|
|---|
|
Nissan North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Publication: Federal Register Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Byline: Otto G. Matheke III Date: 2 November 2023 Subjects: American Government  , Safety
Topic: Nissan |
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 211 (Thursday, November 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75370-75372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24140]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0090; Notice 2]
Nissan North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) has determined that
certain replacement windshield glass panes manufactured by Central
Glass Co., Ltd., outsourced to Japan Tempered & Laminated Glass Co.,
Ltd., and sold to Nissan as replacement parts for use in certain Nissan
motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. Nissan filed a
noncompliance report dated June 29, 2020. Nissan subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on July 29, 2020, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
This notice announces grant of Nissan's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Chern, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
(202) 366-0661, jack.chern@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
Nissan has determined that certain replacement windshield glass
panes manufactured by Central Glass Co., Ltd., outsourced to Japan
Tempered & Laminated Glass Co., Ltd., and sold to Nissan as replacement
parts for use in certain Nissan motor vehicles do not fully comply with
the requirements of paragraph S6.2 of FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials
(49 CFR 571.205). Nissan filed a noncompliance report dated June 29,
2020, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. Nissan subsequently petitioned NHTSA on
July 29, 2020, for an exemption from the
[[Page 75371]]
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 April 13, 2021, in the Federal Register (86
FR 19319). No comments were 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-2020-0090.''
II. Windshields Involved
Approximately 1,934 replacement windshield glass panes sold as
replacement service parts, manufactured between April 1, 2000, and
April 30, 2012, are potentially involved. These replacement windshield
glass panes were manufactured by Central Glass Co., Ltd., who
subsequently outsourced to a subsidiary company, Japan Tempered &
Laminated Glass Co., Ltd., and sold to Nissan as replacement parts for
Nissan motor vehicles.
III. Noncompliance
Nissan stated that the glass manufacturer, Central Glass Co., Ltd.,
outsourced glass production to a subsidiary company, Japan Tempered &
Laminated Glass Co., Ltd. (JTLG), in April 2000. Instead of using its
own certification mark ``166,'' JTLG used the certification mark
``44,'' which is assigned to its parent company, Central Glass Co.
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraph S6.2 of FMVSS No. 205 includes the requirements that a
prime glazing manufacturer add a manufacturer's code mark, that NHTSA
assigns to the manufacturer, to its glazing.
V. Summary of Nissan's Petition
The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of Nissan's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by
Nissan and do not reflect the views of the Agency. 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 offers the following reasoning:
1. Nissan states that although the manufacturer's code mark is
incorrect, the certification mark affixed to the subject parts features
the correct AS Item number and model number. In addition, the
windshield glass panes were fabricated in full compliance with the
technical requirements of 49 CFR 571.205 applicable to laminated glass
for use in motor vehicles.
2. Nissan says that many of the 1,934 windshield glass components
that may contain an incorrect manufacturer's code mark are located in
non-U.S. markets. For this reason, Nissan believes the actual number of
subject parts is substantially lower than the 1,934 possible windshield
glass panes because only a small number of potentially affected
windshield glass panes were shipped to the U.S. market for use as
service parts between April 1, 2000, and April 30, 2012.
3. Nissan also states that the part number remains accurate,
despite the manufacturer's code mark discrepancy. The subject
noncompliance, accordingly, is unlikely to result in the use of an
incorrect replacement part in an OEM application because the part would
be ordered using Nissan's unique part number and not the ``DOT''
number. In Nissan's ordering system, parts with the incorrect
manufacturer's code mark are indistinguishable from parts with the
correct code. In fact, the parts are traceable to Central Glass Co.,
Ltd., since the incorrect code used by their subsidiary, JLTG, is the
code for the parent company, Central Glass Co., Ltd.
4. Nissan believes that there is a low likelihood of a vehicle
requiring this replacement part because the average age of potentially
affected vehicles (MY 1991-1999) is 25+ years old. Currently, only one
replacement windshield glass service part (727120M010) is in stock and
available. However, Nissan instructed the Sagamihara Part Center in
Japan to suspend shipment for this part. Even so, if a vehicle
previously received or were to receive a subject replacement part, the
part fully complies with the technical requirements of 49 CFR 571.205.
