Aston Martin Lagonda Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 41370-41371 [2016-14964]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES
41370
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 122 / Friday, June 24, 2016 / Notices
transaction, because prisoner
extradition services are provided based
upon open competition among qualified
service providers. Applicant also states
that there is nothing to preclude existing
carriers from expanding their routes,
rates and services, and nothing to keep
well capitalized new entrants from
entering the market at any time.
With respect to fixed charges,
Applicant believes that assuming
control of U.S.C. would generate greater
economies of scale, which would reduce
the variety of unit costs now being
incurred to operate these carriers under
separate ownership. Additionally,
Applicant states that the combined
carriers should be able to enhance their
volume purchasing power, thereby
reducing insurance premiums and
achieving deeper discounts for
equipment and fuel.
Applicant also claims that affected
employees would benefit from the
transaction. It says that employees
would maintain job security, would
retain or expand the volume of available
work, and would have an increased
opportunity to schedule shorter tours of
duty, resulting in less time away from
their home base.
On the basis of the application, the
Board finds that the proposed
acquisition is consistent with the public
interest and should be tentatively
approved and authorized. If any
opposing comments are timely filed,
these findings will be deemed vacated,
and, unless a final decision can be made
on the record as developed, a
procedural schedule will be adopted to
reconsider the application. See 49 CFR
1182.6(c). If no opposing comments are
filed by the expiration of the comment
period, this notice will take effect
automatically and will be the final
Board action.
Board decisions and notices are
available on our Web site at
‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV’’.
It is ordered:
1. The proposed transaction is
approved and authorized, subject to the
filing of opposing comments.
2. If opposing comments are timely
filed, the findings made in this notice
will be deemed vacated.
3. This notice will be effective August
9, 2016, unless opposing comments are
filed by August 8, 2016.
4. A copy of this notice will be served
on: (1) The U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; (2)
the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust
Division, 10th Street & Pennsylvania
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530;
and (3) the U.S. Department of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:43 Jun 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
Transportation, Office of the General
Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
Decided: June 20, 2016.
By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice
Chairman Miller, and Commissioner
Begeman.
Tia Delano,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2016–15009 Filed 6–23–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0004; Notice 2]
Aston Martin Lagonda Limited; Denial
of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition.
AGENCY:
Aston Martin Lagonda
Limited (AML), has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2009–2015
Aston Martin DB9 two-door and fourdoor passenger cars do not fully comply
with paragraph S4.3 of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
206, Door locks and door retention
components. Aston Martin Lagonda of
North America, Inc., filed a report dated
December 16, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR
part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports for AML.
AML then petitioned NHTSA under 49
CFR part 556 requesting a decision that
the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
ADDRESSES: For further information on
this decision contact Luis Figueroa,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), telephone
(202) 366–5298, facsimile (202) 366–
5930.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30118(d) and 30120(h) (see
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556),
AML submitted a petition for an
exemption from the notification and
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
Notice of receipt of the petition was
published, with a 30-day public
comment period, on February 17, 2016,
in the Federal Register (81 FR 8125). No
comments were received. To view the
petition and all supporting documents
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
log onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Web site
at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2016–
0004.’’
II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are
approximately 5,516 MY 2009–2015
Aston Martin DB9 two-door and fourdoor passenger cars that were
manufactured between September 1,
2009 and December 9, 2015.
III. Noncompliance: AML explains
that the noncompliance occurs when
the door locking system in the subject
vehicles is double-locked causing the
interior operating means for unlocking
the door locking mechanism to become
disengaged and therefore does not meet
the requirements as specified in
paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 206.
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.3 of
FMVSS No. 206 requires:
S4.3 Door Locks. Each door shall be
equipped with at least one locking device
which, when engaged, shall prevent
operation of the exterior door handle or other
exterior latch release control and which has
an operating means and a lock release/
engagement device located within the
interior of the vehicle.
S4.3.1 Rear side doors. Each rear side door
shall be equipped with at least one locking
device which has a lock release/engagement
mechanism located within the interior of the
vehicle and readily accessible to the driver of
the vehicle or an occupant seated adjacent to
the door, and which, when engaged, prevents
operation of the interior door handle or other
interior latch release control and requires
separate actions to unlock the door and
operate the interior door handle or other
interior latch release control.
S4.3.2 Back doors. Each back door
equipped with an interior door handle or
other interior latch release control, shall be
equipped with at least one locking device
that meets the requirements of S4.3.1. . . .
