[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