[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 142 (Monday, July 28, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35577-35579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-14122]



[[Page 35577]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0064; 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) 2018-2024 Audi SQ5, MY 2021-2024 Audi SQ5 
Sportback, MY 2018-2024 Audi Q5, and MY2021-2024 Audi Q5 Sportback 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 9, 2024, and 
subsequently petitioned NHTSA (the ``Agency'') on August 30, 2024, 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 August 27, 2025.

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: Kamna Ralhan, General Engineer, NHTSA, 
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (202) 366-6443.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    I. Overview: Volkswagen determined that certain MY 2018-2024 Audi 
SQ5, MY 2021-2024 Audi SQ5 Sportback, MY 2018-2024 Audi Q5, and MY 
2021-2024 Audi Q5 Sportback do not fully comply with paragraph S6(a) of 
FMVSS No. 118, Power-Operated Window, Partition, And Roof Panel 
Systems. (49 CFR 571.118).
    Volkswagen filed a noncompliance report dated August 9, 2024, 
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility 
and Reports. Volkswagen petitioned NHTSA on August 30, 2024, 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: Volkswagen reports that approximately 
460,169 of the following vehicles, manufactured between November 9, 
2016, to June 28, 2024, are potentially involved:

 MY 2018-2024 Audi SQ5
 MY 2021-2024 Audi SQ5 Sportback
 MY 2018-2024 Audi Q5
 MY 2021-2024 Audi Q5 Sportback

    III. Relevant FMVSS Requirements: Paragraph S6(a) FMVSS No. 118 
includes the requirements relevant to this petition. It requires that 
the actuation devices used to close power-operated windows must not 
begin to close an open window during a specific prescribed test. The 
test requires that a 20mm radius steel ball exerting 135 Newtons of 
force or less to any portion of the window actuation device cannot 
cause the window to actuate.
    IV. Noncompliance: Volkswagen found during internal testing that 
the switch for the driver's side window could actuate when tested in 
accordance with the conditions outlined in FMVSS No. 118 S6(a). 
Volkswagen found that the plastic material around the switch was able 
to flex enough to allow the 20mm radius steel ball to come into contact 
with and actuate the switch using 129.55 Newtons of force, causing the 
window to close.
    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 opens its petition by providing some background on the 
requirements and the testing conditions in question. Volkswagen states 
that the purpose of these requirements is to ``minimize the likelihood 
of death of injury from accidental operation of power operated 
windows'' caused by accidental kneeling or leaning on the power window 
switch. Volkswagen claims that the steel ball test required by 
paragraph S6 FMVSS No. 118 was enacted by NHTSA in 2004 to create a 
baseline measurement of safety from the

[[Page 35578]]

