Aston Martin Lagonda Limited; Partial Grant of Petition for Temporary Exemption From New Requirements of Standard No. 214, 64879-64883 [2014-25892]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Notices
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78).
Dated: October 23, 2014.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Julie P. Agarwal,
Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014–25954 Filed 10–30–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–81–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0032]
Aston Martin Lagonda Limited; Partial
Grant of Petition for Temporary
Exemption From New Requirements of
Standard No. 214
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
AGENCY:
Notice of partial grant of a
petition for a temporary exemption from
new requirements of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
214, Side Impact Protection.
ACTION:
In accordance with the
procedures in 49 CFR Part 555, NHTSA
is partially granting a petition from
Aston Martin Lagonda Limited (Aston
Martin), a small volume manufacturer,
for a temporary exemption from new
side impact protection requirements of
FMVSS No. 214. The agency is granting
the petitioner’s request for a temporary
exemption from the standard’s new pole
test requirements, limited to 670
vehicles. The basis for the grant is that
compliance would cause substantial
economic hardship to a low volume
manufacturer that has tried in good faith
to comply with the standard. In
accordance with NHTSA’s regulations,
prominent labels must be affixed to each
exempted vehicle to warn prospective
purchasers that the vehicle has been
exempted from the pole test
requirements.
However, NHTSA is denying the
petitioner’s separate request for a
temporary exemption from FMVSS No.
214’s moving deformable barrier (MDB)
test requirement. The agency does not
believe that the petitioner has shown a
need for such an exemption.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
This exemption from the pole
test requirements applies to the
following vehicles:
• DB9 coupe model produced from
September 1, 2014 until August 31,
2016;
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:51 Oct 30, 2014
Jkt 235001
• DB9 convertible model produced
from September 1, 2015 until August 31,
2016;
• Vantage coupe model produced
from September 1, 2014 until August 31,
2017; and
• Vantage convertible model
produced from September 1, 2015 until
August 31, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Deirdre R. Fujita, Office of the Chief
Counsel, NCC–112, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., West Building,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:
(202) 366–2992; Fax: (202) 366–3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA is
granting a request from Aston Martin for
a temporary exemption from FMVSS
No. 214’s new pole test requirements.
The basis for the grant is that
compliance would cause substantial
economic hardship to a low volume
manufacturer that has tried in good faith
to comply with the standard. NHTSA
finds that Aston Martin has made a good
faith effort to meet the pole test
requirements by, inter alia, installing
side air bags in its vehicles substantially
ahead of the date on which it was
required to do so by that standard.
Further, Aston Martin believes that its
test data indicate that its vehicles may
in fact pass the performance criteria of
the pole test with the current side air
bag. However, the petitioner believes
further that a tested vehicle did not
produce test results with a margin
sufficient to enable it to certify
compliance with the pole test.
NHTSA also concludes that denying
the petition regarding the pole test, thus
forcing a cessation of production until
the affected vehicles could be upgraded,
would cause petitioner substantial
economic hardship and that it is
warranted under Part 555 to provide the
petitioner time to produce vehicles with
a side air bag system that enables the
vehicle to pass the pole test requirement
with a greater margin.
I. Background
a. Statutory Authority for Temporary
Exemptions
The National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act)
recognizes that small manufacturers
have more limited resources and
capabilities than large manufacturers for
meeting NHTSA’s standards. The Safety
Act provides the Secretary of
Transportation authority to grant a
temporary exemption to a manufacturer
whose total motor vehicle production in
the most recent year of production is not
more than 10,000 vehicles, if the
exemption would be consistent with the
PO 00000
Frm 00139
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
64879
public interest and the Safety Act, and
compliance with the standard would
cause substantial economic hardship to
a manufacturer that has tried to comply
with the standard in good faith.1 Such
an exemption may be granted for not
more than 3 years (49 U.S.C. 30113(e)).2
NHTSA established 49 CFR Part 555,
Temporary Exemption from Motor
Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards,
to implement the statutory provisions
concerning temporary exemptions.
Under Part 555, a petitioner must
provide specified information in
submitting a petition for exemption.
Among other matters, the petitioner
must set forth the basis of the
application and a description of its
efforts to comply with the standards.
b. FMVSS No. 214
In 2007, NHTSA published a final
rule upgrading FMVSS No. 214.3 The
rule incorporated a dynamic pole test
into the standard, requiring vehicle
manufacturers to assure head and
improved chest protection in side
crashes by technologies such as head
protection side air bags and torso side
air bags. The final rule adopted use of
two advanced test dummies in the new
pole test, one called the ES–2re
representing mid-size males, and the
other called the SID–IIs, which
represents small stature females. The
final rule also enhanced the standard’s
MDB test by replacing the then-existing
50th percentile adult male dummy used
in the front seat of tested vehicles with
the more biofidelic ES–2re dummy and
by using the SID–IIs dummy in the rear
seat.
The pole and enhanced MDB test
requirements were phased in, starting in
2010 for most vehicles (see S13 4), but
manufacturers producing or assembling
fewer than 5,000 vehicles annually for
sale in the United States had a different
1 This authority is set forth at 49 U.S.C. 30113.
The Secretary has delegated the authority for
implementing this section to NHTSA.
2 The Safety Act expressly provides for renewal
of an exemption on reapplication. A renewal under
subsection (b)(3)(B)(i) may be granted for not more
than 3 years. However, NHTSA cautions
manufacturers that the agency’s decision to grant an
initial petition in no way predetermines that the
agency will repeatedly grant renewal petitions,
thereby imparting semi-permanent status to an
exemption from a safety standard. Exempted
manufacturers seeking renewal must bear in mind
that the agency is directed to consider financial
hardship as but one factor. We also consider the
manufacturer’s ongoing good faith efforts to comply
with the regulation, the public interest, consistency
with the Safety Act generally, as well as other such
matters provided in the statute.
3 72 FR 51908 (September 11, 2007); response to
petitions for reconsideration 73 FR 32473 (June 9,
2008), 75 FR 12123 (March 15, 2010).
4 References in this paragraph are to sections in
FMVSS No. 214.
E:\FR\FM\31OCN1.SGM
31OCN1
64880
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Notices
schedule (see S9.1.3(a)(1) and
S7.2.4(a)(1)). These manufacturers were
excluded from the phase-in of the pole
test requirements but are required to
certify the compliance of vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1,
2014. For convertibles, the pole test
applies to vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2015 (S9.1.3(d)(1)).
The enhanced MDB test requirement
has the same phase-in schedule and
compliance dates as the pole test (see
MDB requirements, S7.2.1, S7.2.4(a),
and S7.2.4(a)(3)).
With regard to the phase-in, Aston
Martin manufactures approximately
4,000 Aston Martin brand vehicles per
year worldwide. Thus, the requirements
that are the subject of the petition are
FMVSS No. 214’s pole and enhanced
MDB requirements applying to the
petitioner’s sedans (coupes)
manufactured on or after September 1,
2014, and to its convertibles
manufactured on or after September 1,
2015.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
c. Overview of Petition 5
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113
and the procedures in 49 CFR Part 555,
Aston Martin petitioned NHTSA
requesting a temporary exemption from
the pole test requirements and enhanced
MDB test of FMVSS No. 214. The basis
for the application is that compliance
would cause Aston Martin substantial
economic hardship and that the
petitioner has tried in good faith to
comply with the standard.
Aston Martin has asked for a
temporary exemption for two of its four
vehicle models, the DB9 and Vantage.
