Document ID: NHTSA-2020-0100-0002
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Nissan North America, Inc.
Posted Date: 2021-03-24T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15769-15771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06025]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0100; 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 model year (MY) 2020 Nissan Sentra 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 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 receipt of Nissan's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before April 23, 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

[[Page 15770]]

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 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 Associate 
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.
    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. 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 below 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, ``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 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, as a result, the right-hand LED headlamp aim may 
be misaligned resulting in a vertical gradient value below 0.13. Nissan 
asserts that a lower G-Value will lead to a headlamp cut line that is 
slightly less sharp. 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 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. Ichikoh has also confirmed that, even when the G-Value is below 
0.13, all points of the Light Distribution achieve the required 
specifications of FMVSS No. 108 for both the low and high beam 
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 the purpose of the gradient requirement is 
to assist in headlamp re-aiming. Nissan says that the 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. 
Aiming 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, only 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, we would expect only 0.05 vehicles of the subject 
population to require a re-aiming in the field.
    5. Nissan asserts that the 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.
    7. In the subject parts, all points of the light distribution 
achieve the required specifications of FMVSS No. 108 for both the low 
and high beam performance.
    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 that Nissan no 
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance 
existed. However, any decision on 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.

[[Page 15771]]

    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. 2021-06025 Filed 3-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P