V. Summary of AML’s Petition: AML
described the subject noncompliance
and stated its belief that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety for the following
reasons:
(a) AML stated that the subject
vehicles can only be double-locked by
using the key fob (which also serves as
the ignition key) and that if the vehicle
is double-locked from the inside, the
driver and or passenger will be able to
disengage the double-lock by using the
key fob. AML believes that as a result,
the double-locking mechanism could
not cause a situation in which a vehicle
is double-locked from the inside by the
driver and a crash disables the driver,
leaving the passenger(s) locked inside.
(b) AML stated that the risks of
children being locked in the vehicle by
means of the double-locking
E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM
24JNN1
sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 122 / Friday, June 24, 2016 / Notices
mechanism, does not pose an
unacceptable risk to motor vehicle
safety. AML believes that compared to
other motor vehicles, AML’s vehicles
are rarely used to transport children.
With the exception of the Rapide and
Rapide S models, all Aston Martin
vehicles are two-door sports cars.
Moreover, AML states that the doublelocking mechanism in the subject
vehicles poses no greater risk to
children than the child safety locks
expressly found to be permitted by
FMVSS No. 206.
(c) AML stated its belief that there is
little risk that any adults will be locked
in its vehicles.
(d) AML stated that in the event a
driver were to inadvertently lock a
passenger in one of the subject vehicles,
the passenger would be able to sound
the horn, which would remain
functional, allowing the passenger to
alert the driver and passers-by.
(e) AML also stated that many of the
subject vehicles have motion sensors
that would detect the presence of
someone in the vehicle as soon as that
person moved, and an alarm would
sound, which is audible outside the
vehicle. Thus, deterring inadvertent
lock-ins of both adults and children and
would alert passers-by of any passengers
locked in the subject vehicles.
(f) AML stated its belief that if an
adult were locked in a vehicle, he or she
could alert passers-by and would
probably be able to contact the driver
via mobile communication devices that,
in fact, are ubiquitous today and
certainly are very likely to be in the
possession of the average AML vehicle
passenger.
AML also stated that they have not
received any complaints regarding the
subject noncompliance.
AML additionally informed NHTSA
that they have corrected the
noncompliance in vehicles
manufactured from production date
December 9, 2015 and will correct the
noncompliance in any unsold
noncompliant vehicles prior to sale.
In summation, AML believes that the
described noncompliances are
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition, to exempt AML
from providing notification of the
noncompliances as required by 49
U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30120 should be granted.
NHTSA’S Decision
NHTSA’s Analysis: NHTSA does not
find AML’s rationale that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety persuasive. AML
made several assumptions regarding the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:43 Jun 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
actions that passengers could take in the
event of being double-locked in the
subject vehicles (e.g., a passenger will
be able to disengage the double-lock by
using the key fob; AML’s vehicles are
rarely used to transport children; in the
event a driver were to inadvertently lock
a passenger in one of the subject
vehicles, the passenger would be able to
sound the horn to alert the driver and
passers-by; many of the subject vehicles
have motion sensors that would detect
the presence of someone in the vehicle,
if that person moved, and sound an
alarm alerting the driver or passers-by;
someone trapped in the vehicle would
probably be able to contact the driver
via mobile communication devices,
etc.), but offered no specific solution to
lower the risk of being trapped in a car,
save complying with the rule, as AML
has been doing since December 2015.
In February 2007, NHTSA provided a
specific solution towards lowering the
risk of a passenger being trapped in a
motor vehicle when it published a final
rule 1 to amend FMVSS No. 206. Among
the final rule updates, Paragraphs S4.3
and S4.3.1, required a lock release/
engagement device located inside the
vehicle.
NHTSA also reaffirmed that new
requirement for a lock release/
engagement device inside the vehicle in
an interpretation letter to Mr. Thomas
Betzer from Keykert, USA. In that
interpretation, NHTSA addressed
whether double-locked doors (doors that
can only be unlocked using a key)
would be allowed under the rule as
amended in February 2007 (the current
rule) in a system similar to AML’s in
that once the driver would activate the
anti-theft alarm with a key, the doors
would be double-locked. Specifically,
NHTSA interpreted that double-lock
systems are no longer allowed because
they interfere with the interior door lock
release device. The interpretation also
makes it clear that in the December 15,
2004, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
and the February 6, 2007, final rule, that
NHTSA sought to require interior door
locks to ‘‘be capable of being unlocked
from the interior of the vehicle by
means of a lock release device that has
an operating means and a lock release/
engagement device located within the
interior of the vehicle.’’