accidental closure of windows; however, the requirements of paragraph 
S6 do not apply if the automatic reversal requirements of paragraph S5 
of FMVSS No. 118 are met.
    Volkswagen claims that the type of switch installed in the subject 
vehicles are recognized by NHTSA to be significantly less dangerous 
than the switches that the steel ball test was designed to protect 
against in 2004. Volkswagen explains that the subject vehicles use a 
pull-to-close switch recessed into the control panel, rather than the 
``rocker'' or ``toggle'' switches that are flush with the control panel 
surface. To illustrate the recognized difference in risk, Volkswagen 
cites the FMVSS No. 118 final rule, in which NHTSA stated that the 
switch design is related to injuries where the vehicle occupants 
unintentionally close power windows by leaning against or kneeling or 
standing on power window switches. Volkswagen further explains that 
NHTSA recognized that virtually all of the vehicles involved in such 
injuries had ``rocker'' and ``toggle'' switches, which are more prone 
to accidental actuation than switches that must be lifted to close the 
window. The pull-to-close switches are considered resistant to 
inadvertent closure because incidental contact with those switches will 
not readily cause a window to close, rather, it may cause a window to 
open.
    Volkswagen notes that while the functionality and risk of 
accidental closure are different than the ``rocker'' or ``toggle,'' 
pull-to-close switches are still subject to the steel ball test 
required by paragraph S6 FMVSS No. 118.
    Volkswagen claims that this noncompliance is inconsequential to 
motor vehicle safety for eight reasons:
    1. The subject vehicles are equipped with pull-to-close window 
switches. Volkswagen states that, as already established by NHTSA's 
statements in the FMVSS No. 118 final rule, these switches are 
inherently resistant to accidental closure as accidental contact with 
these switches would cause the window to open, rather than close.
    2. Volkswagen states that, in addition to pull-to-close switches, 
the subject vehicles have door paneling specifically designed to make 
accidental closure even more unlikely. Volkswagen explains that the 
switches themselves are in a concave recession of the door handle and 
are surrounded by plastic and leather components. Volkswagen claims 
that these two features are recognized by NHTSA to limit the 
``situations in which contact with the switch could occur in a manner 
that would cause the window to close.'' Volkswagen believes the reason 
this is safer as elbows or knees would need to ``be small enough to fit 
within the concave portion of the door, within the recessed portion of 
the armrest, and within the distance between the switch and mirror 
control knob'' to touch the controls, much less open the window.
    3. Volkswagen's testing and simulations could not identify a real-
world scenario in which an accidental closure was likely to occur. 
Volkswagen hypothesized two scenarios where accidental contact with the 
switch could occur, but because of the design reasons stated above, 
Volkswagen believes either scenario would cause the window to open 
rather than close. Volkswagen provides some illustrations of the 
simulated scenarios in its petition where unintended contact with the 
switches could occur; essentially either scenario would require a child 
under the age of 3 weighing over 30.3 pounds to hit the switches at a 
particular angle in order to accidentally open the windows.
    4. Volkswagen claims its testing found that increasing the size of 
the 20mm steel ball required by the test by even a millimeter would 
require an amount of force to lift the switch up exceeding the 135 
Newtons specified by the test conditions in paragraph S6 of FMVSS No. 
118. This means that in a real-world scenario, anything larger than 
20mm would not activate the window switch with less than 135 Newtons of 
force.
    5. Volkswagen states that the switches in the subject vehicles 
comply with paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 118--in this case, meaning that 
the ignition key would need to be in the vehicle for the windows to 
operate. Volkswagen asserts that the purpose of this is to ensure that 
an occupant, presumably an adult, would be in the vehicle and would be 
able to supervise any child occupants. Also, the ignition, and by 
extension the window, is disabled after the driver opens the driver's 
side door and exits the vehicle (as per S4(e) of FMVSS No. 118). 
Volkswagen states that ``for a child under three to actuate the window 
in a manner described above, they would need to be unattended, 
unrestrained, the vehicle ignition would have to be active, and the 
driver would have to have exited without using the front two doors.'' 
Therefore, Volkswagen contends, the conditions for accidentally opening 
the window are exceedingly improbable.
    6. Volkswagen cites two granted petitions for noncompliance, one 
for Volkswagen in 1995 (60 FR 48197, Sept. 18, 1995), and one for 
Mitsubishi from 1999 (64 FR 1650, Jan. 11, 1999) to show that NHTSA has 
previously granted similar inconsequential noncompliance petitions. 
According to Volkswagen, NHTSA found that it was unlikely for an adult 
driver or passenger to exit the vehicle in a manner that would evade 
the requirements put in place by paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 118, and 
thereby leave an unsupervised child alone in the vehicle to potentially 
activate the power windows. Either the driver of the vehicles would 
have to exit the vehicle in an unlikely manner or there would still be 
an adult in the vehicle to supervise any children at risk of 
accidentally operating the window.
    7. Volkswagen states that the subject vehicles are equipped with a 
UN ECE R-21 complaint Automatic Reversal System (ARS). While this 
automatic reversal system's deflection rod ratio does not exactly align 
with paragraph S5 of FMVSS No. 118 ARS requirements, Volkswagen says 
NHTSA ``has acknowledged the safety effectiveness of any ARS, even 
those not specifically compliant to safety regulations.''
    8. Volkswagen states that is unaware of any reports of injuries, 
complaints, or field reports related to this issue for any of the 
500,000 Audi Q5 vehicles sold in the North American market or in any 
other market.
    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 35579]]


(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. 2025-14122 Filed 7-25-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P