119.'' In support of his petition, Mr. Gisslen cites: a
previous NHTSA investigation (PE02-073) and subsequent safety-related
recall (03E-011) of the subject motorcycle wheels; a web-forum
discussion concerning the alleged separation of three spokes in a
Dayton model D452 60-spoke laced wheel installed on a 1958 MGA,
photographs of purportedly defective Dayton wheel components,
photographs of rim cracking in the nipple dimple area on a customer's
Dayton ``BA'' radially-laced motorcycle wheel taken proximate to June
6, 2007, a web-forum discussion concerning quality concerns with a ``21
inch, forty spoke cross-laced American Wire Wheel installed on a Harley
FXDB ``Street Bob''; internal Dayton email concerning wheel component
material, design, and specification, and material related to alleged
test failures of certain Dayton products. According to the petitioner,
``Dayton Wheel's [allegedly] defective products constitute a
substantial risk of catastrophic personal injury * * * '' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Hired on September 6, 2006, Dayton Wheel (``Dayton'')
terminated Mr. Gisslen's employment on September 11, 2007. Gisslen
v. Dayton Wheel Concepts, Inc., et. al. was filed October 6, 2009 on
behalf of Mr. Gisslen alleging he was wrongfully terminated
(Montgomery County Ohio, 2009 CV 08163). Subsequently, Mr. Gisslen
petitioned the Agency.
\2\ John R. Folkerth, Jr., Esq., to Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, 31 December
2009, page 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 9, 2010, NHTSA wrote to Dayton requesting certain
information. The company's response was received by us on May 17, 2010.
Included was a request, filed pursuant to 49 CFR part 512, that certain
information provided not be released to the public.
On July 26, 2010 the petitioner, through attorney Folkerth,
submitted a letter to Ron Medford, NHTSA's Senior Associate
Administrator for Vehicle Safety, covering additional exhibits
primarily concerning alleged product failures both in the field and
during various laboratory tests. Many of the exhibits simply duplicated
what was in NHTSA's public file for this petition (DP10-002).
On June 24, 2011, the petitioner (no longer represented by Mr.
Folkerth) submitted additional information by Email to NHTSA. The
thrust of the email (and a duplicate sent on June 28, 2011) was his
opining that Dayton had not thoroughly and completely responded to our
March 9th inquiry.
For purposes of this analysis, ``Dayton'' refers to Dayton Wire
Wheel, Inc. including all of its divisions, subsidiaries (whether or
not incorporated, including American Wire Wheel and Dayton Wheel
Concepts).
In analyzing the petitioner's allegations and preparing a response,
we:
[check] Reviewed the petitioner attorney's December 31, 2010, and
July 26, 2010, letters and exhibits.
[check] Reviewed the petitioner's June 24, 2011, email and
attachments.
[check] Reviewed the petitioner's June 28, 2011, email and
attachments.
[check] Reviewed data provided by Dayton in response to our March
9, 2010, information request.
[check] Reviewed a previous NHTSA defect investigation (PE02-073)
concerning the alleged sudden and unforeseen catastrophic failure of
certain motorcycle wheels produced by Dayton under the brand name
``American Wire Wheel'' (AWW).
[check] Reviewed information related to Dayton's safety recall
(03E-011) of the PE02-073 subject AWW wheels.
[check] Reviewed our consumer complaint database for any reports
concerning products manufactured by Dayton.
[check] Informally interviewed owners of British cars equipped with
Dayton wheels at three Washington, DC-area British car shows.
[check] Informally interviewed owners of motorcycles equipped with
Dayton wheels at three Washington, DC-area custom motorcycle shows.
[check] Conducted a wide-ranging, web-based, search for any
information (included forum threads) concerning alleged sudden,
catastrophic failure of Dayton products.
The information gathered and reviewed during this comprehensive
effort fails to establish that a defect trend exists in any of Dayton's
products (including those identified by the petitioner). Consequently,
the petition is denied.
