[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 27, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13566-13567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7425]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. 95-76; Notice 2]


Ford Motor Company; Grant of Application for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Ford Motor Company (Ford) of Dearborn, Michigan 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 filed an appropriate 
report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance 
Reports.'' Ford 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 on September 18, 
1995, and an opportunity afforded for comment (60 FR 48195). This 
notice grants the application.
    Footnote 3 in Table 2 of Standard No. 101 specifies 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) a relatively few 
of which do not comply with the display identification requirements of 
Standard No. 101. Of that total population of 300,000 vehicles, at 
least 24, but not more than 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 supported 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 correction; 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 accumulation, 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, 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 
studied--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.

    No comments were received on the application.
    An accurate recording of mileage on a vehicle is relevant to 
complying with the manufacturer's recommended maintenance schedule. 
When the schedule is expressed in miles and the odometer records in 
kilometers, a vehicle owner who is not cognizant of the noncompliance 
will be alerted to the apparent time for maintenance before it is, in 
fact, needed under the maintenance schedule. This cannot be termed a 
negative impact upon safety. NHTSA agrees with the applicant that ``the 
condition presents no risk to motor vehicle safety''.
    Ford believes that an owner of a noncompliant vehicle will readily 
recognize the seemingly excessive accumulation of mileage and ``seek 
service through their Ford dealers.'' This service most probably is 
replacement of the metric odometer with one that registers miles. NHTSA 
urges Ford to ask its dealers to provide the vehicle owner, at the time 
of odometer replacement, with a statement noting the distance 
accumulated prior to replacement so that the owner will be able to 
provide an accurate mileage statement at the time the vehicle is 
transferred to its next owner, as required by 49 CFR Part 580, Odometer 
Disclosure Requirements. 
    In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby found that the 
applicant has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance 
herein described is inconsequential to safety. Accordingly, Ford Motor 
Company is hereby exempted from providing notification of the 
noncompliance pursuant to Sec. 30118, and from remedying the 
noncompliance pursuant to Sec. 30120.

(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 
501.8).


[[Page 13567]]

    Issued on: March 22, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator, for Safety Performance Standards
[FR Doc. 96-7425 Filed 3-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P