At the time NHTSA issued the pole test
and enhanced MDB test requirements in
2007, Aston Martin was planning a new
generation of the DB9 and Vantage
models. Aston Martin’s plan was to: (a)
Replace the DB9 and Vantage models
with new generation models that would
meet the new requirements by the 2014
compliance date; and (b) apply its
resources toward redesigning two other
models (the Vanquish and Rapide S),
that were not scheduled for replacement
before 2014, to achieve compliance with
the requirements by 2014.
However, ‘‘because of little market
recovery since 2009,’’ 6 Aston Martin’s
sales volumes have not been sufficient
to fund the first part of the original plan,
5 Aston Martin originally submitted a petition in
July 2013, and then resubmitted its petition in
November 2013. A copy of the November 6, 2013
petition is in the docket for this document. To view
the petition, go to https://www.regulations.gov and
enter Docket Number NHTSA–2014–0032. A
summary is also provided in NHTSA’s notice of
receipt of the petition, 79 FR 17231, infra.
6 Aston Martin petition for temporary exemption,
p. 18.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:51 Oct 30, 2014
Jkt 235001
and the DB9 and Vantage models ‘‘now
have to remain in production slightly
longer than anticipated.’’ 7 The
petitioner states that due to funding
constraints, Aston Martin could not
initiate the start of FMVSS No. 214
compliance programs on the next
generation DB9 and Vantage vehicles
until April 2013, when the company
received funds from an investor that
could be used to deliver the next
generation of vehicles. The petitioner
states: ‘‘This capital increase did not
include monies for FMVSS 214
compliance for DB9 & Vantage car lines
as the next generation of models were
originally planned to be launched in
August 2014.’’ 8 Aston Martin states it
needs the exemption to continue
production of the DB9 and Vantage for
the U.S. market until the replacement
generation vehicles are ready.
Aston Martin requested that
approximately 670 vehicles be covered
by the exemption. Aston Martin believes
that the cost of meeting the pole and
enhanced MDB requirements for these
vehicles ‘‘would be cost prohibitive
given that these models will cease USA
production in the near term and the cost
of amortization over the approximately
670 cars at issue would be economically
infeasible.’’ 9
The petition requests an exemption
for the following periods:
• DB9 coupe model production from
September 1, 2014 until August 31,
2016;
• DB9 convertible model production
from September 1, 2015 until August 31,
2016;
• Vantage coupe model production
from September 1, 2014 until August 31,
2017; and,
• Vantage convertible model
production from September 1, 2015
until August 31, 2017.
Petitioner’s Assertion That Granting the
Petition Is in the Public Interest
Aston Martin asserts that the
requested exemption is consistent with
the public interest for the following
reasons.
1. Aston Martin states that it knows of
no deaths or serious injuries that were
7 Id.,
p. 11.
exhibit 6, p. 2.
9 The petitioner has provided engineering and
financial information demonstrating how
compliance or failure to obtain an exemption would
cause substantial economic hardship; a description
of its efforts to comply with the standards; why it
believes granting the petition is in the public
interest; a discussion of alternate means of
compliance considered; a description of the steps
it will take while the exemption is in effect and the
estimated date by which full compliance will be
achieved. The petitioner provided confidential
production figures in support of its claims.
8 Id.,
PO 00000
Frm 00140
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
associated with side impact events or
related to the current FMVSS No. 214
protection system in current DB9 and
Vantage models. Further, the petitioner
also states that 10—
the pole tests that Aston Martin has
performed on a DB9 test car did in fact pass
the minimum pole test requirements in
FMVSS 214. However, Aston Martin cannot
self-certify compliance on the basis of a
single test with the margin of pass obtained
in that test. . . . Nonetheless the pass does
indicate that the risk to the public in the
existent car would not be contrary to the
public interest.
2. Denial would force removal of a
vehicle currently sold in the U.S.
3. The number of vehicles to be sold
in the U.S. during the exemption period
is very low and the number of annual
miles driven in Aston Martin vehicles is
very low (on average 2,617 miles).11
4. Granting the exemption would
protect consumer choice.12
5. The current DB9 and Vantage
models comply with all FMVSSs other
than the requirements of FMVSS No.
214 that are the subject of the petition,
and meet the requirements of the
upgraded roof crush resistance standard
(FMVSS No. 216) ahead of the
September 1, 2015 compliance date for
the vehicles (final rule upgrading
FMVSS No. 216, 74 FR 22348, May 12,
2009).
6. Aston Martin refers to a decision by
NHTSA to grant a Lotus request for a
temporary exemption from FMVSS No
208 and states that the agency made
clear that a limited exemption is
considered to be far more in the public
interest compared to a broad waiver.
Aston Martin states: ‘‘The request here
is precisely so limited.’’ 13
7. The denial of the exemption
request would have a negative effect on
U.S. employment.14
10 The petitioner provided the values recorded by
the test dummy in the crash test.
11 The petitioner refers to a 2006 decision by
NHTSA to grant a request for a temporary
exemption from Ferrari (71 FR 29389) (‘‘Ferrari
grant’’), in which NHTSA noted that the low
number of vehicles affected by the exemption (less
than 2,000) and the low number of annual miles
driven in the vehicles were factors supporting a
finding that the exemption will have a negligible
impact on motor vehicle safety.
12 On this point, the petitioner cites the 2006
Ferrari grant and includes the following statement
from NHTSA: ‘‘As discussed in previous decisions
on temporary exemption applications, the agency
believes that the public interest is served by
affording consumers a wider variety of motor
vehicle choices.’’ (71 FR at 29390.)
13 Aston Martin petition for temporary
exemption, p. 12. The petitioner did not provide a
citation for ‘‘the recent Lotus decision’’ but we
assume the reference is to NHTSA’s document at 78
FR 15114, March 8, 2013, infra.
14 Aston Martin references the Ferrari grant, in
which NHTSA stated (71 FR at 29390): ‘‘We note
E:\FR\FM\31OCN1.SGM
31OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Notices
II. Notice of Receipt and Summary of
Comments
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
On March 27, 2014, NHTSA
published in the Federal Register (79
FR 17231; Docket No. NHTSA–2014–
0032) a notice of receipt of Aston
Martin’s petition for a temporary
exemption, and provided an
opportunity for public comment.
NHTSA received no comments
opposing the petition.
Over 40 comments were received
supporting the petition.15 These
comments were from the Aston Martin
dealers in the U.S., many of their
employees, and some Aston Martin
owners. Each of the dealers emphasized
strong concerns about the negative
impact that elimination of the DB9 and
Vantage models would have on their
dealerships,16 as the dealers would be
restricted in their product range and
would only be able to sell Vanquish and
Rapide S, which, the commenters
asserted, would impact their ability to
maintain a financially viable operation.
All of the dealers expressed alarm about
the impact that a denial of the petition
would have on all tiers of
employment 17 at their place of business
and in their community.18 All of the
dealers emphasized that jobs would be
lost at their dealership if the DB9 and
Vantage models could not be sold.
