Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP16-002, 26519-26520 [2020-09430]
Download as PDF
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 86 / Monday, May 4, 2020 / Notices
Æ 201 of the above 313 involved a
deployment of the subject or peer driver
air bag.
Æ 17 of the above 201 involved a nondeployment of the passenger air bag and
a passenger fatality (and an adult-sized
passenger).
Æ Three of the 17 involved the MY
2006–2008 Impala, resulting in a rate of
0.63 incidents per million registered
vehicle years, which is slightly lower
than the peer group average of 0.73
incidents per million registered vehicle
years.
D Two of the above three fatalities
involved unbelted passenger occupants.
D The one remaining fatality involved
an older occupant (≤ 75 years old)
where the seat belt status could not be
established.
ODI concluded that the FARS analysis
showed the overall occurrence of
passenger fatality due to OCS air bag
suppression is low (less than 1 per
million registered vehicle years) and
that the Impala is not an outlier in terms
of passenger side fatalities (due to the
passenger air bag being suppressed and/
or not deploying) when compared to
other GM peer and non-GM peer
vehicles.
• Summary of GM’s Reports: As part
of its analysis, ODI requested
information from GM on the MY 2006–
2008 Impala and other GM peer vehicles
that use the same PODS–B OCS system.
Based on GM’s response that identified
10 alleged complaints on approximately
851,000 vehicles produced, the Impala
vehicles had an exposure adjusted
complaint rate of approximately 0.16
incidents per 100,000 vehicles per year.
By comparison, the peer vehicles had
eight alleged complaints from 617,000
vehicles produced and thus had an
exposure adjusted complaint rate of 0.17
incidents per 100,000 vehicles per year.
These rates are comparable and do not
support the existence of a defect trend
in the Impala OCS compared to the
other GM vehicles.
• GM Assessment: As stated in their
response to ODI’s information request,
GM’s assessment of the alleged defect is
as follows:
Æ The SVs do not contain a defect.
Æ The SVs meet or exceed all Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSS).
Æ The SVs pose no additional risk
when meeting 3- and 6-year-old
occupant FMVSS requirements.
Æ The OCS is proven through testing
and peer comparison to work in ‘‘real
world’’ situations.
D The OCS ‘‘Adult lock’’ feature
occurs after 60 seconds (and continues
to be locked down to a level of 41 lbs.
creating sufficient hysteresis).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:03 May 01, 2020
Jkt 250001
D The OCs has a built in natural
latency of 1.5 seconds, to prevent
reclassifications during momentary
movements.
D The OCS has been tested in panic
stops, hard acceleration, hard turns,
ditches/rough roads, and with various
size adults seated in expected ‘‘comfort’’
positions.
D The OCS locks the passenger
classification prior to an impact when a
vehicle deceleration greater than > 1.5
G’s is detected (for > 2 ms).
Æ The OCS functioned properly in the
subject vehicle crash.
D No air bag system issues were
detected prior to the event.
D Review of the EDR or PODS data
showed no issues, and that the
passenger air bag was suppressed prior
to Event #2.
D GM believes the passenger reached
for the steering wheel after event #1 and
moved out of position (which changed/
suppressed the passenger air bag in the
last few seconds prior to Event #2) and
cites blood evidence on the driver bag
from the passenger thumb injury in
support of its assessment.
Conclusion
The subject PODS–B OCS was widely
used by GM and other OEMs across the
time frame of interest. Based on the
information provided and reviewed
during the DP14–001 investigation, the
passenger air bag OCS used in the MY
2006–2008 Impala and other vehicles
does not appear to contain a safetyrelated defect. NHTSA did not identify
an issue with the subject MY 2008
Impala involved in the subject crash,
nor has it identified a safety-related
defect trend existing in the OCS used in
the MY 2006–2008 Impala vehicles, in
GM peer vehicles, or in other non-GM
peer vehicles. Therefore, the petition is
denied. However, the agency will
continue to monitor this issue and take
further action if warranted by changing
future circumstances.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations
of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8
Jeffrey Mark Giuseppe,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2020–09429 Filed 5–1–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26519
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2020–0009]
Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition,
DP16–002
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect
investigation.
AGENCY:
This notice sets forth the
reasons for the denial of a petition
submitted on September 28, 2015, by
Mr. Matthew Oliver, Executive Director,
North Carolina Consumers Council, Inc.
