Document ID: NHTSA-2019-0079-0002
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Nissan North America, Inc.
Posted Date: 2019-10-15T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 15, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55220-55222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22344]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0079; 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) 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 01, 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 receipt of Nissan's petition.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is November 14, 
2019.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data, 
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the 
docket number and notice number cited in the title of this notice and 
may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S. 
Department of

[[Page 55221]]

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 dockets. 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 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 01, 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.
    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 exercises of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    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 headlamp assemblies that do not 
meet the photometric intensity requirements as required by paragraph 
S7.4.13.1 of FMVSS No. 108. Specifically, the reflex reflector 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 
headlamp assemblies fell below the minimum photometric intensity 
required.
    IV. Rule Requirements: 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. They have not been evaluated by 
the agency and do not reflect the views of the agency.
    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 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 of the side marker lamp 
at one test point. Nissan 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 also, 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 and approximately 5 times the test 
point where the side marker lamp alone was below 0.62 cd.
    5. In the event the reflector 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 
judgement, 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

[[Page 55222]]

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.
    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.

    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. 2019-22344 Filed 10-11-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P