|
|---|
|
Nissan North America, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Publication: Federal Register Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Byline: Anne L. Collins Date: 11 April 2022 Subjects: American Government  , Safety
Topic: Nissan Sentra |
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 69 (Monday, April 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21259-21262]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07646]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0100; Notice 2]
Nissan North America, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2020 Nissan Sentra motor vehicles do not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108,
Lamps, Reflective
[[Page 21260]]
Devices, and Associated Equipment. Nissan filed a noncompliance report
dated August 26, 2020. Nissan subsequently petitioned NHTSA on
September 18, 2020, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice
announces the denial of Nissan's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leroy Angeles, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA, telephone (202) 366-5304.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
Nissan has determined that certain MY 2020 Nissan Sentra motor
vehicles do not fully comply with the requirements of paragraph
S10.18.9.1.2 of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108). Nissan filed a noncompliance
report dated August 26, 2020, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Nissan subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on September 18, 2020, 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 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR
part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
Notice of receipt of Nissan's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on March 24, 2021, in the Federal Register (86
FR 15769). 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-2020-0100.''
II. Motor Vehicles Involved
Approximately 5,520 MY 2020 Nissan Sentra motor vehicles,
manufactured between November 26, 2019, and March 24, 2020, are
potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance
Nissan explains that the noncompliance is that the right-hand LED
headlamp aim in the subject vehicle may be misaligned resulting in a
vertical gradient value less than 0.13 as required by paragraph
S10.18.9.1.2 of FMVSS No. 108.
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraph S10.18.9.1.2 of FMVSS No. 108 includes the requirements
relevant to this petition: Vertical gradient. The gradient of the
cutoff measured at either 2.5[deg] L or 2.0[deg] R must be not less
than 0.13 based on the procedure of S10.18.9.1.5.
V. Summary of Nissan's Petition
The following views and arguments presented in this section are the
views and arguments provided by Nissan and do not reflect the views of
the Agency. In its petition, Nissan describes the subject noncompliance
and contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, Nissan provided NHTSA with the
following:
1. Nissan states that ``the supplier (Ichikoh) did not apply the
correct aiming logic when setting the head lamp aim parameters'' in
the subject vehicles and, ``[a]s a result, the right-hand LED
headlamp aim may be misaligned resulting in a vertical gradient
value below 0.13.'' Nissan states that ``[a] lower G-Value will lead
to a headlamp cut line that is slightly less sharp.'' According to
Nissan, ``Ichikoh inspected 3,506 lamps and found 572 lamps with a
G-Value below 0.13. However, when the cut-off value is brought down
to two decimals instead of three (per the express requirement in
FMVSS No. 108), only 286 of the 3,506 lamps (about 8%) fall below
the 0.13 minimum threshold. Of the 286 lamps, 248 (about 87%) are at
a gradient value of 0.12.''
2. According to Nissan, Ichikoh confirmed that, ``even when the
G-Value is below 0.13, all points of the Light Distribution achieve
the required specifications of FMVSS 108 for both the low and high
beam performance.'' Nissan attached to its petition test data from
Ichikoh regarding such photometric performance.
3. Nissan states that it ``has not received any reports from the
field of customer complaints, warranty claims, crashes, injuries, or
fatalities related to this issue.''
4. Nissan contends that ``[t]he purpose of the gradient
requirement is to assist in headlamp re-aiming.'' Nissan states that
``[t]he vehicles potentially affected by this issue were aimed
properly at the factory using a different aiming method. Therefore,
the only potential concern would relate to re-aiming performed after
the vehicle has been in use.'' Nissan stated that ``[a]iming of the
headlamps by a service technician in the field is an event that is
expected to occur infrequently. To confirm this, Nissan searched its
repair order database for repair orders on the previous generation
Sentra that involved re-aiming of the headlamps. Out of 1,389,330
vehicles, 161 repair orders were found that involved headlamp
aiming. This rate of repair would be 0.011% of vehicles. If the same
rate of repair is applied to the expected 420 vehicles in the
subject population [Nissan] would expect only 0.05 vehicles of the
subject population to require a re-aiming in the field.''
5. Nissan asserts that ``[t]he difference in gradient values
between 0.12 and 0.13 does not materially affect the ability of a
service technician to properly aim the lamp in the rare case that
this would need to be done in the field.''
6. ``Even if the lamps had to be re-aimed at some point,''
according to Nissan, ``it is unlikely the driver or other motorists
would notice any glare or observable difference in operation between
a fully compliant lamp and the subject lamps based on the conditions
described above.''
Nissan concludes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition to be
exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required
by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by
49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
VI. Public Comment
NHTSA received one comment from the general public. The commenter
explains that they have owned vehicles manufactured by Nissan and
states that the noncompliance is not inconsequential. The comment does
not, however, substantively address issues relevant to Nissan's
petition with any specificity.
VII. NHTSA's Analysis
A. General Principles
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, NHTSA focuses
on the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event
against which a 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. The absence of complaints does
not mean vehicle occupants have not experienced a safety
[[Page 21261]]
issue, nor does it mean that there will not be safety issues in the
future.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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\ See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr.