NHTSA has examined certain real
world situations involving individuals
trapped in motor vehicles, while
infrequent, are consequential to motor
vehicle safety. Such scenarios include
vehicle fires, vehicles entering bodies of
water, and individuals trapped in hot
vehicles. Vehicles with double locked
1 72
PO 00000
FR 5385, February 6, 2007.
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
41371
doors in emergency situations such as
those examined, would have
consequential effects on motor vehicle
safety.
Based on its analysis of AML’s
petition, NHTSA has determined that
AML has failed to make a case that
having double locked doors in a vehicle
that is involved in an emergency
scenario in which the occupants of the
subject vehicles are unable to access the
key fob to open the doors and are unable
to be seen or heard is inconsequential to
safety.
NHTSA’s Decision: In consideration
of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that AML
has not met its burden of persuasion
that the FMVSS No. 206 noncompliance
is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. Accordingly, AML’s petition is
hereby denied and AML is obligated to
provide notification of, and a free
remedy for, that noncompliance under
49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
Delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8.
Gregory K. Rea,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2016–14964 Filed 6–23–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA–2016–0023]
Pipeline Safety: Public Workshop on
Underground Natural Gas Storage
Safety
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
AGENCY:
This notice announces a
public meeting to solicit input and
obtain background information
concerning underground natural gas
storage safety. PHMSA and the National
Association of Pipeline Safety
Representatives (NAPSR) are cosponsoring this one-day workshop. The
workshop will bring federal and state
regulators, emergency responders,
industry, and interested members of the
public together to participate in
understanding and shaping the future
for maintaining the safety of
underground natural gas storage
facilities.
PHMSA and NAPSR recognize that
the October, 2015, Southern California
Gas Company’s (SoCal Gas) Aliso
Canyon underground natural gas storage
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM
24JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 122 (Friday, June 24, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41370-41371]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14964]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0004; Notice 2]
Aston Martin Lagonda Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Aston Martin Lagonda Limited (AML), has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2009-2015 Aston Martin DB9 two-door and four-
door passenger cars do not fully comply with paragraph S4.3 of Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door
retention components. Aston Martin Lagonda of North America, Inc.,
filed a report dated December 16, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports for AML. AML then
petitioned NHTSA under 49 CFR part 556 requesting a decision that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Luis
Figueroa, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5298,
facsimile (202) 366-5930.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), AML submitted a petition for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on February 17, 2016, in the Federal Register
(81 FR 8125). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2016-0004.''
II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 5,516 MY 2009-
2015 Aston Martin DB9 two-door and four-door passenger cars that were
manufactured between September 1, 2009 and December 9, 2015.
III. Noncompliance: AML explains that the noncompliance occurs when
the door locking system in the subject vehicles is double-locked
causing the interior operating means for unlocking the door locking
mechanism to become disengaged and therefore does not meet the
requirements as specified in paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 206.
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 206 requires:
S4.3 Door Locks. Each door shall be equipped with at least one
locking device which, when engaged, shall prevent operation of the
exterior door handle or other exterior latch release control and
which has an operating means and a lock release/engagement device
located within the interior of the vehicle.
S4.3.1 Rear side doors. Each rear side door shall be equipped
with at least one locking device which has a lock release/engagement
mechanism located within the interior of the vehicle and readily
accessible to the driver of the vehicle or an occupant seated
adjacent to the door, and which, when engaged, prevents operation of
the interior door handle or other interior latch release control and
requires separate actions to unlock the door and operate the
interior door handle or other interior latch release control.
S4.3.2 Back doors. Each back door equipped with an interior door
handle or other interior latch release control, shall be equipped
with at least one locking device that meets the requirements of
S4.3.1. . . .
V. Summary of AML's Petition: AML described the subject
noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons:
(a) AML stated that the subject vehicles can only be double-locked
by using the key fob (which also serves as the ignition key) and that
if the vehicle is double-locked from the inside, the driver and or
passenger will be able to disengage the double-lock by using the key
fob. AML believes that as a result, the double-locking mechanism could
not cause a situation in which a vehicle is double-locked from the
inside by the driver and a crash disables the driver, leaving the
passenger(s) locked inside.
(b) AML stated that the risks of children being locked in the
vehicle by means of the double-locking
[[Page 41371]]
mechanism, does not pose an unacceptable risk to motor vehicle safety.