Employees who commented expressed
worry about their jobs if the petition
were denied. Many dealers expressed
concern about the effect of a denial on
present and future customer support,19
as the ‘‘Thinning of our network could
expose customers to complete loss of
ownership support—ex. loss of the
Seattle store would place next closest
store in [San Francisco] area 850 miles
away.’’ 20
Aston Martin Washington DC dealer
principal James R. Walker states in his
comment 21 that currently, Aston Martin
dealers are ‘‘barely profitable’’ and that
franchise composition is fragile. Mr.
that Ferrari is a well-established company with a
small but not insignificant U.S. presence and we
believe that an 85 percent sales reduction would
negatively affect U.S. employment. Specifically,
reduction in sales would likely affect employment
not only at Ferrari North America, but also at
Ferrari dealers, repair specialists, and several small
service providers that transport Ferrari vehicles
from the port of entry to the rest of the United
States. Traditionally, the agency has concluded that
the public interest is served in affording continued
employment to the petitioner’s U.S. work force.’’
15 In this section, we refer to comments by their
entry number in Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0032.
16 See, e.g., comment 0028.
17 See, e.g., comments 0020 and 0032.
18 Comment 0028.
19 Comment 0048.
20 Comment 0003.
21 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:51 Oct 30, 2014
Jkt 235001
Walker believes that the loss of sales of
the DB9 and Vantage could very likely
result in some dealers deciding to
‘‘shutter the franchise,’’ which would
result in a significant impact on
employment. The commenter estimates
that if dealers decide to ‘‘shutter’’
franchises, 230 Aston Martin employees
in the U.S. would face the loss of their
jobs, along with a ‘‘substantial number’’
of another 300 jobs that are in part
supported by Aston Martin.
Agency Decision
a. Pole Test Requirement
NHTSA is granting Aston Martin’s
request for a temporary exemption from
FMVSS No. 214’s new pole test
requirements.
The granting of hardship exemptions
from FMVSSs is conditioned on the
agency’s finding that the petitioning
manufacturer has ‘‘tried to comply with
the standard in good faith.’’ 22 A
petitioning manufacturer’s effort to
comply with the standard from which
exemption is sought is thus extremely
important to NHTSA when considering
a hardship exemption.
On March 8, 2013, NHTSA granted a
temporary exemption petition request
from Group Lotus plc (Lotus) regarding
an advanced air bag requirement 23 of
FMVSS No. 208, ‘‘Occupant crash
protection.’’ While NHTSA granted the
petition, the agency did so while
emphasizing an evolved agency view of
such petitions.24 The advanced air bag
requirement had engendered a number
of hardship petitions from small volume
manufacturers, which typically were
granted when the manufacturer had
supplied standard air bags instead of
advanced air bags. However, as time
went on and the years passed following
adoption of the advanced air bag
requirements, NHTSA decided it was
not in the public interest to continue to
grant exemptions from the requirements
‘‘under the same terms as in the past.’’ 25
NHTSA stated in the Lotus notice (78
FR at 15115)—
In deciding whether to grant an exemption
based on substantial economic hardship and
good faith efforts, NHTSA considers the steps
that the manufacturer has already taken to
achieve compliance, as well as the future
steps the manufacturer plans to take during
U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i).
2000, NHTSA published a final rule that
upgraded FMVSS No. 208’s requirements for air
bags in passenger cars and light trucks, requiring
what are commonly known as ‘‘advanced air bags.’’
See final rule at 65 FR 30680, May 12, 2000.
24 78 FR 15114.
25 78 FR at 15115, col. 2. See also denial of
petition of Pagani Automobili SpA, 76 FR 47641,
August 5, 2011.
64881
the exemption period and the estimated date
by which full compliance will be achieved.26
That announcement was made in the
context of the advanced air bag hardship
petitions relating to the May 2000 final
rule. The majority of the petitions then
before the agency were petitions for
extension of previously granted
exemptions. The advanced air bag
exemption requests contrast somewhat
with Aston Martin’s request for an
exemption from the FMVSS No. 214
pole test requirement, since the latter is
a new requirement adopted in 2007.
Nonetheless, the announcement in the
Lotus notice signaled that the agency
has sharpened its focus on the effort that
manufacturers make to achieve
compliance when claiming financial
hardship in meeting a standard.
With that background in mind,
NHTSA has analyzed Aston Martin’s
petition and the effort that the petitioner
made to meet the pole test requirement.
NHTSA believes that the petitioner has
tried to comply with the pole test
requirement in good faith.
The FMVSS No. 214 pole test requires
vehicle manufacturers to provide head
and improved chest protection in side
crashes. Manufacturers currently meet
the pole test requirement by way of side
air bag technology. Installing a side air
bag in a vehicle that does not have a
side air bag is an intensive endeavor
involving extensive redesign of the
vehicle’s side structure and seating
system, and includes installation of side
impact sensors that sense when to
deploy the side air bag and sensors that
monitor side air bag readiness. In short,
installation of side air bags involves a
significant investment of effort,
planning, resources, and vehicle
redesign.
In 2006, Aston Martin began installing
side air bags in the DB9 and Vantage
model vehicles. Side air bags were
considered advanced technology at the
time and were generally not needed to
meet the FMVSSs that had applied to
passenger vehicles. Yet, motor vehicle
manufacturers began incorporating side
air bag technology in response to
NHTSA’s call for action to improve
vehicle compatibility in vehicle-tovehicle crashes of higher-riding light
trucks and vans (LTVs) with passenger
cars.27 The voluntary installation of side
22 49
23 In
PO 00000
Frm 00141
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26 49
CFR 555.6(a)(2). [Footnote in text.]
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on
the FMVSS No. 214 pole test, 69 FR 27990, 27995;
May 17, 2004. NHTSA’s call for action resulted in
a ‘‘voluntary industry commitment’’ by vehicle
manufacturers in 2003 to enhance occupant
protection in side crashes of LTVs into passenger
cars by accelerating the installation of side impact
air bags.
27 See
E:\FR\FM\31OCN1.SGM
31OCN1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
64882
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Notices
impact air bags by vehicle
manufacturers prior to a Federal
mandate was considered by NHTSA to
be a laudable industry initiative to meet
the goal of saving lives ‘‘sooner than
through the traditional regulatory
approach.’’ 28
Aston Martin’s installation of side air
bags in the DB9 and Vantage model
vehicles involved a significant
investment of work and resources on the
part of the petitioner. We conclude that
the petitioner’s installation of the safety
countermeasures 8 years ahead of the
September 1, 2014 effective date of the
final rule is evidence of a good faith
effort to meet the pole test requirement.
In 2011, the manufacturer crash tested
a DB9 coupe in an FMVSS No. 214 pole
test and found that that the performance
was not with a margin sufficient to
enable Aston Martin to certify
compliance with the pole test. Yet, data
from the test show that ES–2re dummy
readings were actually below the
performance threshold of FMVSS No.
214. The ‘‘passing’’ values obtained
from the test are further evidence of the
petitioner’s good faith effort to meet the
pole test requirement.
We note that the petitioner has asked
for a 3-year exemption for just one of the
models (Vantage Coupe) and only a
1- to 2-year exemption for the other 3
models covered by the petition. These
short periods indicate that the petitioner
is expeditiously working toward
producing fully compliant next
generation DB9 and Vantage vehicles
and that the exemption requested is just
for a relatively short term. In addition,
Aston Martin indicates that it is
engineering the next generation DB9
replacement coupe to meet the
requirements of FMVSS No. 226,
Ejection Mitigation, a year earlier than
required by that standard.29 These
factors are positive indicators of the
effort Aston Martin plans to make
during the exemption period to produce
newly designed and fully compliant
DB9 and Vantage models.
