Nissan defect petition DP26003
Fuel smell and loss of motive power. NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation opened this defect petition about the engine and engine cooling on 1 model year (2006). Opened Mar 30, 2026, closed Oct 9, 2026 after 6 months without a recall. closed
What NHTSA says
Source: Office of Defects Investigation, as filedThe Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) has completed its review of a petition dated February 5, 2026, requesting an investigation into model year (MY) 2006 Nissan Frontier vehicles. The petition alleged that the vehicles pose an imminent fire hazard due to a powerful and persistent odor of raw gasoline emanating from the vehicle, indicating a breach in fuel system integrity. The petition also alleged that the vehicles can experience sudden engine stalling during startup and operation, creating an unreasonable risk of collision or loss of vehicle control. The petition further asserted these symptoms are identical to conditions addressed in previous NHTSA recalls (Recalls 10V-075, 07V-435, and 10V-517) arguing that the issues persist in the 2006 MY Nissan fleet despite these past actions and asserting that a safety defect is not subject to expiration. 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 time frames. ODI routinely distinguishes between a manufacturing or design defect and normal lifecycle wear-out, such as in Denial of DP18002, 87 FR16823, finding underbody component issues late in vehicle life to be indicative of normal wear and tear failures. Isolated component failures on high-age vehicles do not, in themselves, establish the presence of an actionable safety defect across a vehicle fleet. ODI conducted a technical review of available information, which included consumer complaint information, related recall information, and other relevant data in possession of the agency. After review, ODI determined the cited recall campaigns do not provide compelling support for the petition’s allegations. Recall 07V-435 pertained exclusively to model year 1997-2001 Nissan Pathfinder and Infiniti QX4 vehicles to address corrosion of the lower fuel filler tube bracket in specific salt-belt states and 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, and the Agency is not aware of a trend of fire complaints on subject vehicles with over 20 years of exposure. Recall 10V-075 addressed a fuel sender float arm contacting an internal tank embossment causing the fuel gauge on certain MY 2006 and 2008 Frontier vehicles to inaccurately display fuel level when empty. That campaign was directed strictly at instrument gauge accuracy and engine stalling from fuel exhaustion, not a physical fuel leak or breach of fuel system integrity. Recall 10V-17 addressed silicon oxide accumulation on Engine Control Module 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, and 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 10V-517. Associating general, late-life vehicle symptoms with historic recall campaigns on multi-decade-old vehicles does not satisfy the requirement to present specific data establishing a defect trend that poses an unreasonable risk to safety. 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 is more likely to represent routine wear and tear rather than an unaddressed safety defect trend. NHTSA does not believe that the issues presented indicate the likely existence of a safety-related defect that would warrant a formal investigation. After full consideration of the available information, and of NHTSA’s enforcement priorities, the petition is denied. NHTSA reserves the right to take additional action if warranted by future circumstances.
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 | 2026 | |
| Closing resume | INCLA | 2026 | |
| Filed document | INOV | 2026 | |
| Filed document | INDA | 2026 | |
| Filed document | INCV | 2026 | |
| Correspondence | INOT | 2026 | |
| Filed document | INFD | 2026 |
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 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 themAlso named: 2006 Nissan Frontier.
A 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 DP26003 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 DP26003 still open?
No. It closed on Oct 9, 2026 without a recall.
Which vehicles does DP26003 cover?
NHTSA opened it on 1 model year: 2006 Nissan Frontier. That is the scope of the inquiry, not a list of affected vehicles; a recall, if one follows, defines its own population by VIN.