Notice2026-19685
Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP26-003
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 25, 2026
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
This notice sets forth the reasons for denying a Petition DP26-003 submitted on February 5, 2026 by Mr. James A. Palmer to NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI), under 49 U.S.C. 30162 and 49 CFR part 552. The Petitioner requested that the Agency initiate a safety defect investigation into model year (MY) 2006 Nissan Frontier vehicles for alleged fuel system leaks and engine stalling. ODI has determined that the issues raised in the Petition are not likely to result in a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists. This determination is based on a technical review by ODI of available information, which included: consumer complaints submitted by the petitioner; consumer complaint information in the Agency's databases; and other relevant information in possession of the Agency. As a result, further investigation of the issues raised by the Petition is not warranted and the Agency, accordingly, has denied the Petition.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 185 (Friday, September 25, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 185 (Friday, September 25, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61020-61021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-19685]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2026-2080]
Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP26-003
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Denial of a Petition to open a defect investigation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the reasons for denying a Petition
DP26-003 submitted on February 5, 2026 by Mr. James A. Palmer to
NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI), under 49 U.S.C. 30162
and 49 CFR part 552. The Petitioner requested that the Agency initiate
a safety defect investigation into model year (MY) 2006 Nissan Frontier
vehicles for alleged fuel system leaks and engine stalling. ODI has
determined that the issues raised in the Petition are not likely to
result in a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety
exists. This determination is based on a technical review by ODI of
available information, which included: consumer complaints submitted by
the petitioner; consumer complaint information in the Agency's
databases; and other relevant information in possession of the Agency.
As a result, further investigation of the issues raised by the Petition
is not warranted and the Agency, accordingly, has denied the Petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Kevin Miller, Vehicle Defect
Division B, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-873-5019. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1d76786b74733370747171786f2c5d797269337a726b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b8d3ddced1d696d5d1d4d4ddca89f8dcd7cc96dfd7ce">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Introduction
Any interested person may petition NHTSA to request that the Agency
initiate an investigation to determine
[[Page 61021]]
whether a motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment complies with
an applicable motor vehicle safety standard or contains a defect that
relates to motor vehicle safety. 49 U.S.C. 30162(a)(2); 49 CFR 552.3.
Upon receipt of a properly filed petition, the Agency conducts a
technical review of the petition, material submitted with the petition,
and any additional information. 49 CFR 552.6. The technical review may
consist solely of a review of information already in the possession of
the Agency or it may include the collection of information from the
motor vehicle manufacturer and/or other sources. Id. After conducting
the technical review and considering appropriate factors, which may
include, but are not limited to, the nature of the complaint,
allocation of Agency resources, Agency priorities, the likelihood of
uncovering sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a defect,
and the likelihood of success in any necessary enforcement litigation,
the Agency will grant or deny the petition. See 49 U.S.C. 30162(a)(2);
49 CFR 552.8.
2. Defect Petition Summary
In a letter dated February 5, 2026, Mr. James A. Palmer submitted a
Petition concerning his MY 2006 Nissan Frontier. The Petition alleged
two main hazardous conditions: an odor of raw gasoline indicating a
potential fuel leak, and engine stalling during startup and vehicle
operation. The Petition cited prior NHTSA safety recalls, specifically
Recalls 10V517 (ECM Relay), 07V435 (Fuel Filler Tube), and 10V075 (Fuel
Tank/Sender), arguing that his vehicle's symptoms resemble the defects
associated with these actions and asserting that a safety defect is not
subject to expiration.
3. Office of Defects Investigation Analysis
In evaluating a defect, ODI considers a range of factors, including
the age and mileage of the subject vehicle fleet, failure frequency,
defect trends, and whether component degradation is attributable to an
inherent design or manufacturing flaw versus expected end-of-life wear
and tear.
The subject vehicle is a model year 2006 vehicle that has been in
service for approximately 20 years. Standard automotive components
including fuel hoses, rubber seals, gaskets, electrical relays, and
engine sensors have a finite useful lifecycle and are subject to
environmental exposure, operational stress, and natural degradation
over extended timeframes.