AML believes that compared to other motor vehicles, AML's vehicles are
rarely used to transport children. With the exception of the Rapide and
Rapide S models, all Aston Martin vehicles are two-door sports cars.
Moreover, AML states that the double-locking mechanism in the
subject vehicles poses no greater risk to children than the child
safety locks expressly found to be permitted by FMVSS No. 206.
(c) AML stated its belief that there is little risk that any adults
will be locked in its vehicles.
(d) AML stated that in the event a driver were to inadvertently
lock a passenger in one of the subject vehicles, the passenger would be
able to sound the horn, which would remain functional, allowing the
passenger to alert the driver and passers-by.
(e) AML also stated that many of the subject vehicles have motion
sensors that would detect the presence of someone in the vehicle as
soon as that person moved, and an alarm would sound, which is audible
outside the vehicle. Thus, deterring inadvertent lock-ins of both
adults and children and would alert passers-by of any passengers locked
in the subject vehicles.
(f) AML stated its belief that if an adult were locked in a
vehicle, he or she could alert passers-by and would probably be able to
contact the driver via mobile communication devices that, in fact, are
ubiquitous today and certainly are very likely to be in the possession
of the average AML vehicle passenger.
AML also stated that they have not received any complaints
regarding the subject noncompliance.
AML additionally informed NHTSA that they have corrected the
noncompliance in vehicles manufactured from production date December 9,
2015 and will correct the noncompliance in any unsold noncompliant
vehicles prior to sale.
In summation, AML believes that the described noncompliances are
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to
exempt AML from providing notification of the noncompliances as
required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the noncompliance as required
by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
NHTSA'S Decision
NHTSA's Analysis: NHTSA does not find AML's rationale that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety
persuasive. AML made several assumptions regarding the actions that
passengers could take in the event of being double-locked in the
subject vehicles (e.g., a passenger will be able to disengage the
double-lock by using the key fob; AML's vehicles are rarely used to
transport children; in the event a driver were to inadvertently lock a
passenger in one of the subject vehicles, the passenger would be able
to sound the horn to alert the driver and passers-by; many of the
subject vehicles have motion sensors that would detect the presence of
someone in the vehicle, if that person moved, and sound an alarm
alerting the driver or passers-by; someone trapped in the vehicle would
probably be able to contact the driver via mobile communication
devices, etc.), but offered no specific solution to lower the risk of
being trapped in a car, save complying with the rule, as AML has been
doing since December 2015.
In February 2007, NHTSA provided a specific solution towards
lowering the risk of a passenger being trapped in a motor vehicle when
it published a final rule \1\ to amend FMVSS No. 206. Among the final
rule updates, Paragraphs S4.3 and S4.3.1, required a lock release/
engagement device located inside the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 72 FR 5385, February 6, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA also reaffirmed that new requirement for a lock release/
engagement device inside the vehicle in an interpretation letter to Mr.
Thomas Betzer from Keykert, USA. In that interpretation, NHTSA
addressed whether double-locked doors (doors that can only be unlocked
using a key) would be allowed under the rule as amended in February
2007 (the current rule) in a system similar to AML's in that once the
driver would activate the anti-theft alarm with a key, the doors would
be double-locked. Specifically, NHTSA interpreted that double-lock
systems are no longer allowed because they interfere with the interior
door lock release device. The interpretation also makes it clear that
in the December 15, 2004, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the
February 6, 2007, final rule, that NHTSA sought to require interior
door locks to ``be capable of being unlocked from the interior of the
vehicle by means of a lock release device that has an operating means
and a lock release/engagement device located within the interior of the
vehicle.''
NHTSA has examined certain real world situations involving
individuals trapped in motor vehicles, while infrequent, are
consequential to motor vehicle safety. Such scenarios include vehicle
fires, vehicles entering bodies of water, and individuals trapped in
hot vehicles. Vehicles with double locked doors in emergency situations
such as those examined, would have consequential effects on motor
vehicle safety.
Based on its analysis of AML's petition, NHTSA has determined that
AML has failed to make a case that having double locked doors in a
vehicle that is involved in an emergency scenario in which the
occupants of the subject vehicles are unable to access the key fob to
open the doors and are unable to be seen or heard is inconsequential to
safety.
NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds
that AML has not met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 206
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
AML's petition is hereby denied and AML is obligated to provide
notification of, and a free remedy for, that noncompliance under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Gregory K. Rea,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2016-14964 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