After considering Aston Martin’s early
installation of side air bags, the
performance of the current side air bags
and petitioner’s progress toward
producing the next generation DB9 and
Vantage models, we believe that Aston
Martin has tried to comply with the pole
test requirement in good faith. Granting
the petition on the pole test provides
Aston Martin additional time to build
on its efforts and achieve greater
margins in passing the pole test, which
28 Id.
29 Aston
Martin petition for temporary
exemption, p. 11.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:51 Oct 30, 2014
Jkt 235001
the petitioner believes it needs to fully
certify the vehicles to FMVSS No. 214.
A grant is consistent with the Safety
Act. NHTSA searched the Fatality
Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and
the National Automotive Sampling
System Crashworthiness Data System
(NASS–CDS) data for years 2000 to the
present. The FARS and NASS–CDS
databases do not contain any instance in
which Aston Martin vehicles were
involved in side crashes resulting in
injury or fatality. This information, and
the fact that the DB9 and Vantage
vehicles already have side impact air
bags, support our finding that an
exemption will have a negligible impact
on motor vehicle safety.
Several factors support a finding that
granting Aston Martin’s exemption
regarding the pole test is in the public
interest. The number of vehicles at issue
is 670. Further, we agree with Aston
Martin that the relatively low number of
miles driven by the vehicle because of
its nature as a second vehicle will mean
that the vehicle is less likely to be
involved in a crash than a vehicle that
is the primary means of transportation.
Further, denial of the request would
remove a vehicle that is currently being
sold in the U.S. market. Given that the
DB9 and Vantage models comprise two
of the four models produced by Aston
Martin, the withdrawal of the models
from the market would appreciably
reduce Aston Martin’s presence in the
U.S. for a significant period.30 Denial of
the petition would create hardship for
U.S. workers. NHTSA has given due
consideration to the comments in the
docket from affected Aston Martin
dealers and their employees. A grant
will avoid the possibility of job losses
and other negative consequences at U.S.
dealerships, such as possible closure of
some servicing facilities which could
negatively affect the ability of customers
to service, maintain, and fix any
problems with their vehicles in a timely
manner.
We also conclude that Aston Martin
demonstrated the requisite potential
financial hardship. The petitioner has
had a cumulative net loss position over
the past several years. Denial of the
petition would require Aston Martin to
expend a large amount of capital to
modify the DB9 and Vantage right
before the model year change or would
force the petitioner to cease sales of the
vehicles in the U.S. Either outcome
would cause substantial economic
hardship to the petitioner.
30 NHTSA has traditionally found that the public
interest is served by affording consumers the choice
of a wider variety of motor vehicles.
PO 00000
Frm 00142
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
After considering all of the relevant
information, we have decided to grant
Aston Martin a temporary exemption
from the pole test of FMVSS No. 214 for
the periods designated at the beginning
of this document in the DATES section.
However, the total number of vehicles
that may be produced under this
exemption is limited to 670.
We note that, as explained below,
prospective purchasers of the exempted
vehicles will be notified that the
vehicles are exempted from the pole test
of FMVSS No. 214. Under 49 CFR
555.9(b), a manufacturer of an exempted
passenger car must securely affix to the
windshield or side window of each
exempted vehicle a label containing a
statement that the vehicle conforms to
all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the
date of manufacture ‘‘except for
Standard Nos. [listing the standards by
number and title for which an
exemption has been granted] exempted
pursuant to NHTSA Exemption
No. ______.’’ This label notifies
prospective purchasers about the
exemption and its subject. Under
§ 555.9(c), this information must also be
included on the vehicle’s certification
label.
The text of § 555.9 does not expressly
indicate how the required statement on
the two labels should read in situations
in which an exemption covers part, but
not all, of a FMVSS. In this case, we
believe that a statement that the vehicle
has been exempted from Standard No.
214 generally, without an indication
that the exemption is limited to the pole
test provision, could be misleading. A
consumer might incorrectly believe that
the vehicle has been exempted from all
of FMVSS No. 214’s requirements. For
this reason, we believe the two labels
should read in relevant part, ‘‘except for
the pole test of Standard No. 214, Side
Impact Protection, exempted pursuant
to * * *.’’
In accordance with 49 U.S.C.
30113(b)(3)(B)(i), Aston Martin is
granted NHTSA Temporary Exemption
No. EX 14–01, from the pole test
requirement of 49 CFR 571.214 for the
DB9 and Vantage models. The
exemption is for no more than 670
vehicles and it shall remain effective for
the periods designated at the beginning
of this document in the DATES section.
b. MDB Requirement
Aston Martin also requested an
exemption for the DB9 and Vantage
vehicles from FMVSS No. 214’s
amended MDB test requirement. The
basis for the request appears to be to
E:\FR\FM\31OCN1.SGM
31OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Notices
basis for the request appears to be to
allow the petitioner to avoid having 31—
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
to test pole-exempted models for new MDB
compliance—and possibly have to reengineer
to achieve satisfactory results. Then, before
the pole test exemption ended, Aston Martin
would have to retest and reengineer these
pole-exempted models for A SECOND TIME,
in order to achieve both new MDB and Pole
test compliance. NHTSA clearly sought to
allow lead time to avoid this double burden.
[Emphasis in text.]
Surface Transportation Board
The agency is denying Aston Martin’s
request to be exempted from the MDB
requirement. We conclude that an
exemption is not necessary on the basis
of the information before it. Aston
Martin submitted FMVSS No. 214 MDB
test data 32 of a DB9 Volante convertible,
Vantage coupe, and Vantage Roadster
convertible tested with the mid-size
adult male side impact dummy (SID)
that FMVSS No. 214 had specified for
use in the MDB test prior to the ES–2re.
The data show that the vehicles appear
to have passed the performance
thresholds of FMVSS No. 214’s MDB
test by a wide margin with the SID.
In the final rule adopting the new
MDB requirements into FMVSS No. 214
(requirements which use the ES–2re),
NHTSA set forth findings indicating
that manufacturers would likely not
need to modify vehicles to meet the new
MBD requirements when using the
ES–2re in place of the SID.33 Moreover,
data indicate that vehicles that pass the
MDB requirement using the SID will
likely pass the MDB test using the ES–
2re. The DB9 and Vantage models have
easily passed the MDB test using the
SID. Thus, we believe that data indicate
the DB9 and Vantage models will pass
the MDB test with the ES–2re and do
not need a temporary exemption from
the new MDB requirement. Accordingly,
NHTSA is denying petitioner’s request
for an exemption from the new MDB
requirement due to an absence of
information showing such an exemption
is needed.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
Dated: October 22, 2014.
David J. Friedman,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014–25892 Filed 10–30–14; 8:45 am]
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
31 See Aston Martin petition for temporary
exemption, p. 5.
32 Accorded confidential treatment by NHTSA.
33 NHTSA believed that vehicle modifications
would likely result from adding the SID–IIs 5th
percentile adult female dummy to the rear seat of
the MDB test. See 72 FR at 51947. The SID–IIs is
not used in tests of Aston Martin vehicles because
the vehicles do not have a rear seat or one large
enough to accommodate the SID–IIs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Oct 30, 2014
Jkt 235001
[Docket No. FD 35866]
Massachusetts Department of
Transportation—Acquisition
Exemption—Certain Assets of
Housatonic Railroad Company, Inc.
The Massachusetts Department of
Transportation (MassDOT), a noncarrier,
has filed a verified notice of exemption
under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire from
Housatonic Railroad Company, Inc.