ODI routinely distinguishes between an inherent manufacturing or
design defect and normal lifecycle wear-out (see, e.g., Denial of DP18-
002, 87 FR 16823, finding underbody component issues late in vehicle
life to be ``indicative of normal, wear and tear failures''). As
vehicles reach advanced age, individual component degradation and
maintenance requirements are a standard expectation of vehicle
ownership. Isolated component failures on high-age vehicles do not, in
themselves, establish the presence of an actionable safety defect
across a vehicle fleet.
The Petition references three historic NHTSA safety recall
campaigns, Recalls 07V435, 10V075, and 10V517, arguing that because the
subject vehicle exhibits fuel odors and engine stalling, these
conditions demonstrate an unaddressed or persistent safety defect.
However, a technical review of these cited recall campaigns
demonstrates that they do not provide compelling support for the
petitioner's allegations.
Regarding Recall 07V435, the action pertained exclusively to MY
1997-2001 Nissan Pathfinder and Infiniti QX4 vehicles to address
corrosion of the lower fuel filler tube bracket in specific salt-belt
states. At the time Recall 07V435 was initiated, the subject vehicles
were 6 to 10 years old, and the consequence of the defect was a
potential vehicle fire. This campaign did not involve the MY 2006
Nissan Frontier platform. Merely experiencing a general symptom such as
a fuel odor on a 20-year-old vehicle does not establish a link to a
localized corrosion issue on an entirely different vehicle generation
produced years prior. In the case of MY 2006 Frontiers, the Agency is
not aware of a trend of fire complaints on a product with over 20 years
of exposure.
Recall 10V075 addressed a fuel sender float arm contacting an
internal tank embossment, which caused the fuel gauge on certain MY
2006 and 2008 Frontier vehicles to inaccurately display a one-quarter
tank level when the fuel tank was empty. That campaign was directed
strictly at instrument gauge accuracy and engine stalling from fuel
exhaustion, not a physical fuel leak or a breach of fuel system
integrity. The petitioner's allegation of raw fuel odors reflects a
potential physical leak or vapor loss, which is completely distinct
from the fuel-gauge indication flaw remediated under Recall 10V075.
Recall 10V517 addressed silicon oxide accumulation on Engine
Control Module (ECM) relay contacts within the Intelligent Power
Distribution Module on select MY 2005-2006 vehicles. After
approximately 20 years of operational service and environmental
exposure, engine stalling can be caused by a wide range of normal, age-
related maintenance conditions. The presence of engine stalling on a
20-year-old vehicle does not, by itself, indicate the presence of the
original manufacturing defect addressed in Recall 10V517.
The Petition must present specific data establishing a defect trend
that poses an unreasonable risk to safety. Broadly associating general,
late-life vehicle symptoms with historic, non-applicable, or previously
remediated recall campaigns on multi-decade-old vehicles does not
satisfy this requirement. Furthermore, NHTSA's oversight of recall
execution ensures that campaign parameters (such as affected VIN ranges
and build dates) are chosen based on specific defect determinations;
therefore, individual component degradation on high-age vehicles
outside these parameters likely represents routine wear and tear rather
than an unaddressed defect trend.
The Agency has thoroughly assessed the material submitted by the
Petitioner, consumer complaint information in NHTSA's databases, and
other relevant information already in possession of the Agency. NHTSA
does not believe that the issues presented by the Petitioner indicate
the likely existence of a safety-related defect that would warrant a
formal investigation. After full consideration of the available
information, and in view of NHTSA's enforcement priorities, the
Petition is denied.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d) and 49 CFR part 552; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.95(a).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The authority to determine whether to approve or deny defect
Petitions under 49 U.S.C. 30162(d) and 49 CFR part 552 has been
further delegated to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
Eileen Sullivan,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2026-19685 Filed 9-24-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 25, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.