2.0 Dayton Wire Wheel History
Founded in 1916, today Dayton Wire Wheel manufactures laced wheels
for sale, predominantly, in the automotive and motorcycle
aftermarket.\3\ Dayton wheels were used by the Wright Brothers and
Charles Lindbergh. As an original equipment supplier in the 1930's,
Auburn, Cord and Duesenberg automobiles were built with Daytons. All
Dayton wheels are produced in Dayton, Ohio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Dayton continues to supply original equipment wheels to some
vehicle mfrs., including the Morgan Motor Company of County
Worcestershire in the UK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.0 The Petioners Allegations
The petitioner provided a listing of the Dayton products he alleges
are defective. While discussing his claims regarding the ``radial
spoke'' (i.e., the spokes do not cross another between the hub and rim)
motorcycle wheels in his letter, the petitioner references an earlier
NHTSA defect investigation (PE02-073) and its related safety recall
(03E-011) concerning certain motorcycle wheels assembled by Dayton.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Folkerth, pages 1-2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.1 The defective products alleged by the Petitioner
Mr. Gisslen alleges that the following Dayton products have the
following ``defects:'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ibid, pages 4-5.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Alleged ``Defect''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003-6 BA 40 Radial Spoke Motorcycle Hub cracking at spoke flange.
Wheel.
19'' & 21'' Diameter Front Wheel; 40, Rim (rolled edge) cracking
80 & 100 Radial Spoke Wheel * * * (splitting) between dimples
all applications. (spoke holes).
40 Radial Spoke M/C wheel * * * all Rim (rolled edge) cracking
sizes and apps. (splitting) between dimples
(spoke holes).
40 Radial Spoke M/C wheel * * * all Incorporating non-conforming
sizes and apps. spokes and nips [nipples]
increasing risk of cracking and
nip-spoke thread engagement
failure.
[[Page 73773]]
Motorcycle Drive Pulleys and Rotors * Defective design, material &
* * all sizes and apps.. fabrication increasing risk of
cracking and failure.
Automotive wheel lugs and nuts....... Extension lug bolts and nuts
securing spline-mounted wheels
incorporating improper material
and manufacturing processes.
All Automotive Wire Wheels........... Non-conforming spokes and nips
incorporated into wheel
assembly, resulting in loss of
thread engagement and total
failure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.2 NHTSA's Earlier Investigation and Recall
Unlike random spoke breakages and/or other infrequent laced wheel
issues, sudden, unforeseen wheel collapse is of particular concern to
NHTSA, especially when involving motorcycle wheels. On October 10,
2002, NHTSA opened Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 02-073 after receiving
one owner's complaint alleging the sudden, unforeseen collapse of a
``High Performance Super Spoke'' aftermarket rear motorcycle wheel.
This wheel had been produced by American Wire Wheel, Inc. (AWW), a
division of Hulcher Enterprises in Denton, Texas. While preparing its
inquiry to AWW, NHTSA found the company had sold its assets to Dayton
Wheel Concepts of Dayton, Ohio (Dayton) on September 3, 2002. Included
in the purchase were all materials related to AWW's production of
``Super Spoke'' model wheels. NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel (NCC)
reviewed materials related to that sale confirming that it involved
only a transfer of AWW's assets. Subsequently, NCC requested
information from Dunn & Bradstreet concerning AWW's current status and
was told the company was no longer in business.
On October 31, 2002, Dayton received ODI's request for information
concerning the Super Spoke wheels. Allegedly, prior to receiving the
inquiry, only one alleged failure had been disclosed to Dayton by AWW.
However, in reviewing AWW's files while preparing its response to our
inquiry, Dayton found documentation of nine other Super Spoke spoke-
related failures, occurring between February 2000 and September 2002.
Of the nine found (for a total of 10 reports), 2 involved injury
crashes and all concerned rear wheels manufactured by AWW of Denton,
TX. Here is a representative owner statement concerning his August 4,
2002, incident:
``I was riding with a group of people. The rider next to me saw
the wheel hopping. I felt it and tried to look down. [It] felt like
I hit a bump, that's when the bike dropped and all hell broke
loose.''
Photos included with the owner's documentation show the wheel
collapsed when all 40 spokes pulled away from the hub. On August 24,
2001, AWW paid the owner $4,177.62 to settle his claim.