(HRRC) and Maybrook Railroad
Company (MRC) 1 certain railroad assets
comprising a section of the ‘‘Berkshire
Line,’’ extending from approximately
milepost 50.0 at the MassachusettsConnecticut border at Sheffield, Mass.,
to a connection with CSX
Transportation, Inc., at approximately
milepost 86.3 at Pittsfield, Mass., a
distance of approximately 36.3 miles
(the Line).
According to MassDOT, the
acquisition of the Line is intended to
facilitate the Commonwealth’s longterm plans to restore regional passenger
train service linking the Berkshire
region of western Massachusetts with
the New York City metropolitan area
and the Northeast Corridor megalopolis.
MassDOT states that the acquisition of
the Line is one step in what MassDOT
anticipates will be an involved, multistep process that ultimately will lead to
the establishment of a new railroad
passenger service route in the Northeast.
MassDOT states that, pursuant to a draft
Purchase and Sale Contract, MassDOT
has secured the right to purchase MRC’s
and HRRC’s respective rights, title, and
interest in the right-of-way, trackage,
and other physical assets (such as
signboard and fiber optics unrelated to
the provision of common carrier freight
service) associated with the Line,
subject to HRRC’s retained exclusive,
irrevocable, perpetual, assignable,
divisible, licensable, and transferable
freight railroad operating easement.
MassDOT also states that it will not
acquire the right, nor will it have the
ability, to provide rail common carrier
service over the Line.2 According to
MassDOT, the agreements governing the
subject asset sale and post-transaction
railroad operations preclude MassDOT
1 MassDOT
states that MRC is not a rail carrier for
purposes of the present transaction and, therefore,
is not listed in the proceeding caption.
2 A motion to dismiss the notice of exemption on
grounds that the transaction does not require
authorization from the Board was concurrently filed
with this notice of exemption. The motion to
dismiss will be addressed in a subsequent Board
decision.
PO 00000
Frm 00143
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
64883
from interfering materially with the
provision of railroad common carrier
service over the Line. MassDOT,
however, will be entitled in the future
to initiate (itself, or through a
designated third party) intercity
passenger service and regional
commuter rail service over the Line.
MassDOT states that the proposed
transaction does not involve any
provision or agreement that would limit
future interchange with a third-party
connecting carrier.
MassDOT certifies that, because it
will conduct no freight operations on
the line segment being acquired, its
revenues from freight operations will
not result in the creation of a Class I or
Class II carrier.
MassDOT also states that the parties
expect to consummate the transaction
on or about December 15, 2014, which
is after the effective date of November
15, 2014.
If the verified notice contains false or
misleading information, the exemption
is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the
exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)
may be filed at any time. The filing of
a petition to revoke will not
automatically stay the effectiveness of
the exemption. Petitions to stay must be
filed no later than November 7, 2014 (at
least seven days before the exemption
becomes effective).
An original and ten copies of all
pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD
35866, must be filed with the Surface
Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20423–0001. In
addition, a copy of each pleading must
be served on Robert A. Wimbish,
Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker
Drive, Suite 920, Chicago, IL 60606–
2832.
Board decisions and notices are
available on our Web site at
www.stb.dot.gov.
Decided: October 28, 2014.
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell,
Director, Office of Proceedings.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2014–25938 Filed 10–30–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Docket No. FD 35523]
CSX Transportation, Inc.—Joint Use—
Louisville & Indiana Railroad
Company, Inc.
AGENCY:
Surface Transportation Board,
DOT.
E:\FR\FM\31OCN1.SGM
31OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 211 (Friday, October 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64879-64883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25892]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0032]
Aston Martin Lagonda Limited; Partial Grant of Petition for
Temporary Exemption From New Requirements of Standard No. 214
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of partial grant of a petition for a temporary exemption
from new requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 214, Side Impact Protection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures in 49 CFR Part 555, NHTSA is
partially granting a petition from Aston Martin Lagonda Limited (Aston
Martin), a small volume manufacturer, for a temporary exemption from
new side impact protection requirements of FMVSS No. 214. The agency is
granting the petitioner's request for a temporary exemption from the
standard's new pole test requirements, limited to 670 vehicles. The
basis for the grant is that compliance would cause substantial economic
hardship to a low volume manufacturer that has tried in good faith to
comply with the standard. In accordance with NHTSA's regulations,
prominent labels must be affixed to each exempted vehicle to warn
prospective purchasers that the vehicle has been exempted from the pole
test requirements.
However, NHTSA is denying the petitioner's separate request for a
temporary exemption from FMVSS No. 214's moving deformable barrier
(MDB) test requirement. The agency does not believe that the petitioner
has shown a need for such an exemption.
DATES: This exemption from the pole test requirements applies to the
following vehicles:
DB9 coupe model produced from September 1, 2014 until
August 31, 2016;
DB9 convertible model produced from September 1, 2015
until August 31, 2016;
Vantage coupe model produced from September 1, 2014 until
August 31, 2017; and
Vantage convertible model produced from September 1, 2015
until August 31, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deirdre R. Fujita, Office of the Chief
Counsel, NCC-112, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:
(202) 366-2992; Fax: (202) 366-3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA is granting a request from Aston
Martin for a temporary exemption from FMVSS No. 214's new pole test
requirements. The basis for the grant is that compliance would cause
substantial economic hardship to a low volume manufacturer that has
tried in good faith to comply with the standard. NHTSA finds that Aston
Martin has made a good faith effort to meet the pole test requirements
by, inter alia, installing side air bags in its vehicles substantially
ahead of the date on which it was required to do so by that standard.
Further, Aston Martin believes that its test data indicate that its
vehicles may in fact pass the performance criteria of the pole test
with the current side air bag. However, the petitioner believes further
that a tested vehicle did not produce test results with a margin
sufficient to enable it to certify compliance with the pole test.
NHTSA also concludes that denying the petition regarding the pole
test, thus forcing a cessation of production until the affected
vehicles could be upgraded, would cause petitioner substantial economic
hardship and that it is warranted under Part 555 to provide the
petitioner time to produce vehicles with a side air bag system that
enables the vehicle to pass the pole test requirement with a greater
margin.
I. Background
a. Statutory Authority for Temporary Exemptions
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act)
recognizes that small manufacturers have more limited resources and
capabilities than large manufacturers for meeting NHTSA's standards.
The Safety Act provides the Secretary of Transportation authority to
grant a temporary exemption to a manufacturer whose total motor vehicle
production in the most recent year of production is not more than
10,000 vehicles, if the exemption would be consistent with the public
interest and the Safety Act, and compliance with the standard would
cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried to
comply with the standard in good faith.\1\ Such an exemption may be
granted for not more than 3 years (49 U.S.C. 30113(e)).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This authority is set forth at 49 U.S.C. 30113. The
Secretary has delegated the authority for implementing this section
to NHTSA.
