Nissan defect petition DP19001
False Automatic Emergency Braking. NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation opened this defect petition about the automatic emergency braking on 2 model years (2017–2018). Opened Apr 8, 2019, closed Sep 16, 2019 after 5 months without a recall. closed
What NHTSA says
Source: Office of Defects Investigation, as filedNHTSA received a letter from the Center for Auto Safety (CAS) on March 21, 2019 alleging that the Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) system on Model Year (MY) 2017-2018 Nissan Rogue and Rogue Sport vehicles was engaging in cases where there was no obstruction in the path of the vehicle. The CAS petition additionally alleged that, based on Nissan's actions, the manufacturer was aware of the issue due to issuing a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) launching two Quality Actions, and initiation of a Customer Service Initiative in relation to it. CAS contended that Nissan's actions do not represent an adequate long-term solution to the problem, as the action is only available during the basic coverage period of the warranty. CAS also argued that the alleged failures are an unreasonable risk to safety and views Nissan's communications as not acknowledging the potential safety issue involved, instead treating the alleged problem as a performance update. The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) analyzed Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) complaints received from consumers and identified a total of 129 unique subject vehicle reports (for all submission dates) alleging a false positive triggering of AEB. Of these complaints, three were identified that contained allegations of a collision resulting from the activation of the system, and all three indicating related injuries. In response to ODI's April 15, 2019 Information Request letter, Nissan provided data indicating that it has received 750 unique subject vehicle complaints relating to false positive activation of the AEB system. Of these complaints, 12 were identified that contained allegations of a collision resulting from the activation of the system. Four complaints contained allegations of injuries, three of which were the result of a collision. These complaints included duplicates of complaints that ODI received. The injury allegations were limited to soft tissue type injuries such as whiplash and bruising. Based on its review of the information identified to date, ODI grants this petition and has opened preliminary evaluation PE19-010 in order to evaluate the cause, scope and frequency of AEB false positive activations, as well as to evaluate the suitability of the manufacturer's campaign to address the concern or improve performance of the AEB system. The complaints cited can be viewed at NHTSA.gov under the following ODI identification numbers: 11230875, 11230481, 11230361, 11229400, 11229302, 11229294, 11228994, 11223074, 11222925, 11222644, 11220499, 11218713, 11218608, 11217157, 11210334, 11210256, 11210148, 11209127, 11209032, 11207333, 11205931, 11205717, 11205661, 11205172, 11205124, 11205027, 11204803, 11204349, 11204324, 11196805, 11196561, 11196466, 11196091, 11195938, 11195574, 11194380, 11193989, 11192761, 11192283, 11192063, 11190855, 11190840, 11189976, 11187374, 11186903, 11185890, 11185883, 11185132, 11183406, 11180813, 11174713, 11173666, 11173302, 11172299, 11171331, 11170989, 11165434, 11164646, 11162898, 11162502, 11162396, 11161413, 11161230, 11155985, 11155209, 11155181, 11154181, 11153607, 11153334, 11151373, 11151028, 11142595, 11142557, 11142386, 11141775, 11141433, 11141387, 11141347, 11140604, 11139711, 11139226, 11133402, 11132376, 11130998, 11130662, 11129949, 11128704, 11124099, 11123564, 11123353, 11123321, 11122783, 11119475, 11119300, 11118604, 11115088, 11113479, 11113371, 11112371, 11111659, 11111057, 11110919, 11110689, 11104075, 11103844, 11103437, 11102715, 11102333, 11100117, 11099313, 11091006, 11089960, 11089798, 11089533, 11088815, 11088718, 11081072, 11079453, 11073644, 11072718, 11065505, 11061598, 11057739, 11056061, 11055766, 1104
A Defect Petition is a petition from a member of the public asking NHTSA to open a defect investigation; the agency grants or denies it and publishes the reasons. The summary is the agency’s own text from its investigation file, unedited; the resumes carrying the full reasoning are linked below.
The paperwork NHTSA filed
Source: every document on this action, at nhtsa.gov- Opening resume — ODI’s own summary of why it opened this — the subject, what prompted it, and the vehicles in scope.
- Closing resume — ODI’s own summary of why it closed this, and what it concluded.
| Document | Code | Filed | At NHTSA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opening resume | INOA | 2019 | |
| Closing resume | INCLA | 2019 | |
| Information request to the manufacturer | INIM | 2019 | |
| Manufacturer's response — data | INRD | 2019 | 37 files 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637 |
40 of 85 documents shown; the rest are under this number at nhtsa.gov.
These are NHTSA’s own files, served from the agency’s site — the resumes are what ODI wrote when it opened and closed the action, and the rest is the correspondence behind them, including what the manufacturer sent when the agency asked. They are linked, not copied: where a document names the people who wrote in, that redaction is the agency’s to make and its copy is the one you should read.
What owners had already reported
Source: complaints on file the day it openedWhen NHTSA opened this on Apr 8, 2019, owners had filed 344 complaints with the agency about the model years above, of which 64 named the forward collision avoidance NHTSA went on to investigate. Owner complaints are the agency’s main early signal: ODI screens them, and a Preliminary Evaluation is usually where a pattern in them ends up.
This is what the complaint file held on that date, not a claim about which reports prompted the investigation — NHTSA’s complaint records carry no investigation number, so nobody can make that link from the data alone. The opening resume linked above names the reports ODI itself cited. Complaint records on this site begin with 2016.
What this means for an owner
Source: and what happens nextAn investigation is not a finding that a defect exists, and it puts no duty on anyone. NHTSA opens a Preliminary Evaluation when complaints and other reports suggest a condition worth asking the manufacturer about; it upgrades to an Engineering Analysis when the answers warrant testing; it closes either when it recommends a recall, when the manufacturer recalls on its own, or when no defect trend is found. The agency’s own goals are about four months for a petition, eight for a Preliminary Evaluation or a Recall Query and eighteen for an Engineering Analysis; many run longer.
This one closed without a recall. That means NHTSA found no defect trend it chose to act on at the time, or the manufacturer addressed the condition another way (a service campaign or a bulletin, which have their own pages). A closed file can be reopened if new reports arrive.
Model years it names
Source: as NHTSA filed themA vehicle page’s investigation list carries the same action; a name here is the scope NHTSA opened, not a list of affected VINs.
Common questions
Source: NHTSA Office of Defects InvestigationIs DP19001 a recall?
No. A defect petition is NHTSA asking questions, not a recall. A safety recall carries an NHTSA campaign number and a duty to repair for free; this one closed without one. Whether one particular vehicle has an open recall is a VIN question at nhtsa.gov/recalls.
Is DP19001 still open?
No. It closed on Sep 16, 2019 without a recall.
Which vehicles does DP19001 cover?
NHTSA opened it on 2 model years: 2018 Nissan Rogue, 2017 Nissan Rogue. That is the scope of the inquiry, not a list of affected vehicles; a recall, if one follows, defines its own population by VIN.