Nissan North America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 19319-19321 [2021-07507]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 13, 2021 / Notices jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Information concerning the applications for these projects is available at the Commission’s Water Application and Approval Viewer at https:// www.srbc.net/waav. Additional supporting documents are available to inspect and copy in accordance with the Commission’s Access to Records Policy at www.srbc.net/regulatory/policiesguidance/docs/access-to-records-policy2009-02.pdf. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The public hearing will cover a proposed rulemaking and three proposed groundwater-related policies, posted at www.srbc.net, under ‘‘What’s New’’, click on the link for the ‘‘Proposed Rulemaking.’’ The public hearing will also cover the following projects: Projects Scheduled for Action 1. Project Sponsor and Facility: ARD Operating, LLC (West Branch Susquehanna River), Piatt Township, Lycoming County, Pa. Modification to update flow protection rates to be in accordance with current Low Flow Protection Policy No. 2012–01 (Docket No. 20120601). 2. Project Sponsor and Facility: Beech Resources, LLC (Lycoming Creek), Lycoming Township, Lycoming County, Pa. Application for surface water withdrawal of up to 1.500 mgd (peak day). 3. Project Sponsor: CAN DO, Inc. Project Facility: Humbolt Industrial Park, Hazle Township, Luzerne County, Pa. Applications for renewal of groundwater withdrawals (30-day averages) of up to 0.187 mgd from Humbolt Well 1, up to 0.187 mgd from Humbolt Well 3, up to 0.230 mgd from Humbolt Well 7, up to 0.144 mgd from Humbolt Well 8, and up to 0.230 mgd from Humbolt Well 9 (Docket No. 19960501). 4. Project Sponsor and Facility: Geneva Farm Golf Course, Inc., Dublin District, Harford County, Md. Application for renewal of consumptive use of up to 0.099 mgd (30-day average) (Docket No. 19910104). 5. Project Sponsor and Facility: Greenfield Township Municipal Authority, Greenfield Township, Blair County, Pa. Application for groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.499 mgd (30-day average) from Well PW–4. 6. Project Sponsor and Facility: Pennsylvania State University, College Township, Centre County, Pa. Applications for renewal of groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.960 mgd (30-day average) from Well UN–37 and consumptive use of up to 0.960 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 19890106–1). 7. Project Sponsor and Facility: PPG Operations LLC (West Branch VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:42 Apr 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 Susquehanna River), Goshen Township, Clearfield County, Pa. Application for surface water withdrawal of up to 3.000 mgd (peak day). 8. Project Sponsor and Facility: Quarryville Borough Authority, Quarryville Borough, Lancaster County, Pa. Application for renewal of groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.250 mgd (30-day average) from Well 2 (Docket No. 19931102). 9. Project Sponsor and Facility: SUEZ Water Owego-Nichols Inc., Village of Owego and Town of Owego, Tioga County, N.Y. Applications for groundwater withdrawals (30-day averages) of up to 0.880 mgd from Well 1, up to 1.115 mgd from Well 3, and up to 0.710 mgd from Well 4. 10. Project Sponsor: Weaverland Valley Authority. Project Facility: Blue Ball Water System, East Earl Township, Lancaster County, Pa. Application for groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.144 mgd (30-day average) from Well 4 as well as recognizing historic withdrawals from wells 1, 2 and 3. Project Scheduled for Action Involving a Diversion 1. Project Sponsor and Facility: City of Aberdeen, Harford County, Md. Modifications to extend the approval term of the consumptive use, surface water withdrawal, and out-of-basin diversion approval (Docket No. 20021210) to allow additional time for evaluation of the continued use of the source for the Aberdeen Proving Ground—Aberdeen Area. Commission-Initiated Project Approval Modification 1. Project Sponsor and Facility: Municipal Authority of the Borough of Mansfield, Richmond Township, Tioga County, Pa. Conforming the grandfathered amount with the forthcoming determination for a withdrawal from Webster Reservoir up to 0.311 mgd (30-day average) (Docket No. 20130609). 