During the time it was gathering and reviewing material responsive
to ODI's October 31 information request, Dayton assembled 32 Super
Spoke wheels using components produced by AWW prior to Dayton's asset
purchase. Of these, 24 were rear wheels. On January 21, 2003, Dayton
shipped the rear wheels to both Custom Chrome and Drag Specialties,
wholesale distributors specializing in aftermarket motorcycle parts.
On February 12, 2003, Dayton recalled all of the wheels it produced
(32). In its ``Part 573 Defect and Noncompliance Report'' filed with
the agency for recall 03E-011, it said it was taking this action after
determining the wheels ``have the potential for complete failure while
in use due to steel spokes pulling out of the machined aluminum hub''
with a ``potential for vehicle crash and resultant serious injuries to
riders and passengers.'' In its remedy, Dayton provided, without cost,
a wheel of different design to each affected customer.
4.0 Consumer Complaints
In analyzing this petition's merit, NHTSA was interested in any
verifiable real world failure allegations indicating: (a) the sudden,
unforeseen collapse of any Dayton product including those cited by the
Petitioner and, (b) if such incidents existed, did their frequency
indicate a defect trend existed?
4.1 Real World Failures Cited by the Petitioner
With his December 31, 2010, letter and June 24, 2011, email the
petitioner alleged there were seven real-world incidents involving
Dayton wheels. Of these, four involved automotive wheels and three
concerned motorcycle wheels. He also provided information concerning
one alleged failure of a motorcycle drive pulley produced by Dayton.
4.1.1 British-Cars.net--Automotive Wheels
The petitioner included a report he found on a web-based forum at
British-Cars.net which he characterized as: ``A recent wheel failure
report surfaced at british-cars.net. Fortunately no one was injured.
The failure event was three spokes pulling out of the hub on a single
wheel.'' \6\ Subsequently, we found the subject wheel (a Dayton model
D452) was installed on a 1958 MGA owned by a British car enthusiast in
West Chester, PA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Ibid, page 2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29NO11.034
The owner posted three different threads, the first on or about
February 4, 2008, detailing his experience with the Dayton wheels. His
primary concern was his impression that Dayton was not willing to honor
the wheels' warranty. Subsequently, the issue was resolved to the
owner's satisfaction. At no time did the wheel collapse nor was vehicle
controllability compromised by the separation of three spokes on one
wheel.
4.1.2 Scott's Classic Imports--Automobile Wheels
The petitioner's December 31 letter included six photographs of a
Dayton model D450 15x4 wheel intended for use on Austin Healey, Lotus,
MG and Triumph automobiles. According to Dayton, this September 2005
warranty submission for broken spokes came from a now defunct used car
dealer in Plympton, MA. No wheel collapse, or loss of vehicle control,
was reported.
4.1.3 The BA Motorcycle Wheel
The Petitioner included information concerning a 40 spoke, radially
laced, rear motorcycle wheel installed on a 1998 Harley FLHRCI ``Road
King Classic.'' Known internally as the ``BA'' wheel, it was a redesign
of the ``Super Spoke'' wheel produced by American Wire Wheel of Denton,
Texas and later recalled by Dayton. In February 2006, the owner
contacted Dayton to report that the wheel rim had cracked and would not
hold air. After receiving the
[[Page 73774]]
wheel, Dayton found that, as a result of overloading, the rim was
cracked 270 degrees circumferentially. At no time did the wheel
collapse.
4.1.4 V-Twin Forum.com--Motorcycle Front Wheels
The petitioner also included two forum threads from V-Twin
Forum.com, both concerning a front wheel installed on a Harley-Davidson
motorcycle, one radially-laced of an unspecified make or size and the
other cross-laced.
The first posting, by ``TacomaWA12'' on February 9, 2006, alleges a
crash occurred while riding his Harley FLSTC when the front ``rim metal
between the spokes failed and literally split the rim in two.'' He
claims the bike sustained an estimated $4,400 in damage. The thrust of
his post was ``how can I find out who made the wheel?'' because, as the
``3rd or 4th owner,'' the wheel manufacturer was unknown to him. There
have been no entries on this thread since February 22, 2006, and the
identity of the wheel manufacturer is unknown. Dayton has no record of
this alleged failure and NHTSA has been unable to locate the owner to
ascertain whether Dayton produced the wheel which allegedly failed.