(NCCC), to NHTSA’s Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI). The petition
requests that the agency commence a
proceeding to evaluate the scope and
effectiveness of two recalls for brake
master cylinder leakage issued by
Nissan for model year (MY) 2007 and
2008 Nissan Sentra vehicles. The
petitioner submitted a narrative
indicating master cylinder failure for
one MY 2008 Nissan (VOQ 1010805749)
along with four (4) other owner
complaints found in NHTSA’s
complaint database. The Petitioner
alleges that these five complaints
indicate insufficiency of effectiveness
and scope for the recall actions. For the
reasons set forth below, NHTSA
disagrees. NHTSA will continue to
monitor the situation, but has
concluded that further expenditure of
the agency’s investigative resources on
the issues raised by the petition does
not appeared to be warranted. The
agency accordingly has denied the
petition. The petition is hereinafter
identified as DP16–002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Brian E. Smith, Vehicle Defects
Division—B, Office of Defects
Investigation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590,
telephone (202) 366–6975.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter
received on September 28, 2015, Mr.
Matthew Oliver of Raleigh, NC,
submitted a petition requesting that the
agency investigate the scope and
effectiveness of two recalls for brake
master cylinder leakage issued by
Nissan for model year (MY) 2007 and
2008 Nissan Sentra vehicles. The
petition was based on one incident of a
MY 2008 Nissan Sentra master cylinder
developing a slow leak for several years
prior to the submission of the petition.
According to the petition, the failed
vehicle was inspected by a repair
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
26520
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 86 / Monday, May 4, 2020 / Notices
facility and brake fluid was found inside
the brake booster, as was the case in the
failures described in Nissan Recalls
08V–311 and 09V–431.
On December 20, 2016, ODI opened a
Defect Petition (DP16–002) to further
review the issue raised in the
petitioner’s letter.
The following is a summary of the
reviews and analysis conducted during
DP16–002:
• Review of VOQ complaints
identified in the petition: The petitioner
identified four other complaints in the
petition letter. Each of these VOQ
complaints will be addressed
individually.
Æ VOQ 10299791—This VOQ for a
2008 Nissan Sentra described three
replacements of the master cylinder for
leakage. Some of the repairs may have
occurred under warranty prior to recall
remedy availability. This vehicle is part
of the recall population and did receive
the recall remedy. All of the
replacements occurred in the first two
years of vehicle use. ODI could not
determine if any of the reported failures
involved a remedy replacement part.
Æ VOQ 10449038—This VOQ for a
2008 Nissan Sentra mentions a fire in
proximity to the master cylinder area
under the hood. Fire is not indicated as
an outcome for the failure addressed by
the recalls. The complaint describes
engine stalling prior to the fire event.
The vehicle was sold with a salvage title
prior to the fire event, according to
Carfax. The vehicle is part of the recall
population and did receive the recall
remedy.
Æ VOQ 10567372—This VOQ is for a
2008 Nissan Sentra which falls outside
of the recall population. The failure
occurred six years into the life of the
vehicle.
Æ VOQ 10638813—This VOQ is for a
2008 Nissan Sentra which is included in
the recall population and received the
recall remedy. The complaint was filed
by a subsequent owner four years after
the remedy was performed.
• Review of additional VOQ
complaints—ODI identified two more
VOQ complaints responsive to this
defect petition. One complaint vehicle
(10839357) was repaired under the
recall in 2008 and had a master cylinder
failure eight years later in 2016. The
second complaint vehicle (10330891)
suffered a second master cylinder
failure within two years after the recall
repair.
• ODI review of Nissan data—ODI
requested and received data from Nissan
detailing the original defect
determination. They also provided
warranty trend data for the recalled
vehicles and for vehicles produced after
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:03 May 01, 2020
Jkt 250001
the production change which delimited
the end of the recall population.
Æ Improper machining of the internal
seal groove—Nissan identified a
production machining process for the
bore of the master cylinder body which
sometimes resulted in chattering and an
uneven surface of the internal seal
groove. Nissan supplier Bosch
implemented manufacturing changes in
early 2008 to prevent this condition.
Æ Mold changes for the isolation
seal—The specifications and tolerances
for the isolation seal were updated to
produce better sealing of the master
cylinder. The improved seal was
introduced into production on April 18,
2008. This date marks the end of the
recall vehicle population.
Æ Warranty Data—ODI reviewed the
incident rate and warranty data for the
vehicle populations affected by the
recall and vehicle populations produced
after the final production changes were
implemented. The recall populations
show a significant spike in incident
rates during the first three years of
vehicle service. The vehicles produced
after the production fix fail at a much
lower rate and do not exhibit the
premature failure spikes found in the
recall population.