\2\ The Safety Act expressly provides for renewal of an
exemption on reapplication. A renewal under subsection (b)(3)(B)(i)
may be granted for not more than 3 years. However, NHTSA cautions
manufacturers that the agency's decision to grant an initial
petition in no way predetermines that the agency will repeatedly
grant renewal petitions, thereby imparting semi-permanent status to
an exemption from a safety standard. Exempted manufacturers seeking
renewal must bear in mind that the agency is directed to consider
financial hardship as but one factor. We also consider the
manufacturer's ongoing good faith efforts to comply with the
regulation, the public interest, consistency with the Safety Act
generally, as well as other such matters provided in the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA established 49 CFR Part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor
Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards, to implement the statutory
provisions concerning temporary exemptions. Under Part 555, a
petitioner must provide specified information in submitting a petition
for exemption. Among other matters, the petitioner must set forth the
basis of the application and a description of its efforts to comply
with the standards.
b. FMVSS No. 214
In 2007, NHTSA published a final rule upgrading FMVSS No. 214.\3\
The rule incorporated a dynamic pole test into the standard, requiring
vehicle manufacturers to assure head and improved chest protection in
side crashes by technologies such as head protection side air bags and
torso side air bags. The final rule adopted use of two advanced test
dummies in the new pole test, one called the ES-2re representing mid-
size males, and the other called the SID-IIs, which represents small
stature females. The final rule also enhanced the standard's MDB test
by replacing the then-existing 50th percentile adult male dummy used in
the front seat of tested vehicles with the more biofidelic ES-2re dummy
and by using the SID-IIs dummy in the rear seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 72 FR 51908 (September 11, 2007); response to petitions for
reconsideration 73 FR 32473 (June 9, 2008), 75 FR 12123 (March 15,
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pole and enhanced MDB test requirements were phased in,
starting in 2010 for most vehicles (see S13 \4\), but manufacturers
producing or assembling fewer than 5,000 vehicles annually for sale in
the United States had a different
[[Page 64880]]
schedule (see S9.1.3(a)(1) and S7.2.4(a)(1)). These manufacturers were
excluded from the phase-in of the pole test requirements but are
required to certify the compliance of vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2014. For convertibles, the pole test applies to vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1, 2015 (S9.1.3(d)(1)). The enhanced
MDB test requirement has the same phase-in schedule and compliance
dates as the pole test (see MDB requirements, S7.2.1, S7.2.4(a), and
S7.2.4(a)(3)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ References in this paragraph are to sections in FMVSS No.
214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the phase-in, Aston Martin manufactures
approximately 4,000 Aston Martin brand vehicles per year worldwide.
Thus, the requirements that are the subject of the petition are FMVSS
No. 214's pole and enhanced MDB requirements applying to the
petitioner's sedans (coupes) manufactured on or after September 1,
2014, and to its convertibles manufactured on or after September 1,
2015.
c. Overview of Petition \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Aston Martin originally submitted a petition in July 2013,
and then resubmitted its petition in November 2013. A copy of the
November 6, 2013 petition is in the docket for this document. To
view the petition, go to https://www.regulations.gov and enter Docket
Number NHTSA-2014-0032. A summary is also provided in NHTSA's notice
of receipt of the petition, 79 FR 17231, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the procedures in 49 CFR
Part 555, Aston Martin petitioned NHTSA requesting a temporary
exemption from the pole test requirements and enhanced MDB test of
FMVSS No. 214. The basis for the application is that compliance would
cause Aston Martin substantial economic hardship and that the
petitioner has tried in good faith to comply with the standard.
Aston Martin has asked for a temporary exemption for two of its
four vehicle models, the DB9 and Vantage. At the time NHTSA issued the
pole test and enhanced MDB test requirements in 2007, Aston Martin was
planning a new generation of the DB9 and Vantage models. Aston Martin's
plan was to: (a) Replace the DB9 and Vantage models with new generation
models that would meet the new requirements by the 2014 compliance
date; and (b) apply its resources toward redesigning two other models
(the Vanquish and Rapide S), that were not scheduled for replacement
before 2014, to achieve compliance with the requirements by 2014.
However, ``because of little market recovery since 2009,'' \6\
Aston Martin's sales volumes have not been sufficient to fund the first
part of the original plan, and the DB9 and Vantage models ``now have to
remain in production slightly longer than anticipated.'' \7\ The
petitioner states that due to funding constraints, Aston Martin could
not initiate the start of FMVSS No. 214 compliance programs on the next
generation DB9 and Vantage vehicles until April 2013, when the company
received funds from an investor that could be used to deliver the next
generation of vehicles. The petitioner states: ``This capital increase
did not include monies for FMVSS 214 compliance for DB9 & Vantage car
lines as the next generation of models were originally planned to be
launched in August 2014.'' \8\ Aston Martin states it needs the
exemption to continue production of the DB9 and Vantage for the U.S.
market until the replacement generation vehicles are ready.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Aston Martin petition for temporary exemption, p. 18.
\7\ Id., p. 11.
\8\ Id., exhibit 6, p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aston Martin requested that approximately 670 vehicles be covered
by the exemption. Aston Martin believes that the cost of meeting the
pole and enhanced MDB requirements for these vehicles ``would be cost
prohibitive given that these models will cease USA production in the
near term and the cost of amortization over the approximately 670 cars
at issue would be economically infeasible.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The petitioner has provided engineering and financial
information demonstrating how compliance or failure to obtain an
exemption would cause substantial economic hardship; a description
of its efforts to comply with the standards; why it believes
granting the petition is in the public interest; a discussion of
alternate means of compliance considered; a description of the steps
it will take while the exemption is in effect and the estimated date
by which full compliance will be achieved. The petitioner provided
confidential production figures in support of its claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petition requests an exemption for the following periods:
DB9 coupe model production from September 1, 2014 until
August 31, 2016;
DB9 convertible model production from September 1, 2015
until August 31, 2016;
Vantage coupe model production from September 1, 2014
until August 31, 2017; and,
Vantage convertible model production from September 1,
2015 until August 31, 2017.
Petitioner's Assertion That Granting the Petition Is in the Public
Interest
Aston Martin asserts that the requested exemption is consistent
with the public interest for the following reasons.
1. Aston Martin states that it knows of no deaths or serious
injuries that were associated with side impact events or related to the
current FMVSS No. 214 protection system in current DB9 and Vantage
models. Further, the petitioner also states that \10\--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The petitioner provided the values recorded by the test
dummy in the crash test.
the pole tests that Aston Martin has performed on a DB9 test car did
in fact pass the minimum pole test requirements in FMVSS 214.
However, Aston Martin cannot self-certify compliance on the basis of
a single test with the margin of pass obtained in that test. . . .
Nonetheless the pass does indicate that the risk to the public in
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the existent car would not be contrary to the public interest.
2. Denial would force removal of a vehicle currently sold in the
U.S.
3. The number of vehicles to be sold in the U.S. during the
exemption period is very low and the number of annual miles driven in
Aston Martin vehicles is very low (on average 2,617 miles).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The petitioner refers to a 2006 decision by NHTSA to grant
a request for a temporary exemption from Ferrari (71 FR 29389)
(``Ferrari grant''), in which NHTSA noted that the low number of
vehicles affected by the exemption (less than 2,000) and the low
number of annual miles driven in the vehicles were factors
supporting a finding that the exemption will have a negligible
impact on motor vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Granting the exemption would protect consumer choice.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ On this point, the petitioner cites the 2006 Ferrari grant
and includes the following statement from NHTSA: ``As discussed in
previous decisions on temporary exemption applications, the agency
believes that the public interest is served by affording consumers a
wider variety of motor vehicle choices.'' (71 FR at 29390.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. The current DB9 and Vantage models comply with all FMVSSs other
