|
|---|
|
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Publication: Federal Register Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Byline: Otto G. Matheke III Date: 26 August 2024 Subjects: American Government  , Safety
Topics: Audi, Volkswagen Golf |
[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