Nissan North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

Topics:  Nissan Armada

Otto G. Matheke III
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
1 July 2020

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39678-39679]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14215]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0079; 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 model year (MY) 2019 Nissan Armada motor vehicles do not fully 
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, 
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Nissan filed a 
noncompliance report dated July 1, 2019. Nissan also petitioned NHTSA 
on July 24, 2019, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is 
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document 
announces the grant of Nissan's petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leroy Angeles, Office of Vehicle 
Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5304, facsimile (202) 366-3081.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Overview: Nissan has determined that 
certain MY 2019 Nissan Armada motor vehicles do not fully comply with 
S7.4.13.1 of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated 
Equipment (49 CFR 571.108). Nissan filed a noncompliance report dated 
July 1, 2019, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance 
Responsibility and Reports. Nissan also petitioned NHTSA on July 24, 
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 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 October 15, 2019, in the Federal Register (84 
FR 55220). 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-2019-0079.''
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 3,009 MY 2019 Nissan Armada 
motor vehicles, manufactured between September 13, 2018, and October 
23, 2018, are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: Nissan explains that the noncompliance is that 
the subject vehicles are equipped with front combination lighting 
assemblies that do not meet the photometric intensity requirements as 
required by paragraph S7.4.13.1 of FMVSS No. 108. Specifically, the 
inner lens of the side marker lamp is not seated properly in the 
headlamp assembly, thus, creating a gap between the forward edge of the 
reflector and the extension portion of the headlamp assembly. When 
tested, the photometric intensity of the side marker lamp fell below 
the minimum photometric intensity required on one of the 20 headlamp 
assemblies tested.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S7.4.13.1 of FMVSS No. 108 
includes the requirements relevant to this petition. Each side marker 
lamp must be designed to conform to the photometry requirements of 
Table X, when tested according to the procedure of S14.2.1, for the 
lamp color as specified by FMVSS No. 108.
    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.
    Nissan described the subject noncompliance and stated its belief 
that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor 
vehicle safety. Nissan submitted the following views and arguments in 
support of the petition:
    1. Due to a manufacturing issue affecting only the driver's side 
marker lamp, the reflex reflector (which also serves as the inner lens 
for the side marker) may not be seated properly in the headlamp 
assembly, creating a gap between the forward edge of the reflector and 
the extension portion of the headlamp assembly. The reflector is 
restrained from further movement by the outer lens of the headlamp. The 
manufacturing issue has been corrected.
    2. Even in the worst-case displaced position, the side marker lamp 
is only minimally below photometric intensity requirement at one test 
point. Nissan

[[Page 39679]]

has judged that the minimal difference in photometric intensity between 
the lamp that tested below standard and a lamp meeting the minimum 
standard is not perceptible to the human observer. (See, Subaru of 
America, Grant of Petition, 56 FR 59971 (Nov. 26, 1991); Hella, Inc., 
Grant of Petition, 55 FR 37601 (Sept. 12, 1990)).
    3. Moreover, in the subject vehicles, the parking lamp wraps around 
the corners of the headlamp assembly and adds additional illumination 
in the region where testing showed the photometric intensity of the 
side marker lamp to be slightly below standard. On the affected MY 2019 
Armada vehicles, the parking lamps are on the same circuit as the side 
marker lamps and therefore always illuminate in conjunction with the 
side marker lamps.
    4. When tested as a unit in real-world conditions, the photometric 
intensity of the combined parking and side marker lamps is above the 
required 0.62 cd for all test points.
    5. In the event the inner lens was to move out of position, the 
complimentary illumination from the parking lamp compensates for the 
slight reduction in photometric intensity of the side marker lamp over 
an exceedingly small range. Therefore, in actual usage conditions, the 
presence of an affected vehicle is conspicuous and in Nissan's 
judgment, there is no perceivable difference in the visibility of the 
subject vehicles compared to compliant vehicles to drivers and 
pedestrians on the road.
    6. In similar situations, NHTSA has granted the applications of 
other petitioners in which a minor deviation from the standard was 
deemed imperceptible and therefore inconsequential to safety (See, 
e.g., BMW of N.Am., LLC, Grant of Petition, 82 FR 55484 (Nov. 21, 
2017); Osram Sylvania Prods., Inc., Grant of Petition, 78 FR 46000 
(July 30, 2013)). While Nissan recognizes that NHTSA has denied 
petitions claiming complimentary illumination, those petitions are 
distinguishable due to the greater extent of the reduction in 
illumination over a wider affected area.
    Nissan concluded by expressing the belief 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: The intent of FMVSS No. 108 is to reduce 
traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic 
accidents, by providing adequate illumination on the roadway, and by 
enhancing the conspicuity of motor vehicles on the public roads so that 
their presence is perceived and their signals understood, both in 
daylight and in darkness or other conditions of reduced visibility.
    Nissan offers two main arguments supporting the notion that the 
noncompliance at issue here is inconsequential to safety. One 
contention relies on the proximity of the parking lamp to the side 
marker lamp and the fact that both will be illuminated simultaneously. 
As both will be lit, Nissan contends that the light from the parking 
lamp will offset the substandard output of the side marker lamp and 
result in no net loss of visibility. Another contention is that the 
condition causing the noncompliance results in a photometric intensity 
test result of 15% below the minimum requirement at 1 of 14 test 
points, a loss that cannot be detected by an unaided human eye.
    NHTSA finds the former argument unpersuasive and the latter 
contention to be compelling. The purpose of the side marker is to aid 
in the visibility of a motor vehicle at night. Nissan's argument of 
complementary illumination from the parking lamp is not convincing 
since the parking lamp illumination is white, not amber and could cause 
a passing motorist to have difficulty determining what part of the 
vehicle is approaching. In contrast to the obvious difference between a 
white parking light and an amber side marker light, a small reduction 
in photometric intensity is imperceptible. Nissan cited multiple prior 
petitions where NHTSA conceded this fact and granted petitions for 
inconsequential noncompliance. The granting of Hella Inc.'s (55 FR 
37601) and Subaru of America's (56 FR 59971) petitions, where the 
imperceptible difference in illumination directed the conclusion that a 
noncompliance was inconsequential, are applicable here. As the Agency 
explained when it granted the inconsequentiality petition filed by 
Hella, Inc. ``a reduction of approximately 25 percent in luminous 
intensity is required before the human eye can detect the difference 
between the two lamps.''
    VII. NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA 
finds that Nissan has met its burden of persuasion that the subject 
FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance in the affected vehicles is inconsequential 
to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Nissan's petition is hereby 
granted. 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 that Nissan 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 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. 2020-14215 Filed 6-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P