Nissan North America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: Nissan
|
Otto G. Matheke III
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
13 April 2021
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 13, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19319-19321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07507]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0090; Notice 1]
Nissan North America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt 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
[[Page 19320]]
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 receipt of
Nissan's petition.
DATES: Send comments on or before May 13, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal holidays.
Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the docket. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
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 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.
This notice of receipt of Nissan's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any Agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
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 explains that the noncompliance is that subject replacement
windshield glass panes 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
use in certain Nissan motor vehicles contain the incorrect
manufacturer's code mark and therefore, do not meet the requirements
set forth in paragraph S6.2 of FMVSS No. 205. Specifically, the subject
replacement windshield glass panes were marked with manufacturer code
DOT44, which applies to Central Glass Co., Ltd., when they should have
been marked, DOT166, which applies to Japan Tempered & Laminated Glass
Co., Ltd. (JTLG).
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraph S6.2 of FMVSS No. 205 includes the requirements relevant
to this petition. A prime glazing manufacturer certifies its glazing by
adding to the marks required by section 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26. 1-1996, in
letters and numerals of the same size, the symbol ``DOT'' and a
manufacturer's code mark that NHTSA assigns to the manufacturer. NHTSA
will assign a code mark to a manufacturer after the manufacturer
submits a written request to the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. The
request must include the company name, address, and a statement from
the manufacturer certifying its status as a prime glazing manufacturer
as defined in S4.
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. They have not been evaluated by the Agency 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 code is incorrect,
the certification mark affixed to the subject parts features the
correct AS Item number and model number (i.e., M 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
[[Page 19321]]
contain an incorrect manufacturer's code 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 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 manufacturing
code 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.
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.
``Custom Glass explains that the noncompliance is that the
labeling on the subject laminated glass panes does not fully meet the
requirements of paragraph S6 of FMVSS No. 205. The panes were labeled
with the incorrect manufacturer's code mark, incorrect manufacturer's
trademark, and incorrect manufacturer's model number, and were
incorrectly marked as Tempered.''
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.
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, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles and equipment that
Nissan no longer controlled at the time it determined that the
noncompliance existed. However, any decision on 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. 2021-07507 Filed 4-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P