12, 2016); see also 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 also do not justify granting an
inconsequentiality petition.\4\ Similarly, mere assertions that only a
small percentage of vehicles or items of equipment are likely to
actually exhibit a noncompliance are unpersuasive. The percentage of
potential occupants that could be adversely affected by a noncompliance
is not relevant to whether the noncompliance poses an inconsequential
risk to safety. Rather, NHTSA focuses on the consequence to an occupant
who is exposed to the consequence of that noncompliance.\5\ Indeed, the
very purpose of a recall is to protect individuals from risk. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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).
\5\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. NHTSA's Response to Nissan's Petition
NHTSA has evaluated the merits of Nissan's petition and has decided
to deny the petition.
The purpose of the gradient requirement is to allow for proper aim
of a visually/optically aimed headlamp. Failure to properly aim the
headlamp can result in glare to surrounding vehicles or less down road
visibility which can potentially lead to a crash.
Nissan states that the supplier did not apply the correct aiming
logic when setting the headlamp aim parameters and, as a result, the
headlamp aim may be misaligned resulting in a vertical gradient value
less than 0.13. Nissan does not further describe the technical details
surrounding the process that led to the noncompliance, and it is
somewhat unclear as to what issue caused these lamps to have a gradient
below that permitted by the standard. Generally, the Agency understands
that vertical headlamp aim does not impact the value of the gradient
calculation (the mathematical description of the change in intensity
from one angular location to the next). The headlamp aim that is
``misaligned'' in the subject vehicles might be the horizontal aim,
which is permanently set during the manufacturing process. A permanent
horizontal misaim could result in the vertical scan line that is used
in the gradient calculation to be measured in a location other than
that intended by the beam pattern designer. In any case, the precise
process failure that led to the noncompliance is not necessary in the
Agency's analysis of the noncompliance impact on safety described
below.
NHTSA reviewed the test data from Nissan's supplier, Ichikoh,
regarding photometric performance of the lower beam and upper beam with
G-values less than 0.13, and did not find it compelling. Nissan only
provided one set of measurements for one lamp. In addition, their
argument does not take into account the potential mis-aim which could
be caused by the non-compliant gradient. Furthermore, while Nissan
claimed that it is unlikely the driver or other motorists would notice
any glare or observable difference in operation between a fully
compliant lamp and the subject lamp, Nissan did not submit any data to
support this claim.
NHTSA believes that any gradient less than the minimum requirement
of 0.13 can affect the ability of the lamp to be properly aimed. As
NHTSA has previously stated in the preamble to a final rule amending
FMVSS 108,\6\ and as provided as background in its associated notice of
proposed rulemaking,\7\ the gradient is based on a +/-0.1 degree
laboratory aim accuracy and a 0.25 degree field aim accuracy with
confidence limits of +/-2 sigma. A University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) study \8\ provided the
information needed to establish the necessary gradient within the
defined confidence bounds. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
Beam Pattern Task Force also conducted a study \9\ regarding visually
aimable headlamps in which they found the standard deviation of
vertical aim to be smaller than the standard deviation in the UMTRI
study. Based on the SAE Beam Pattern Task Force study, a NHTSA-
established advisory committee for regulatory negotiation to develop
recommended specifications for altering the lower beam patterns of
FMVSS 108 concluded that a gradient of 0.13 would satisfy the
committee's goal for field aim accuracy.\10\ Nissan did not provide
data to support that the subject headlamps meet the photometric
requirements even when misaimed, which is the potential consequence of
not meeting the gradient requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective
Devices and Associated Equipment; Final Rule; 62 FR 10710 (Mar. 10,
1997).
\7\ See Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps,
Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment; Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 61 FR 36334 (July 10, 1996).
\8\ See Visual Aiming of European and U.S. Low-Beam Headlamps,
Report No. UMTRI-91-34, by Sivak, Flannagan, Chandra, and Gellatly
(Nov. 1991), available at https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/936.
\9\ See Harmonized Vehicle Headlamp Performance Requirements
(first issued Jan. 1, 1995), available at https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j1735_201102/.
\10\ The committee's consensus was reflected in NHTSA's final
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA is also not persuaded by Nissan's contention that the
noncompliance involved here does not have a safety impact because it is
relatively rare for headlamps to be re-aimed. Nissan's data supporting
this claim, which relied on dealer repair records for the previous
generation Sentra, is not, in NHTSA's view, representative. As vehicles
age and their warranties expire, consumers are less likely to have
service performed at a dealership. Instances of headlight service at
independent garages and body shops also would not be included in
Nissan's survey. And in any event, as stated above, arguments that only
a small number of vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment are
affected have also not justified granting an inconsequentiality
petition. For similar reasons, also unpersuasive is the number of lamps
that exhibit a G-Value less than the 0.13 minimum threshold, or that
Nissan has not received any reports from the field of customer
complaints, warranty claims, crashes, injuries, or fatalities related
to this issue.
VIII. NHTSA's Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Nissan
has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
Nissan's petition is hereby denied, and Nissan is obligated to provide
notification of, and free remedy for, that noncompliance under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
[[Page 21262]]
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Anne L. Collins,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2022-07646 Filed 4-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P