
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 211 (Thursday, November 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75370-75372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24140]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0090; 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 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 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 grant of Nissan's petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Chern, Office of Vehicle Safety 
Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
(202) 366-0661, [email protected].

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

[[Page 75371]]

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 April 13, 2021, in the Federal Register (86 
FR 19319). 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-2020-0090.''

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 stated that the glass manufacturer, Central Glass Co., Ltd., 
outsourced glass production to a subsidiary company, Japan Tempered & 
Laminated Glass Co., Ltd. (JTLG), in April 2000. Instead of using its 
own certification mark ``166,'' JTLG used the certification mark 
``44,'' which is assigned to its parent company, Central Glass Co.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S6.2 of FMVSS No. 205 includes the requirements that a 
prime glazing manufacturer add a manufacturer's code mark, that NHTSA 
assigns to the manufacturer, to its glazing.

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 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's code mark is 
incorrect, the certification mark affixed to the subject parts features 
the correct AS Item number and model 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 contain an incorrect manufacturer's code mark 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 mark 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 
manufacturer's code mark 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 mark.
    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. 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.

VI. NHTSA's Analysis

1. General Principles

    Arguments that only a small number of vehicles or items of motor 
vehicle equipment are affected have not justified granting an 
inconsequentiality petition.\1\ Similarly, NHTSA has rejected petitions 
based on the assertion that only a small percentage of vehicles or 
items of equipment are likely to actually exhibit a noncompliance. The 
percentage of potential occupants that could be adversely affected by a 
noncompliance does not determine the question of inconsequentiality. 
Rather, the issue to consider is the consequence to an occupant or a 
consumer who is exposed to the consequence of that noncompliance.\2\ 
These considerations are also relevant when considering whether a 
defect is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., L.L.C.; Denial of Application for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 38342 (July 23, 
2001) (rejecting argument that noncompliance was inconsequential 
because of the small number of vehicles affected); Aston Martin 
Lagonda Ltd.; Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 
Noncompliance, 81 FR 41370 (June 24, 2016) (noting that situations 
involving individuals trapped in motor vehicles--while infrequent--
are consequential to safety); Morgan 3 Wheeler Ltd.; Denial of 
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 
21664 (Apr. 12, 2016) (rejecting argument that petition should be 
granted because the vehicle was produced in very low numbers and 
likely to be operated on a limited basis).
    \2\ See Gen. Motors Corp.; Ruling on Petition for Determination 
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19900 (Apr. 14, 
2004); Cosco Inc.; Denial of Application for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64 FR 29408, 29409 (June 1, 1999).

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

[[Page 75372]]

2. Response to the Arguments From Nissan

    Paragraph S6.2 of FMVSS No. 205 requires a prime glazing 
manufacturer to mark its glazing with a manufacturer's code mark that 
NHTSA assigns to the manufacturer.
    Nissan pointed out that many of the subject 1,934 windshield glass 
components that may contain an incorrect manufacturer's code mark are 
located in non-U.S. markets. As previously stated, NHTSA does not 
consider arguments that the noncompliance involves only a small number 
of items of motor vehicle equipment when determining whether the 
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Instead, 
NHTSA considers the consequences of the noncompliance and how that may 
impact a consumer exposed to it. For purposes of this petition, NHTSA 
considered whether the noncompliance impacted the functional safety of 
the impacted windshield and also whether the noncompliance would impact 
any potential future recalls.
    First, as part of NHTSA's consideration of Nissan's petition, NHTSA 
reviewed information submitted by Nissan in support of its statements 
that the subject windshields met all of the applicable performance 
requirements specified in FMVSS No. 205. Based on its review of the 
test data submitted by Nissan, NHTSA believes that Nissan's 
certifications of the safety performance of the subject windshields 
were made based on reasonable bases. Accordingly, NHTSA has no reason 
to believe that the windshields are otherwise noncompliant with the 
performance requirements in FMVSS No. 205.
    Second, NHTSA considered whether the noncompliance could impact the 
efficiency of a recall if the affected windshields were subject to one. 
Based on the information presented, NHTSA believes that if the affected 
windshields were subject to a future recall, Nissan or consumers would 
be able to identify the affected windshields in order to have the 
recall completed. This is because, while the marking does not identify 
the fabricating manufacturer, it does identify the parent company and 
the correct model number and would, therefore, be traceable to an 
entity who would accept responsibility for conducting a recall. Based 
on the foregoing reasons, NHTSA does not believe the noncompliance 
poses a consequential risk to motor vehicle safety.
    NHTSA also requested that Nissan provide information about what 
Nissan, Central Glass Co., Ltd., and Japan Tempered & Laminated Glass 
Co., Ltd. (JTLG) are doing to ensure this type of noncompliance does 
not happen again. Nissan responded that Central Glass Co. has informed 
Nissan that in the time since this issue took place, change management 
policies have been implemented, with all new changes to products now 
being reviewed by the Central Glass HQ quality assurance department for 
approval. Additionally, JTLG also reviewed U.S. certification and 
marking requirements and made updates to their own processes, where 
appropriate, to ensure future compliance. Nissan states that any future 
manufacturing process changes would be detected and corrected prior to 
production.

VII. NHTSA's Decision

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that Nissan has met 
its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 205 noncompliance 
in the affected windshield glass panes is inconsequential to motor 
vehicle safety. Accordingly, Nissan's petition is hereby granted and 
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 and equipment that Nissan no 
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance 
existed. However, the granting of 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. 2023-24140 Filed 11-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