• Presence of a warning light—The
master cylinder is equipped with a fluid
level sensor which will alert the driver
to a slow leak. A warning light on the
instrument panel will illuminate when
the fluid is at a low but safe level. If the
driver does not take action to remedy
the low fluid either by adding fluid or
getting the master cylinder fixed,
reduced braking could result.
Conclusion
Nissan conducted safety recalls 08V–
311 and 09V–431 to remedy leaking
master cylinders on certain MY 2007
and 2008 Nissan Sentra vehicles. The
recall populations were determined
based on production changes to the
master cylinder which were fully
implemented as of April18, 2008.
ODI identified two MY 2008 Nissan
Sentra complaints, including the
petitioner’s vehicle, which were not
covered by the recalls and reported a
leaking master cylinder. All of these
incidents occurred six or more years
into the service life of the vehicle. ODI
also identified three complaints which
reported a master cylinder leaking after
receiving the recall remedy. Only one of
these failures occurred within 36
months of the recall remedy. The
original recall addressed failures which
occurred early in the life of the vehicle,
and involved elevated incident rates
during the first 36 months of vehicle
service. Master cylinders are generally
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
expected to experience wear and
display a finite service life.
After a review of the available data,
including a thorough search of NHTSA’s
complaint database, the agency has not
identified a trend that would call into
question the scope or adequacy of
Nissan’s recalls. Accordingly, and in
view of the need to allocate and
prioritize NHTSA’s limited resources to
best accomplish the agency’s safety
mission, ODI is denying the petition. A
detailed summary of ODI’s analysis of
this petition will be published in the
Federal Register and is also available in
the investigative file for this action.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations
of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8
Jeffrey Mark Giuseppe,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2020–09430 Filed 5–1–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of Foreign Assets Control
Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions
Office of Foreign Assets
Control, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of the
Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets
Control (OFAC) is publishing the names
of one or more persons and aircraft that
have been placed on OFAC’s Specially
Designated Nationals and Blocked
Persons List based on OFAC’s
determination that one or more
applicable legal criteria were satisfied.
All property and interests in property
subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these
persons and these aircraft are blocked,
and U.S. persons are generally
prohibited from engaging in transactions
with them.
DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section for effective date(s).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
OFAC: Associate Director for Global
Targeting, tel.: 202–622–2420; Assistant
Director for Sanctions Compliance &
Evaluation, tel.: 202–622–2490;
Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.:
202–622–2480; or the Department of the
Treasury’s Office of the General
Counsel: Office of the Chief Counsel
(Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202–622–
2410.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Electronic Availability
The Specially Designated Nationals
and Blocked Persons List and additional
information concerning OFAC sanctions
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 86 (Monday, May 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26519-26520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09430]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0009]
Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP16-002
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect investigation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a
petition submitted on September 28, 2015, by Mr. Matthew Oliver,
Executive Director, North Carolina Consumers Council, Inc. (NCCC), to
NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI). The petition requests
that the agency commence a proceeding to evaluate the scope and
effectiveness of two recalls for brake master cylinder leakage issued
by Nissan for model year (MY) 2007 and 2008 Nissan Sentra vehicles. The
petitioner submitted a narrative indicating master cylinder failure for
one MY 2008 Nissan (VOQ 1010805749) along with four (4) other owner
complaints found in NHTSA's complaint database. The Petitioner alleges
that these five complaints indicate insufficiency of effectiveness and
scope for the recall actions. For the reasons set forth below, NHTSA
disagrees. NHTSA will continue to monitor the situation, but has
concluded that further expenditure of the agency's investigative
resources on the issues raised by the petition does not appeared to be
warranted. The agency accordingly has denied the petition. The petition
is hereinafter identified as DP16-002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Brian E. Smith, Vehicle Defects
Division--B, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 366-6975.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter received on September 28, 2015,
Mr. Matthew Oliver of Raleigh, NC, submitted a petition requesting that
the agency investigate the scope and effectiveness of two recalls for
brake master cylinder leakage issued by Nissan for model year (MY) 2007
and 2008 Nissan Sentra vehicles. The petition was based on one incident
of a MY 2008 Nissan Sentra master cylinder developing a slow leak for
several years prior to the submission of the petition. According to the
petition, the failed vehicle was inspected by a repair
[[Page 26520]]
facility and brake fluid was found inside the brake booster, as was the
case in the failures described in Nissan Recalls 08V-311 and 09V-431.
