[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 165 (Monday, August 26, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68491-68493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-19017]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2023-0054; Notice 1]


Volkswagen Group of 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: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (Volkswagen) has determined 
that certain model year (MY) 2014-2024 Volkswagen and Audi motor 
vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 118, Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel 
Systems. Volkswagen filed a noncompliance report dated August 2, 2023, 
and subsequently petitioned NHTSA (the ``Agency'') on August 24, 2023, 
for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it 
relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces receipt of 
Volkswagen's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before September 25, 2024.

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 may be 
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 dockets. 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).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frederick Smith, General Engineer, 
NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (202) 366-7487.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    I. Overview: Volkswagen determined that certain MY 2014-2024 
Volkswagen and Audi motor vehicles do not fully comply with paragraphs 
S4(d) and S4(g) of FMVSS No. 118, Power-Operated Window, Partition, and 
Roof Panel Systems (49 CFR 571.118).
    Volkswagen filed a noncompliance report dated August 2, 2023, 
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility 
and Reports. Volkswagen petitioned NHTSA on August 24, 2023, 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 Volkswagen's petition is published under 
49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or 
another exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 290,671 of the following 
Volkswagen and Audi motor vehicles, manufactured between June 10, 2014, 
and July 27, 2023, were reported by the manufacturer:

 MY 2022-2023 Volkswagen Golf R A8
 MY 2022-2023 Volkswagen Golf GTI
 2015-2024 Audi S3 Sedan
 2017-2024 Audi RS3 Sedan
 MY 2022-2023 Audi Q4 E-Tron SUV
 MY 2022-2023 Audi Q4 E-Tron Sportback
 MY 2019-2023 Audi Q3
 MY 2014 Audi A3 Sedan
 MY 2016-2018 Audi A3 E-Tron

    III. Noncompliance: Volkswagen explains that the subject vehicles 
are equipped with a ``convenience opening function,'' allowing drivers 
to lower the windows and move the roof panel system (``sunroof'') to a 
tilted, or vented, position while the vehicle and engine are off by 
continuously pressing the unlock button on the remote actuation device 
(``key fob''). The primary use of this feature is to replenish the in-
cabin air with fresh, cooler outside air on hot summer days. If the 
sunroof were open (in a non-tilted open position) prior to activation 
of the convenience opening function via the key fob, the sunroof would 
close before going into the vented position. The convenience opening 
function, which can cause the sunroof to close as described above, can 
be activated from distances that exceed those provided in paragraphs 
S4(d) and S4(g) of FMVSS No. 118. Further, Volkswagen states that the 
affected vehicles have a UNECE-compliant automatic reversal system 
(ARS) that does not meet the requirements for such systems set forth in 
S5 of the Standard.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraphs S4(d) and S4(g) of FMVSS No. 118 
include requirements for remote operation of power operated windows, 
partitions, or roof panels except for those which comply with the 
requirements in paragraph S5 of the Standard. Paragraph S4(d) of FMVSS 
No. 118 specifies that power operated window, partition, or roof panel 
systems may be closed by continuously activating a remote actuation 
device, provided that the device cannot close

[[Page 68492]]