2. Project Sponsor and Facility: Williamsport Municipal Water Authority, Williamsport City, Lycoming County, Pa. Conforming the grandfathered amounts with the forthcoming determination for withdrawals (30-day averages) from Well 3 up to 0.940 mgd, from Well 4 up to 0.940 mgd, from Well 5 up to 2.141 mgd, from Well 6 up to 0.687 mgd, from Well 7 up to 2.254 mgd, from Well 8 up to 0.987 mgd, from Well 9 up to 0.800 mgd, from Mosquito Creek up to 6.833 mgd, and from Hagermans Run up to 4.926 mgd (Docket No. 20110628). PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 19319 Opportunity To Appear and Comment Interested parties may call into the hearing to offer comments to the Commission on any business listed above required to be the subject of a public hearing. Given the telephonic nature of the meeting, the Commission strongly encourages those members of the public wishing to provide oral comments to pre-register with the Commission by emailing Jason Oyler at joyler@srbc.net prior to the hearing date. The presiding officer reserves the right to limit oral statements in the interest of time and to otherwise control the course of the hearing. Access to the hearing via telephone will begin at 6:15 p.m. Guidelines for the public hearing are posted on the Commission’s website, www.srbc.net, prior to the hearing for review. The presiding officer reserves the right to modify or supplement such guidelines at the hearing. Written comments on any business listed above required to be the subject of a public hearing may also be mailed to Mr. Jason Oyler, Secretary to the Commission, Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, Pa. 17110–1788, or submitted electronically through https://www.srbc.net/ regulatory/public-comment/. Comments mailed or electronically submitted must be received by the Commission on or before May 17, 2021, to be considered. Authority: Pub. L. 91–575, 84 Stat. 1509 et seq., 18 CFR parts 806, 807, and 808. Dated: April 7, 2021. Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel and Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2021–07476 Filed 4–12–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7040–01–P 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 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Receipt of petition. AGENCY: 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 SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\13APN1.SGM 13APN1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 19320 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 13, 2021 / Notices 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:42 Apr 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 E:\FR\FM\13APN1.SGM 13APN1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 13, 2021 / Notices 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:42 Apr 12, 2021 Jkt 253001 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 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Foreign Assets Control Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 19321 The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of persons whose property and interests in property have been unblocked pursuant to Executive Order 13850 of November 1, 2018, ‘‘Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela’’ (‘‘E.O. 13850’’), as amended by Executive Order 13857 of January 25, 2019, ‘‘Taking Additional Steps To Address the National Emergency With Respect to Venezuela’’ (‘‘E.O. 13857’’). Additionally, OFAC is publishing an update to the identifying information of persons currently included in the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List). SUMMARY: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for applicable date(s). DATES: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OFAC: Andrea Gacki, Director, tel.: 202–622–2480; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel: 202–622–2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202–622–2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202–622–4855; or the Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202–622– 2490. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Availability The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC’s website (www.treasury.gov/ofac). Notice of OFAC Actions On March 31, 2021, OFAC removed from the SDN List the persons listed below, whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to E.O. 13850, as amended by E.O. 13857. On March 31, 2021, OFAC determined that circumstances no longer warrant the inclusion of the following persons on the SDN List under this authority. These persons are no longer subject to the blocking provisions of Section 1(a) of E.O. 13850, as amended by E.O. 13857. Entities: 1. AMG S.A.S. DI ALESSANDRO BAZZONI & C. (a.k.a. AMG S.A.S. DI ALESSANDRO BAZZONI AND C.; a.k.a. AMG S.A.S. DI ALESSANDRO BAZZONI E C.), Via Sottomonte 5, Verona 37124, Italy; V.A.T. Number IT02483560237 (Italy) [VENEZUELA–EO13850]. 2. SERIGRAPHICLAB DI BAZZONI ALESSANDRO, Via Amsicora 46, Porto Torres 07046, Italy; V.A.T. Number 02732450909 (Italy) [VENEZUELA– EO13850]. E:\FR\FM\13APN1.SGM 13APN1

Agencies

[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