Document ID: NHTSA-2020-0090-0002
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Nissan North America, Inc.
Posted Date: 2021-04-13T04:00Z

[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