Aston Martin Lagonda Limited; Partial Grant of Petition for Temporary Exemption From New Requirements of Standard No. 214 |
|---|
Topics: Aston Martin
|
David J. Friedman
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
October 31, 2014
[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 http://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