Aston Martin Lagonda Limited, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: Aston Martin DB9
|
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
17 February 2016
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8125-8126]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03176]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0004; Notice 1]
Aston Martin Lagonda Limited, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt 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.
DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is March 18, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Deliver: Deliver comments by hand to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal Holidays.
Electronically: Submit comments electronically by: logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will
be filed in the docket and will be considered. All comments and
supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed
and will be considered to the extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
All documents submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at
the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this
petition is shown at the heading of this notice.
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
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.
This notice of receipt of AML's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
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 in
pertinent part:
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
[[Page 8126]]
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 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 notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that AML no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after AML
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-03176 Filed 2-16-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P