|
|---|
|
FCA US LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Publication: Federal Register Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Byline: Otto G. Matheke III Date: 15 April 2022 Subjects: American Government  , Safety
Topic: Fiat Chrysler Automobiles |
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22620-22622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08107]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0131; Notice 2]
FCA US LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FCA US LLC (f/k/a Chrysler Group LLC) ``FCA'' has determined
that certain model year (MY) 2004-2020 Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Fiat, and
Alfa Romeo motor vehicles do not comply with Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and Displays. FCA filed a
noncompliance report dated November 15, 2019, and later amended it on
December 9, 2019. FCA subsequently petitioned NHTSA on December 9,
2019, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces the
grant of FCA's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil Dold, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
telephone (202) 366-7352, facsimile (202) 366-3081.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
FCA has determined that certain MY 2004-2020 Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep,
Fiat, and Alfa Romeo motor vehicles do not comply with paragraph S5.2.1
of FMVSS No. 101, Controls and Displays (49 CFR 571.101). FCA filed a
noncompliance report dated November 15, 2019, and later amended it on
December 9, 2019, pursuant to 49 CFR 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. FCA also petitioned NHTSA on December 9,
2019, for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of
49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 40
U.S.C. 30118 and 49 U.S.C. 30120, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect
or Noncompliance.
Notice of receipt of FCA's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on July 13, 2020, in the Federal Register (85 FR
42066). One comment was received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2019-0131.''
II. Vehicles Involved
Approximately 2,507,693 MY 2004-2020 Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Fiat,
and Alfa Romeo motor vehicles, manufactured between November 25, 2002,
and November 9, 2019, are potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance
FCA explains that the noncompliance is that the subject vehicles
are equipped with speedometers that allow the driver to configure the
speedometer to display the vehicle's speed in kilometers-per-hour (km/
h) only and therefore do not meet the requirements set forth in
paragraph S5.2.1 and Table 1, Column 3 of FMVSS No. 101.
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraph S5.2.1 and Table 1, Column 3 of FMVSS No. 101 provide
that each passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck and bus
that is fitted with a control, a telltale, or an indicator listed in
Table 1 or Table 2 must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 101 for the
location, identification, color, and illumination of that control,
telltale or indicator. Each control, telltale and indicator that is
listed in column 1 of Table 1 or Table 2 must be identified by the
symbol specified for it in column 2 or the word or abbreviation
specified for it in column 3 of Table 1 or Table 2. Specifically, the
speedometer must only allow the speed to be displayed in miles per hour
(MPH) or km/h and MPH.
V. Summary of FCA's Petition
The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of FCA's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by
FCA and do not reflect the views of the Agency. In its petition, FCA
describes the subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, FCA offers the following reasoning:
1. FCA states that the vehicles are initially delivered for first-
sale in a compliant state (vehicle speed displayed in MPH) and that it
is only through vehicle operator interaction that the settings can be
changed from MPH to km/h. FCA believes that this adjustment cannot be
accomplished inadvertently.
2. FCA states that the two speedometer settings are clearly and
continuously identified as ``km/h'' or ``MPH''. In addition, the two
speedometer scales are noticeably different, and if a previous vehicle
operator changed the units, a subsequent vehicle operator would be able
to tell in a glance that the scale is not in MPH.
3. FCA states that the vehicle speed in km/h is 1.6 times greater
than speed in MPH [in terms of numeric value displayed by the
speedometer--1km/h is approximately 0.62 MPH]. FCA believes that if a
vehicle operator changes the display to km/h and then later forgets
that the change had been made, the operator will recognize that the
vehicle is moving at a slower speed than intended and adjust the speed
to match the road and vehicle conditions. This should alert the
operator to (at the next appropriate opportunity) perform the
appropriate steps to adjust the speedometer.
4. FCA also states that the owner's manuals for all of the affected
vehicles contain instructions to change the speedometer display.
Therefore, if a vehicle operator needs assistance to reconfigure the
display to MPH, instructions are available.
5. FCA further states that the owner's manuals contain toll-free
numbers to the FCA customer help-lines. Therefore, if a vehicle
operator notices that the speed is unintentionally displayed in km/h
[[Page 22621]]
and does not know how to re-set the speed to display in MPH, e.g., as
set by a previous operator, the vehicle operator can easily contact FCA
for assistance.
6. FCA has not received any customer contacts regarding this issue,
even though this condition exists as in approximately 2.5 million
vehicles, some of which have been in service for over 16 years.
7. FCA is not aware of any crashes, injuries, or customer
complaints associated with this condition.
8. FCA states that NHTSA has previously granted inconsequential
treatment for FMVSS No. 101 noncompliance for display of the vehicle
speed in km/h only. An example of the Agency granting a similar
inconsequentiality petition for display of the vehicle speed in km/h
only is:
BMW of North America, LLC, a subsidiary of BMW AG, 80 FR
61884 (October 14, 2015).
9. It is FCA's belief that the information described above
satisfies the intent of 49 CFR part 556 and operators can safely
utilize their vehicles for the intended purposes. FCA believes that
pursuant to 49 CFR part 556, 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and Sec. 30120(h), and
FMVSS 101 S5.2.1, this display of the vehicle speed in km/h only
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and FCA should
be exempted from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
chapter 301, ``Motor Vehicle Safety'' for the reasons supporting
exemption cited above.