The second thread concerned a 21'' forty spoke, cross-laced front
motorcycle wheel produced under the brand name ``American Wire Wheel''
by Dayton and installed on Harley FXDB ``Street Bob.'' Beginning on
September 20, 2008, the customer (aka ``Sponk'') provides a laundry
list of complaints: slow delivery, poor bearing quality, fitment
problems, and slow air loss. At no time was a wheel collapse indicated
or alleged.
4.1.5 Motorcycle Drive Pulleys
Appendix K of the petitioner's December 31 letter purports to
document manufacturing defects with Dayton-produced motorcycle belt-
drive pulleys for Harley-Davidson fitment. Appendix L is a photo of an
alleged customer pulley with a complete hub separation occurring in the
summer of 2007. Dayton confirms that this is a customer's pulley but
states it was improperly installed. Witness marks on the hub indicate
improper fasteners were used to secure the pulley to the hub.
4.1.6 Complaints Identified in Gisslen Email \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Email from Thomas Gisslen to Robert Young, June 24, 2011,
page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 24, 2011, the Petitioner (Gisslen) alleged that two real-
world incidents, within the scope of our December 31 inquiry, had not
been identified by Dayton in its March 9, 2011, response. Both
incidents involved Swedish customers who had fitted Dayton wire wheels
to their automobiles. The first, reported to Dayton in March 2011 (and
revealed to the Petitioner during discovery in his civil suit against
Dayton), involved an air leakage problem with the Dayton wheels
installed on a late-model Ford Thunderbird. No wheel collapse was
reported.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29NO11.035
The second, occurring in 2005, involved alleged spoke breakage on
Dayton wheels installed on a modified Jaguar. No wheel collapse was
reported.
Neither of the alleged ``failures'' documented in these
``complaints'' were within the scope of our December 31 inquiry.
4.2 Real-World, In-Scope, Complaints Received by Dayton Wire Wheel,
Inc.
In requesting customer complaint information from Dayton, we
limited the scope of our inquiry to those products identified in the
Petitioner's December 31st letter:
Subject Products:
1. 2003-06 BA 40 spoke, radially-laced, motorcycle wheel;
2. 19 inch, 40 spoke, radially-laced, motorcycle wheel;
3. 19 inch, 80 spoke, radially-laced, motorcycle wheel;
4. 19 inch, 100 spoke, radially-laced, motorcycle wheel;
5. 21 inch, 40 spoke, radially-laced, motorcycle wheel;
6. 21 inch, 80 spoke, radially-laced, motorcycle wheel;
7. 21 inch, 100 spoke, radially-laced, motorcycle wheel;
8. All motorcycle drive pulleys;
9. All motorcycle brake rotors;
10. All extension spline-mounting lugs;
11. All extension spline-mounting lug nuts; and
12. All automotive wire wheels.
and the alleged defect was defined as:
Alleged defect: For Subject Products Nos. 1 through 7: any rim
and or hub cracking and/or spoke/nipple thread failure resulting in
wheel collapse [emphasis added]. For Subject Product Nos. 8 and 9:
any fracturing of the pulley or rotor [emphasis added]. For Subject
Product Nos. 10 and 11: Any failure resulting in clamping force
reduction and wheel separation [emphasis added]. For Subject Product
No. 12: any fracturing of the spoke head and/or any stripping of
spoke/nipple threads resulting in wheel collapse [emphasis
added].\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Letter from Richard P. Boyd to Charlie Schroeder, March 9,
2010, page 2.