On December 20, 2016, ODI opened a Defect Petition (DP16-002) to
further review the issue raised in the petitioner's letter.
The following is a summary of the reviews and analysis conducted
during DP16-002:
Review of VOQ complaints identified in the petition: The
petitioner identified four other complaints in the petition letter.
Each of these VOQ complaints will be addressed individually.
[cir] VOQ 10299791--This VOQ for a 2008 Nissan Sentra described
three replacements of the master cylinder for leakage. Some of the
repairs may have occurred under warranty prior to recall remedy
availability. This vehicle is part of the recall population and did
receive the recall remedy. All of the replacements occurred in the
first two years of vehicle use. ODI could not determine if any of the
reported failures involved a remedy replacement part.
[cir] VOQ 10449038--This VOQ for a 2008 Nissan Sentra mentions a
fire in proximity to the master cylinder area under the hood. Fire is
not indicated as an outcome for the failure addressed by the recalls.
The complaint describes engine stalling prior to the fire event. The
vehicle was sold with a salvage title prior to the fire event,
according to Carfax. The vehicle is part of the recall population and
did receive the recall remedy.
[cir] VOQ 10567372--This VOQ is for a 2008 Nissan Sentra which
falls outside of the recall population. The failure occurred six years
into the life of the vehicle.
[cir] VOQ 10638813--This VOQ is for a 2008 Nissan Sentra which is
included in the recall population and received the recall remedy. The
complaint was filed by a subsequent owner four years after the remedy
was performed.
Review of additional VOQ complaints--ODI identified two
more VOQ complaints responsive to this defect petition. One complaint
vehicle (10839357) was repaired under the recall in 2008 and had a
master cylinder failure eight years later in 2016. The second complaint
vehicle (10330891) suffered a second master cylinder failure within two
years after the recall repair.
ODI review of Nissan data--ODI requested and received data
from Nissan detailing the original defect determination. They also
provided warranty trend data for the recalled vehicles and for vehicles
produced after the production change which delimited the end of the
recall population.
[cir] Improper machining of the internal seal groove--Nissan
identified a production machining process for the bore of the master
cylinder body which sometimes resulted in chattering and an uneven
surface of the internal seal groove. Nissan supplier Bosch implemented
manufacturing changes in early 2008 to prevent this condition.
[cir] Mold changes for the isolation seal--The specifications and
tolerances for the isolation seal were updated to produce better
sealing of the master cylinder. The improved seal was introduced into
production on April 18, 2008. This date marks the end of the recall
vehicle population.
[cir] Warranty Data--ODI reviewed the incident rate and warranty
data for the vehicle populations affected by the recall and vehicle
populations produced after the final production changes were
implemented. The recall populations show a significant spike in
incident rates during the first three years of vehicle service. The
vehicles produced after the production fix fail at a much lower rate
and do not exhibit the premature failure spikes found in the recall
population.
Presence of a warning light--The master cylinder is
equipped with a fluid level sensor which will alert the driver to a
slow leak. A warning light on the instrument panel will illuminate when
the fluid is at a low but safe level. If the driver does not take
action to remedy the low fluid either by adding fluid or getting the
master cylinder fixed, reduced braking could result.
Conclusion
Nissan conducted safety recalls 08V-311 and 09V-431 to remedy
leaking master cylinders on certain MY 2007 and 2008 Nissan Sentra
vehicles. The recall populations were determined based on production
changes to the master cylinder which were fully implemented as of
April18, 2008.
ODI identified two MY 2008 Nissan Sentra complaints, including the
petitioner's vehicle, which were not covered by the recalls and
reported a leaking master cylinder. All of these incidents occurred six
or more years into the service life of the vehicle. ODI also identified
three complaints which reported a master cylinder leaking after
receiving the recall remedy. Only one of these failures occurred within
36 months of the recall remedy. The original recall addressed failures
which occurred early in the life of the vehicle, and involved elevated
incident rates during the first 36 months of vehicle service. Master
cylinders are generally expected to experience wear and display a
finite service life.
After a review of the available data, including a thorough search
of NHTSA's complaint database, the agency has not identified a trend
that would call into question the scope or adequacy of Nissan's
recalls. Accordingly, and in view of the need to allocate and
prioritize NHTSA's limited resources to best accomplish the agency's
safety mission, ODI is denying the petition. A detailed summary of
ODI's analysis of this petition will be published in the Federal
Register and is also available in the investigative file for this
action.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR
1.50 and 501.8
Jeffrey Mark Giuseppe,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2020-09430 Filed 5-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P