than the requirements of FMVSS No. 214 that are the subject of the
petition, and meet the requirements of the upgraded roof crush
resistance standard (FMVSS No. 216) ahead of the September 1, 2015
compliance date for the vehicles (final rule upgrading FMVSS No. 216,
74 FR 22348, May 12, 2009).
6. Aston Martin refers to a decision by NHTSA to grant a Lotus
request for a temporary exemption from FMVSS No 208 and states that the
agency made clear that a limited exemption is considered to be far more
in the public interest compared to a broad waiver. Aston Martin states:
``The request here is precisely so limited.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Aston Martin petition for temporary exemption, p. 12. The
petitioner did not provide a citation for ``the recent Lotus
decision'' but we assume the reference is to NHTSA's document at 78
FR 15114, March 8, 2013, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. The denial of the exemption request would have a negative effect
on U.S. employment.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Aston Martin references the Ferrari grant, in which NHTSA
stated (71 FR at 29390): ``We note that Ferrari is a well-
established company with a small but not insignificant U.S. presence
and we believe that an 85 percent sales reduction would negatively
affect U.S. employment. Specifically, reduction in sales would
likely affect employment not only at Ferrari North America, but also
at Ferrari dealers, repair specialists, and several small service
providers that transport Ferrari vehicles from the port of entry to
the rest of the United States. Traditionally, the agency has
concluded that the public interest is served in affording continued
employment to the petitioner's U.S. work force.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 64881]]
II. Notice of Receipt and Summary of Comments
On March 27, 2014, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (79 FR
17231; Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0032) a notice of receipt of Aston
Martin's petition for a temporary exemption, and provided an
opportunity for public comment. NHTSA received no comments opposing the
petition.
Over 40 comments were received supporting the petition.\15\ These
comments were from the Aston Martin dealers in the U.S., many of their
employees, and some Aston Martin owners. Each of the dealers emphasized
strong concerns about the negative impact that elimination of the DB9
and Vantage models would have on their dealerships,\16\ as the dealers
would be restricted in their product range and would only be able to
sell Vanquish and Rapide S, which, the commenters asserted, would
impact their ability to maintain a financially viable operation. All of
the dealers expressed alarm about the impact that a denial of the
petition would have on all tiers of employment \17\ at their place of
business and in their community.\18\ All of the dealers emphasized that
jobs would be lost at their dealership if the DB9 and Vantage models
could not be sold. Employees who commented expressed worry about their
jobs if the petition were denied. Many dealers expressed concern about
the effect of a denial on present and future customer support,\19\ as
the ``Thinning of our network could expose customers to complete loss
of ownership support--ex. loss of the Seattle store would place next
closest store in [San Francisco] area 850 miles away.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ In this section, we refer to comments by their entry number
in Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0032.
\16\ See, e.g., comment 0028.
\17\ See, e.g., comments 0020 and 0032.
\18\ Comment 0028.
\19\ Comment 0048.
\20\ Comment 0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aston Martin Washington DC dealer principal James R. Walker states
in his comment \21\ that currently, Aston Martin dealers are ``barely
profitable'' and that franchise composition is fragile. Mr. Walker
believes that the loss of sales of the DB9 and Vantage could very
likely result in some dealers deciding to ``shutter the franchise,''
which would result in a significant impact on employment. The commenter
estimates that if dealers decide to ``shutter'' franchises, 230 Aston
Martin employees in the U.S. would face the loss of their jobs, along
with a ``substantial number'' of another 300 jobs that are in part
supported by Aston Martin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Decision
a. Pole Test Requirement
NHTSA is granting Aston Martin's request for a temporary exemption
from FMVSS No. 214's new pole test requirements.
The granting of hardship exemptions from FMVSSs is conditioned on
the agency's finding that the petitioning manufacturer has ``tried to
comply with the standard in good faith.'' \22\ A petitioning
manufacturer's effort to comply with the standard from which exemption
is sought is thus extremely important to NHTSA when considering a
hardship exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 8, 2013, NHTSA granted a temporary exemption petition
request from Group Lotus plc (Lotus) regarding an advanced air bag
requirement \23\ of FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection.'' While
NHTSA granted the petition, the agency did so while emphasizing an
evolved agency view of such petitions.\24\ The advanced air bag
requirement had engendered a number of hardship petitions from small
volume manufacturers, which typically were granted when the
manufacturer had supplied standard air bags instead of advanced air
bags. However, as time went on and the years passed following adoption
of the advanced air bag requirements, NHTSA decided it was not in the
public interest to continue to grant exemptions from the requirements
``under the same terms as in the past.'' \25\ NHTSA stated in the Lotus
notice (78 FR at 15115)--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ In 2000, NHTSA published a final rule that upgraded FMVSS
No. 208's requirements for air bags in passenger cars and light
trucks, requiring what are commonly known as ``advanced air bags.''
See final rule at 65 FR 30680, May 12, 2000.
\24\ 78 FR 15114.
\25\ 78 FR at 15115, col. 2. See also denial of petition of
Pagani Automobili SpA, 76 FR 47641, August 5, 2011.
In deciding whether to grant an exemption based on substantial
economic hardship and good faith efforts, NHTSA considers the steps
that the manufacturer has already taken to achieve compliance, as
well as the future steps the manufacturer plans to take during the
exemption period and the estimated date by which full compliance
will be achieved.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 49 CFR 555.6(a)(2). [Footnote in text.]
That announcement was made in the context of the advanced air bag
hardship petitions relating to the May 2000 final rule. The majority of
the petitions then before the agency were petitions for extension of
previously granted exemptions. The advanced air bag exemption requests
contrast somewhat with Aston Martin's request for an exemption from the
FMVSS No. 214 pole test requirement, since the latter is a new
requirement adopted in 2007. Nonetheless, the announcement in the Lotus
notice signaled that the agency has sharpened its focus on the effort
that manufacturers make to achieve compliance when claiming financial
hardship in meeting a standard.
With that background in mind, NHTSA has analyzed Aston Martin's
petition and the effort that the petitioner made to meet the pole test
requirement. NHTSA believes that the petitioner has tried to comply
with the pole test requirement in good faith.
The FMVSS No. 214 pole test requires vehicle manufacturers to
provide head and improved chest protection in side crashes.
Manufacturers currently meet the pole test requirement by way of side
air bag technology. Installing a side air bag in a vehicle that does
not have a side air bag is an intensive endeavor involving extensive
redesign of the vehicle's side structure and seating system, and
includes installation of side impact sensors that sense when to deploy
the side air bag and sensors that monitor side air bag readiness. In
short, installation of side air bags involves a significant investment
of effort, planning, resources, and vehicle redesign.
In 2006, Aston Martin began installing side air bags in the DB9 and
Vantage model vehicles. Side air bags were considered advanced
technology at the time and were generally not needed to meet the FMVSSs
that had applied to passenger vehicles. Yet, motor vehicle
manufacturers began incorporating side air bag technology in response
to NHTSA's call for action to improve vehicle compatibility in vehicle-
to-vehicle crashes of higher-riding light trucks and vans (LTVs) with
passenger cars.\27\ The voluntary installation of side
[[Page 64882]]
impact air bags by vehicle manufacturers prior to a Federal mandate was
considered by NHTSA to be a laudable industry initiative to meet the
goal of saving lives ``sooner than through the traditional regulatory
approach.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on the FMVSS No.
214 pole test, 69 FR 27990, 27995; May 17, 2004. NHTSA's call for
action resulted in a ``voluntary industry commitment'' by vehicle
manufacturers in 2003 to enhance occupant protection in side crashes
of LTVs into passenger cars by accelerating the installation of side
impact air bags.