them from a distance greater than 6 meters from the vehicle. Paragraph 
S4(g) states that these systems can be closed by continuous activation 
of a remote actuation device, provided that the device cannot close 
them if the vehicle and the device are separated by an opaque surface 
and the device cannot close them from a distance greater than 11 meters 
from the vehicle. Paragraph S5 of FMVSS No. 118 provides that any 
window, partition or roof panel system that can be closed in any manner 
not specified in S4 must have an ARS meeting all the requirements of 
S5.
    V. Summary of Volkswagen's Petition: The following views and 
arguments presented in this section, ``V. Summary of Volkswagen's 
Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by Volkswagen. They 
have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect the views of 
the Agency. Volkswagen describes the subject noncompliance and contends 
that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor 
vehicle safety.
    Volkswagen explains that paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 118 specifies 
conditions under which the sunroof can close under supervision. 
Paragraphs S4(d) and S4(g) provide the requirements relevant to the 
subject noncompliance. These paragraphs allow the closure of the 
sunroof by continuous activation of the key fob either within 6 meters 
of the vehicle or within 11 meters if the key fob and vehicle are 
separated by an opaque surface.
    However, Volkswagen says that its closure mechanism does not fit 
within the parameters specified in paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 118 or 
paragraph S5 which allows unsupervised closures of sunroofs equipped 
with an Automatic Reversal System (ARS) complying with the specific 
requirements of that section. Paragraph S5 of FMVSS No. 118 provides 
that the ARS must stop and reverse the sunroof's direction (1) before 
contacting a test rod or, (2) before exerting a squeezing force of 100 
Newtons on a semi-rigid test rod. The cylindrical test rods range in 
size from 4 mm to 200 mm and have deflection ratios of not less than 65 
N/mm for rods less than 25 mm and not less than 20 N/mm for rods larger 
than 25 mm in diameter.
    Volkswagen explains that the convenience opening feature leading to 
the subject noncompliance in the affected vehicles requires the driver 
to continuously and deliberately press the unlock button on the key fob 
to move the sunroof to a vented position. Volkswagen notes that if the 
operator releases the unlock button, the windows and sunroof stop 
moving. Volkswagen further explains that due to the absence of active 
feedback to the driver, such as on the key fob, regarding the sunroof's 
operation status, Volkswagen expects that drivers will only use this 
feature while the vehicle is in sight to confirm the completion of the 
desired action. Therefore, Volkswagen believes that there is little to 
no risk of accidental operation of the convenience opening feature. 
According to Volkswagen, if the driver left the vehicle with an 
occupant inside and then attempted to use the convenience opening 
feature, they could release the unlock button if they noticed any risk 
of injury to the occupants. If the driver did not release the unlock 
button, and the sunroof continued closing, the subject vehicle's ECE 
R21 compliant ARS is designed to mitigate the risk of injury to vehicle 
occupants.
    Volkswagen states that, in addition to the continuous activation 
required by the driver, the sunroof must be in the ``slid open'' 
position for the subject noncompliance to occur. However, in this 
scenario, Volkswagen believes that the driver would not use the 
convenience feature to refresh the in-cabin air, as this would have 
already been achieved if the driver left the vehicle with the sunroof 
open. If the driver closed the sunroof before turning off and exiting 
the vehicle, then the subject noncompliance would not occur because 
this feature would only move the sunroof to the vented position. 
Volkswagen believes that the driver would only be motivated to use this 
feature to refresh the in-cabin air on hot days. Further, Volkswagen 
notes that the opposite feature does not exist, meaning that the driver 
cannot close the sunroof by continuously pressing the lock button on 
the key fob. According to Volkswagen, this design prevents the driver 
from mistakenly using the sunroof opening feature to close the sunroof 
to protect the interior of the vehicle. Attempting to do so would also 
open the windows, while moving the sunroof to a vented position, which 
contradicts the intended purpose of refreshing the in-cabin air on hot 
days. Therefore, Volkswagen asserts that the driver is incentivized to 
use this feature only when the sunroof is already closed. Therefore, 
Volkswagen maintains that, when the sunroof is closed prior to 
activation of the convenience opening function, this feature fully 
complies with FMVSS No. 118, as it only allows the sunroof to open to 
the vented position.
    Volkswagen says that the affected vehicles are equipped with an ECE 
R21 compliant ARS, a safety system that has been effective in millions 
of vehicles worldwide. Additionally, Volkswagen cites NHTSA's 
acknowledgment of the safety effectiveness of all ARS, including those 
that do not explicitly comply with safety regulations. (74 FR 45143).
    Volkswagen further explains that the subject noncompliance only 
affects the sunroof and not the power operated windows, thereby 
reducing the risk of entrapment and injury. Volkswagen asserts that 
NHTSA, in granting a petition for a decision of inconsequential 
noncompliance, clarified that the greater risk of injury lies with the 
power windows, not the sunroof. (73 FR 22549).
    Volkswagen notes that NHTSA has granted prior petitions for 
inconsequential noncompliance involving FMVSS No. 118 noncompliances. 
Volkswagen cites NHTSA's granting of a petition by General Motors (73 
FR 22549) as an example. In that case, the sunroof was operational 
after the vehicle was turned off. Volkswagen says NHTSA concluded that 
the noncompliance was inconsequential to motor vehicle safety because 
the sequence was unlikely to occur, the condition did not affect the 
power windows, releasing the button stopped the sunroof closure, and 
General Motors reported no injuries. Volkswagen argues that the same 
conditions apply in this case.
    Volkswagen concludes by stating its belief that the subject 
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety 
and 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 that Volkswagen no 
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance 
existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve 
vehicle 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 under their control after 
Volkswagen notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.


[[Page 68493]]


(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. 2024-19017 Filed 8-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P