According to Dayton, the company ``has never had a report or instances
where any problem or issue with Subject Products Nos. 1-7 resulting in
a wheel collapse. Similarly, Dayton has never had any report or
instance where a problem or issue with Subject Products Nos. 10 and 11
resulted in wheel separation. Dayton has never had any report or
instance where any problem or issue with Subject Product No. 12
resulted in wheel collapse. With respect to Subject Products Nos. 8 and
9, Dayton has had one instance where a pulley failed * * * as a direct
result of improper mounting.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Folkerth, page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.3 Real-World Dayton Product Failure Reports in NHTSA's Consumer
Complaint Database
Using the broadest possible search criteria \10\ we found five
complaints involving Dayton products. Of these, four concerned the
``Super Spoke'' motorcycle wheels recalled by the company on February
12, 2003, (03E-011). The fifth documented this petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Our searches included those where the manufacturer was
identified as ``Dayton'' and/or ``American Wire Wheel'' (including
wild cards). In the event the wheel manufacturer was not
specifically identified, we searched for those complaints where
``wheel'' or ``sprocket'' appeared in the complaint summary and then
manually reviewed each for any involving a Dayton product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.4 Real-World Dayton Product Failure Allegations on the Web
Using the broadest possible web search criteria,\11\ we found no
reports of Dayton product collapse and/or separation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ We searched the web using readily available search engines
including Google, Bing, and Yahoo for any information related to
Dayton product failures. We then looked for those involving collapse
and/or separation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.5 Real-World Dayton Product Experience
In an effort to gather additional information about consumer
experience with Dayton products, particularly as it relates to wheel
collapse/separation or motorcycle drive pulley collapse, we attended
three local British car shows and the same number of custom motorcycle
shows. While there, we found some owners displaying vehicles
[[Page 73775]]
equipped with Dayton wheels and/or (in the case of motorcycles) drive
sprockets. No problems with the Dayton products, of any sort, were
claimed by any of those we queried.
5.0 Dayton Product Evaluations
5.1 Petitioner Documentation
In support of his claim that the subject products are ``defective''
thus constituting ``a substantial risk of catastrophic personal
injury,'' the petitioner cites a number of tests and analyses conducted
on behalf of Dayton * * * the last of these dated February 22,
2006.\12\ The Petitioner has characterized these as documented test
failures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ John R. Folkerth, Jr., Esq., to Ronald Medford, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, 26 July 2010,
attachment 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.2 Dayton Documentation
In responding to both the petitioner's allegations and item numbers
6 and 9 of our March 9, 2010, inquiry, Dayton provided additional
information and context. Two items are relevant here: First, the Finite
Element Analysis conducted by RHAMM Technologies, LLC of Dayton, Ohio
on behalf of Dayton in January 2006 was later found flawed because the
analysis parameters did not account for work-hardening of the spoke
material. Additionally, RHAMM could not define a real-world failure
point within the reasonably expected load limits.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Letter from Jeffrey P. Hinebaugh to Richard P. Boyd, NHTSA,
Washington, DC, 14 May 2010, item number 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second relevant item concerns the allegation that testing
conducted by Standard Test Labs (STL) on Dayton's behalf, was invalid.
According to Dayton, when this allegation was first made, sometime in
2006, it retained the services of Rexnord Technical Services of
Milwaukee, WI to assess STL's testing and results. Rexnord's analysis
validated STL's tests and results.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.0 NHTSA Analysis
In assessing the petitioner's claim that the subject Dayton
products are defective, NHTSA reviewed all reasonably available
information to determine whether the products were failing in real-
world use and, if so, how frequently? After conducting a comprehensive
effort to uncover reports of Dayton wheel separation and/or collapse or
motorcycle drive pulley failure, we found no such reports concerning
Dayton wheels and one (from 2007) involving a drive pulley, the latter
apparently resulting from improper installation. If, as the petitioner
alleges, the testing results (from 2003-2006) indicated Dayton was
producing and selling sub-standard wheels and pulleys, it would follow
that real-world failures would have occurred, certainly in the last
five years. NHTSA found no such evidence.
7.0 Conclusion
Based on the foregoing analysis, there is no reasonable possibility
that an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-
related defect would be issued as a result of granting Mr. Gisslen's
petition. Therefore, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize
NHTSA's limited resources to best accomplish the agency's safety
mission, the petition is denied.
[FR Doc. 2011-30612 Filed 11-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