\28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aston Martin's installation of side air bags in the DB9 and Vantage
model vehicles involved a significant investment of work and resources
on the part of the petitioner. We conclude that the petitioner's
installation of the safety countermeasures 8 years ahead of the
September 1, 2014 effective date of the final rule is evidence of a
good faith effort to meet the pole test requirement. In 2011, the
manufacturer crash tested a DB9 coupe in an FMVSS No. 214 pole test and
found that that the performance was not with a margin sufficient to
enable Aston Martin to certify compliance with the pole test. Yet, data
from the test show that ES-2re dummy readings were actually below the
performance threshold of FMVSS No. 214. The ``passing'' values obtained
from the test are further evidence of the petitioner's good faith
effort to meet the pole test requirement.
We note that the petitioner has asked for a 3-year exemption for
just one of the models (Vantage Coupe) and only a 1- to 2-year
exemption for the other 3 models covered by the petition. These short
periods indicate that the petitioner is expeditiously working toward
producing fully compliant next generation DB9 and Vantage vehicles and
that the exemption requested is just for a relatively short term. In
addition, Aston Martin indicates that it is engineering the next
generation DB9 replacement coupe to meet the requirements of FMVSS No.
226, Ejection Mitigation, a year earlier than required by that
standard.\29\ These factors are positive indicators of the effort Aston
Martin plans to make during the exemption period to produce newly
designed and fully compliant DB9 and Vantage models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Aston Martin petition for temporary exemption, p. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After considering Aston Martin's early installation of side air
bags, the performance of the current side air bags and petitioner's
progress toward producing the next generation DB9 and Vantage models,
we believe that Aston Martin has tried to comply with the pole test
requirement in good faith. Granting the petition on the pole test
provides Aston Martin additional time to build on its efforts and
achieve greater margins in passing the pole test, which the petitioner
believes it needs to fully certify the vehicles to FMVSS No. 214.
A grant is consistent with the Safety Act. NHTSA searched the
Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the National Automotive
Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) data for years
2000 to the present. The FARS and NASS-CDS databases do not contain any
instance in which Aston Martin vehicles were involved in side crashes
resulting in injury or fatality. This information, and the fact that
the DB9 and Vantage vehicles already have side impact air bags, support
our finding that an exemption will have a negligible impact on motor
vehicle safety.
Several factors support a finding that granting Aston Martin's
exemption regarding the pole test is in the public interest. The number
of vehicles at issue is 670. Further, we agree with Aston Martin that
the relatively low number of miles driven by the vehicle because of its
nature as a second vehicle will mean that the vehicle is less likely to
be involved in a crash than a vehicle that is the primary means of
transportation.
Further, denial of the request would remove a vehicle that is
currently being sold in the U.S. market. Given that the DB9 and Vantage
models comprise two of the four models produced by Aston Martin, the
withdrawal of the models from the market would appreciably reduce Aston
Martin's presence in the U.S. for a significant period.\30\ Denial of
the petition would create hardship for U.S. workers. NHTSA has given
due consideration to the comments in the docket from affected Aston
Martin dealers and their employees. A grant will avoid the possibility
of job losses and other negative consequences at U.S. dealerships, such
as possible closure of some servicing facilities which could negatively
affect the ability of customers to service, maintain, and fix any
problems with their vehicles in a timely manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ NHTSA has traditionally found that the public interest is
served by affording consumers the choice of a wider variety of motor
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also conclude that Aston Martin demonstrated the requisite
potential financial hardship. The petitioner has had a cumulative net
loss position over the past several years. Denial of the petition would
require Aston Martin to expend a large amount of capital to modify the
DB9 and Vantage right before the model year change or would force the
petitioner to cease sales of the vehicles in the U.S. Either outcome
would cause substantial economic hardship to the petitioner.
After considering all of the relevant information, we have decided
to grant Aston Martin a temporary exemption from the pole test of FMVSS
No. 214 for the periods designated at the beginning of this document in
the DATES section. However, the total number of vehicles that may be
produced under this exemption is limited to 670.
We note that, as explained below, prospective purchasers of the
exempted vehicles will be notified that the vehicles are exempted from
the pole test of FMVSS No. 214. Under 49 CFR 555.9(b), a manufacturer
of an exempted passenger car must securely affix to the windshield or
side window of each exempted vehicle a label containing a statement
that the vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the
date of manufacture ``except for Standard Nos. [listing the standards
by number and title for which an exemption has been granted] exempted
pursuant to NHTSA Exemption No. _____--.'' This label notifies
prospective purchasers about the exemption and its subject. Under Sec.
555.9(c), this information must also be included on the vehicle's
certification label.
The text of Sec. 555.9 does not expressly indicate how the
required statement on the two labels should read in situations in which
an exemption covers part, but not all, of a FMVSS. In this case, we
believe that a statement that the vehicle has been exempted from
Standard No. 214 generally, without an indication that the exemption is
limited to the pole test provision, could be misleading. A consumer
might incorrectly believe that the vehicle has been exempted from all
of FMVSS No. 214's requirements. For this reason, we believe the two
labels should read in relevant part, ``except for the pole test of
Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection, exempted pursuant to * * *.''
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i), Aston Martin is
granted NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. EX 14-01, from the pole test
requirement of 49 CFR 571.214 for the DB9 and Vantage models. The
exemption is for no more than 670 vehicles and it shall remain
effective for the periods designated at the beginning of this document
in the DATES section.
b. MDB Requirement
Aston Martin also requested an exemption for the DB9 and Vantage
vehicles from FMVSS No. 214's amended MDB test requirement. The basis
for the request appears to be to
[[Page 64883]]
allow the petitioner to avoid having \31\--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Aston Martin petition for temporary exemption, p. 5.
to test pole-exempted models for new MDB compliance--and possibly
have to reengineer to achieve satisfactory results. Then, before the
pole test exemption ended, Aston Martin would have to retest and
reengineer these pole-exempted models for A SECOND TIME, in order to
achieve both new MDB and Pole test compliance. NHTSA clearly sought
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
to allow lead time to avoid this double burden. [Emphasis in text.]
The agency is denying Aston Martin's request to be exempted from
the MDB requirement. We conclude that an exemption is not necessary on
the basis of the information before it. Aston Martin submitted FMVSS
No. 214 MDB test data \32\ of a DB9 Volante convertible, Vantage coupe,
and Vantage Roadster convertible tested with the mid-size adult male
side impact dummy (SID) that FMVSS No. 214 had specified for use in the
MDB test prior to the ES-2re. The data show that the vehicles appear to
have passed the performance thresholds of FMVSS No. 214's MDB test by a
wide margin with the SID.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Accorded confidential treatment by NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the final rule adopting the new MDB requirements into FMVSS No.
214 (requirements which use the ES-2re), NHTSA set forth findings
indicating that manufacturers would likely not need to modify vehicles
to meet the new MBD requirements when using the ES-2re in place of the
SID.\33\ Moreover, data indicate that vehicles that pass the MDB
requirement using the SID will likely pass the MDB test using the ES-
2re. The DB9 and Vantage models have easily passed the MDB test using
the SID. Thus, we believe that data indicate the DB9 and Vantage models
will pass the MDB test with the ES-2re and do not need a temporary
exemption from the new MDB requirement. Accordingly, NHTSA is denying
petitioner's request for an exemption from the new MDB requirement due
to an absence of information showing such an exemption is needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ NHTSA believed that vehicle modifications would likely
result from adding the SID-IIs 5th percentile adult female dummy to
the rear seat of the MDB test. See 72 FR at 51947. The SID-IIs is
not used in tests of Aston Martin vehicles because the vehicles do
not have a rear seat or one large enough to accommodate the SID-IIs.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.95.
Dated: October 22, 2014.
David J. Friedman,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-25892 Filed 10-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