FCA's complete petition and all supporting documents are available
at the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at: https://www.regulations.gov by following the online search instructions to
locate the docket number as listed in the title of this notice.
VI. Public Comment
NHTSA received one comment from the public. This comment was
submitted by an individual who expressed concerns over a vehicle they
own that was manufactured by FCA. While the Agency takes great interest
in the public's concerns and appreciates the commenter's feedback, the
comment does not address the purpose of this particular petition.
VII. NHTSA's Analysis
The burden of establishing the inconsequentiality of a failure to
comply with a performance requirement in a standard--as opposed to a
labeling requirement with no performance implications--is more
substantial and difficult to meet. Accordingly, the Agency has not
found many such noncompliances inconsequential.\1\ Potential
performance failures of safety-critical equipment, like seat belts or
air bags, are rarely deemed inconsequential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An important issue to consider in determining inconsequentiality
based upon NHTSA's prior decisions on noncompliance issues was the
safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against
which the recall would otherwise protect.\2\ In general, NHTSA does not
consider the absence of complaints or injuries to show that the issue
is inconsequential to safety. ``Most importantly, the absence of a
complaint does not mean there have not been any safety issues, nor does
it mean that there will not be safety issues in the future.'' \3\
``[T]he fact that in past reported cases good luck and swift reaction
have prevented many serious injuries does not mean that good luck will
continue to work.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
\3\ Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016).
\4\ United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 754, 759 (D.C.
Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk when it
``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden engine fire,
and where there is no dispute that at least some such hazards, in
this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in the
future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arguments that only a small number of vehicles or items of motor
vehicle equipment are affected have also not justified granting an
inconsequentiality petition.\5\ Similarly, NHTSA has rejected petitions
based on the assertion that only a small percentage of vehicles or
items of equipment are likely to actually exhibit a noncompliance. The
percentage of potential occupants that could be adversely affected by a
noncompliance does not determine the question of inconsequentiality.
Rather, the issue to consider is the consequence to an occupant who is
exposed to the consequence of that noncompliance.\6\ These
considerations are also relevant when assessing whether a defect is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., L.L.C.; Denial of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 38342 (July 23,
2001) (rejecting argument that noncompliance was inconsequential
because of the small number of vehicles affected); Aston Martin
Lagonda Ltd.; Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 81 FR 41370 (June 24, 2016) (noting that situations
involving individuals trapped in motor vehicles--while infrequent--
are consequential to safety); Morgan 3 Wheeler Ltd.; Denial of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663,
21664 (Apr. 12, 2016) (rejecting argument that petition should be
granted because the vehicle was produced in very low numbers and
likely to be operated on a limited basis).
\6\ See Gen. Motors Corp.; Ruling on Petition for Determination
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19900 (Apr. 14,
2004); Cosco Inc.; Denial of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64 FR 29408, 29409 (June 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMVSS No. 101 requires speedometers to be labeled with units of MPH
or both MPH and km/h simultaneously. The purpose of FMVSS No. 101 is to
reduce safety hazards caused by the diversion of the driver's attention
from the driving task when using controls, telltales, and indicators.
In its petition, FCA explains that speedometers in certain vehicles are
not compliant with FMVSS No. 101 because they may be set to display
speed in units of km/h without simultaneously displaying speed in MPH.
NHTSA has evaluated the merits of the inconsequential noncompliance
petition submitted by FCA and has determined that this particular
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Specifically,
the Agency considered the following when making its decision:
1. FCA explained that vehicles are delivered with speedometers
displaying units in MPH and that switching the speedometer to display
speed in units of km/h can only be accomplished by a vehicle operator
adjusting the settings of the vehicle.
2. FCA explained that speedometers are clearly labeled at all times
in either MPH or km/h and that an operator can change the setting back
to MPH. If an operator were unaware of the means to change the setting
from km/h to MPH, FCA indicated that instructions are available within
the owner's manual or via FCA's customer-help phone service.
3. NHTSA agrees with FCA that it is unlikely that the switch from
MPH to km/h could be done inadvertently because physical interactions
with the vehicle settings controls are required by the operator to make
the change. We believe that if an operator were to make this change it
would be done intentionally and with some understanding of the
implications and would be unlikely to cause any impact to vehicle
safety. Also, if an operator
[[Page 22622]]
were unaware that a speedometer had been changed to display speed in
km/h, they would be likely to travel at a slower speed rather than a
faster speed that might impact safety because the indicated numeric
value of the speed in km/h would be 1.6 times greater than the numeric
value of the speed in MPH. For example, a driver attempting to match a
speed limit of 40 MPH using a speedometer reading ``40'' in km/h would
be traveling approximately 25 MPH and have an opportunity to safely
detect the difference between their speedometer reading and the speed
of nearby traffic.
4. Based on the information provided by FCA, NHTSA agrees with FCA
that their petition is highly similar to petitions previously granted
inconsequential treatment (80 FR 61884 and 85 FR 39675).
VIII. NHTSA's Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that FCA has met its
burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 101 noncompliance in
the affected vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, FCA's petition is hereby granted and FCA is consequently
exempted from the obligation of providing notification of, and a free
remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the subject vehicles that FCA no longer controlled at
the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and
dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant vehicles under their control after FCA notified them
that the subject noncompliance existed.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-08107 Filed 4-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P