[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 180 (Monday, September 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48196-48197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-23054]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Docket No. 95-76; Notice 1]
Ford Motor Company; Receipt of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
Ford Motor Company (Ford) of Dearborn, Michigan has determined that
some of its vehicles fail to comply with the display identification
requirements of 49 CFR 571.101, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 101, ``Controls and Displays,'' and has filed an
appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, ``Defect and
Noncompliance Report.'' Ford 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.
This notice of receipt of an application is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the application.
In Footnote 3 to Table 2 in Standard No. 101, it is specified that,
``[i]f the odometer indicates kilometers, then `KILOMETERS' or `km'
shall appear, otherwise, no identification is required.''
Ford manufactured approximately 300,000 vehicles (1995 model year
Rangers, Explorers, Crown Victorias, and Grand Marquis, certain 1994
and 1995 Mustangs, and certain 1995 Ford-built Mazda B-Series pickup
trucks) which may not comply with the display identification
requirements of Standard No. 101. Within the total population of
300,000 vehicles, any number of between 24 and 124 vehicles were
manufactured with an odometer that measures distance in units of
kilometers but is not labeled as such as Standard No. 101 requires.
Ford has already found and corrected 24 of these noncompliant odometers
in service, therefore, up to 100 of them could still exist.
Ford supports its application for inconsequential noncompliance
with the following:
In Ford's judgment, this condition is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety. [Ford's] basis for this belief is
that: 1) an owner of an affected vehicle will readily recognize the
condition and return the vehicle to a Ford dealer for corrections;
2) even if the condition were to go undetected, the role of the
odometer in alerting drivers to potential safety-related problems is
minimal; and 3) no reports of accidents or injuries related to this
condition are known or expected.
Ford believes, as evidenced by those odometers already
identified by owners, that this condition becomes obvious to an
owner early in the ``life'' of a vehicle because of more rapid
mileage accumulations, better than expected fuel economy, etc., and
that an owner will seek repair for the condition through a Ford
dealer. Ford will continue to remedy the condition of any of the
vehicles brought to its attention at no cost to the owners, under
normal warranty terms.
With respect to the relationship of the odometer to safety, in
past rulemaking (FR Vol. 47, No. 216 at 50497) the agency concluded
that the role of the odometer in alerting drivers to potential
safety-related problems is not crucial. This conclusion was among
those leading to the rescission of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 127, Speedometers and Odometers. That standard
contemplated that the purpose of the odometer requirement was
twofold. First,
[[Page 48197]]
it was to inform purchasers of used vehicles of the actual mileage of
the vehicles they were purchasing to enable them to ascertain the
probable condition of the vehicle. Second, it was to provide an
owner with information so that he or she could maintain a periodic
maintenance schedule. In rescinding Safety Standard No. 127, the
agency acknowledged that its reliance on the Tri-Level Study of the
Causes of Traffic Accidents by the Indiana University Institute for
Research in Public Safety, which led to the odometer requirement,
was misplaced. The agency concluded that although the study found
that problems with vehicle systems were causal or contributing
factors in up to 25 percent of the accidents studies--such as
problems with the brake system, tires, lights and signals, for
example--all of those causes involved components which must be
periodically replaced or serviced regardless of mileage. The agency
thereby concluded that deterioration in performance, such as brake
pulling, or in appearance, such as tire wear, etc., are readily
apparent to the driver and should do more to alert the driver to
potential safety-related problems than the distance traveled
indication on the odometer.
Ford agrees with the agency's conclusion that the odometer
reading is not a crucial factor in alerting drivers to potential
safety-related vehicle problems, and therefore, it submits that the
absence of the ``km'' designation is not crucial in this regard. We
believe the vehicles that are the subject of this petition present
no direct or indirect risk to motor vehicle safety. Furthermore, in
the case of the vehicles in question, even if the odometer
indication were a crucial indicator or required periodic
maintenance, the odometer reading, if relied on for this purpose,
would cause a driver to seek maintenance sooner than required
because the indicated mileage would be approximately 1.6 times
greater than the distance actually traveled.
Therefore, while the absence of the ``km'' designation is
technically a noncompliance, and the odometer of the affected
vehicles registers distance traveled in kilometers while the
speedometer registers in miles per hour, we believe, for the reasons
cited above, the condition presents no risk to motor vehicle safety.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments on the application of Ford, described above. Comments should
refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Docket Section,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh
Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. It is requested but not required that
six copies be submitted.
All comments received before the close of business on the closing
date indicated below will be considered. The application and supporting
materials, and all comments received after the closing date will also
be filed and will be considered to the extent possible. When the
application is granted or denied, the notice will be published in the
Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
Comment closing date: October 18, 1995.
(15 U.S.C. 1417; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)
Issued on: September 12, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-23054 Filed 9-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M