In no way is the actual safety aspect of the windshield glass
compromised by the misprinted manufacturer's code mark.
5. Nissan contends that in similar situations, NHTSA has granted
the applications of other petitioners. For example, 80 FR 3737 (January
23, 2015) Petition by Custom Glass Solutions Upper Sandusky
Corporation. Nissan cited NHTSA, saying ``NHTSA believes that the
subject labeling errors are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety
because the marking of glazing as `Tempered' or `Laminated' is not
required by FMVSS No. 205, the probability of anyone in the United
States obtaining the subject incorrectly marked glazing as replacement
glazing is very unlikely since the affected glazing is specifically
designed for use in mining vehicles manufactured by Atlas Copco in
Australia. In addition, there is no concern that the wrong model number
on the subject glazing would result in an incorrect replacement part
being used because replacement parts are ordered by referring to the
glazing part number or by identifying the vehicle for which the
replacement glazing is intended.''
Nissan concludes by again contending 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. NHTSA's Analysis
1. General Principles
Arguments that only a small number of vehicles or items of motor
vehicle equipment are affected have not justified granting an
inconsequentiality petition.\1\ 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 or a
consumer who is exposed to the consequence of that noncompliance.\2\
These considerations are also relevant when considering whether a
defect is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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).
\2\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 75372]]
2. Response to the Arguments From Nissan
Paragraph S6.2 of FMVSS No. 205 requires a prime glazing
manufacturer to mark its glazing with a manufacturer's code mark that
NHTSA assigns to the manufacturer.
Nissan pointed out that many of the subject 1,934 windshield glass
components that may contain an incorrect manufacturer's code mark are
located in non-U.S. markets. As previously stated, NHTSA does not
consider arguments that the noncompliance involves only a small number
of items of motor vehicle equipment when determining whether the
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Instead,
NHTSA considers the consequences of the noncompliance and how that may
impact a consumer exposed to it. For purposes of this petition, NHTSA
considered whether the noncompliance impacted the functional safety of
the impacted windshield and also whether the noncompliance would impact
any potential future recalls.
First, as part of NHTSA's consideration of Nissan's petition, NHTSA
reviewed information submitted by Nissan in support of its statements
that the subject windshields met all of the applicable performance
requirements specified in FMVSS No. 205. Based on its review of the
test data submitted by Nissan, NHTSA believes that Nissan's
certifications of the safety performance of the subject windshields
were made based on reasonable bases. Accordingly, NHTSA has no reason
to believe that the windshields are otherwise noncompliant with the
performance requirements in FMVSS No. 205.
Second, NHTSA considered whether the noncompliance could impact the
efficiency of a recall if the affected windshields were subject to one.
Based on the information presented, NHTSA believes that if the affected
windshields were subject to a future recall, Nissan or consumers would
be able to identify the affected windshields in order to have the
recall completed. This is because, while the marking does not identify
the fabricating manufacturer, it does identify the parent company and
the correct model number and would, therefore, be traceable to an
entity who would accept responsibility for conducting a recall. Based
on the foregoing reasons, NHTSA does not believe the noncompliance
poses a consequential risk to motor vehicle safety.
NHTSA also requested that Nissan provide information about what
Nissan, Central Glass Co., Ltd., and Japan Tempered & Laminated Glass
Co., Ltd. (JTLG) are doing to ensure this type of noncompliance does
not happen again. Nissan responded that Central Glass Co. has informed
Nissan that in the time since this issue took place, change management
policies have been implemented, with all new changes to products now
being reviewed by the Central Glass HQ quality assurance department for
approval. Additionally, JTLG also reviewed U.S. certification and
marking requirements and made updates to their own processes, where
appropriate, to ensure future compliance. Nissan states that any future
manufacturing process changes would be detected and corrected prior to
production.
VII. NHTSA's Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that Nissan has met
its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 205 noncompliance
in the affected windshield glass panes is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety. Accordingly, Nissan's petition is hereby granted and
Nissan 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 and equipment that Nissan no
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, the granting of this petition does not relieve
vehicle and equipment 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 and replacement
windshield glass panes under their control after Nissan 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. 2023-24140 Filed 11-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P