81 FR 41370 - Aston Martin Lagonda Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 122 (June 24, 2016)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 122 (June 24, 2016)
| Page Range | 41370-41371 | |
| FR Document | 2016-14964 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 122 (Friday, June 24, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 41370-41371] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [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: http://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
![41370 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 122 / Friday, June 24, 2016 / Notices
transaction, because prisoner Transportation, Office of the General log onto the Federal Docket
extradition services are provided based Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Management System (FDMS) Web site
upon open competition among qualified Washington, DC 20590. at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then
service providers. Applicant also states Decided: June 20, 2016. follow the online search instructions to
that there is nothing to preclude existing By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2016–
carriers from expanding their routes, Chairman Miller, and Commissioner 0004.’’
rates and services, and nothing to keep Begeman. II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are
well capitalized new entrants from Tia Delano, approximately 5,516 MY 2009–2015
entering the market at any time. Clearance Clerk. Aston Martin DB9 two-door and four-
With respect to fixed charges, door passenger cars that were
[FR Doc. 2016–15009 Filed 6–23–16; 8:45 am]
Applicant believes that assuming manufactured between September 1,
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
control of U.S.C. would generate greater 2009 and December 9, 2015.
economies of scale, which would reduce III. Noncompliance: AML explains
the variety of unit costs now being that the noncompliance occurs when
incurred to operate these carriers under DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION the door locking system in the subject
separate ownership. Additionally, vehicles is double-locked causing the
Applicant states that the combined National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration interior operating means for unlocking
carriers should be able to enhance their the door locking mechanism to become
volume purchasing power, thereby [Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0004; Notice 2] disengaged and therefore does not meet
reducing insurance premiums and the requirements as specified in
achieving deeper discounts for Aston Martin Lagonda Limited; Denial paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 206.
equipment and fuel. of Petition for Decision of IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.3 of
Applicant also claims that affected Inconsequential Noncompliance FMVSS No. 206 requires:
employees would benefit from the AGENCY: National Highway Traffic S4.3 Door Locks. Each door shall be
transaction. It says that employees Safety Administration (NHTSA), equipped with at least one locking device
would maintain job security, would Department of Transportation (DOT). which, when engaged, shall prevent
retain or expand the volume of available operation of the exterior door handle or other
ACTION: Denial of petition.
work, and would have an increased exterior latch release control and which has
opportunity to schedule shorter tours of SUMMARY: Aston Martin Lagonda an operating means and a lock release/
duty, resulting in less time away from Limited (AML), has determined that engagement device located within the
their home base. certain model year (MY) 2009–2015 interior of the vehicle.
On the basis of the application, the S4.3.1 Rear side doors. Each rear side door
Aston Martin DB9 two-door and four- shall be equipped with at least one locking
Board finds that the proposed door passenger cars do not fully comply device which has a lock release/engagement
acquisition is consistent with the public with paragraph S4.3 of Federal Motor mechanism located within the interior of the
interest and should be tentatively Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. vehicle and readily accessible to the driver of
approved and authorized. If any 206, Door locks and door retention the vehicle or an occupant seated adjacent to
opposing comments are timely filed, components. Aston Martin Lagonda of the door, and which, when engaged, prevents
these findings will be deemed vacated, North America, Inc., filed a report dated operation of the interior door handle or other
and, unless a final decision can be made December 16, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR interior latch release control and requires
on the record as developed, a part 573, Defect and Noncompliance separate actions to unlock the door and
procedural schedule will be adopted to operate the interior door handle or other
Responsibility and Reports for AML. interior latch release control.
reconsider the application. See 49 CFR AML then petitioned NHTSA under 49 S4.3.2 Back doors. Each back door
1182.6(c). If no opposing comments are CFR part 556 requesting a decision that equipped with an interior door handle or
filed by the expiration of the comment the subject noncompliance is other interior latch release control, shall be
period, this notice will take effect inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. equipped with at least one locking device
automatically and will be the final ADDRESSES: For further information on that meets the requirements of S4.3.1. . . .
Board action. this decision contact Luis Figueroa,
Board decisions and notices are V. Summary of AML’s Petition: AML
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the described the subject noncompliance
available on our Web site at National Highway Traffic Safety
‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV’’. and stated its belief that the
Administration (NHTSA), telephone noncompliance is inconsequential to
It is ordered:
1. The proposed transaction is (202) 366–5298, facsimile (202) 366– motor vehicle safety for the following
approved and authorized, subject to the 5930. reasons:
filing of opposing comments. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (a) AML stated that the subject
2. If opposing comments are timely I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. vehicles can only be double-locked by
filed, the findings made in this notice 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see using the key fob (which also serves as
will be deemed vacated. implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), the ignition key) and that if the vehicle
3. This notice will be effective August AML submitted a petition for an is double-locked from the inside, the
9, 2016, unless opposing comments are exemption from the notification and driver and or passenger will be able to
filed by August 8, 2016. remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. disengage the double-lock by using the
4. A copy of this notice will be served Chapter 301 on the basis that this key fob. AML believes that as a result,
on: (1) The U.S. Department of noncompliance is inconsequential to the double-locking mechanism could
sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES
Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier motor vehicle safety. not cause a situation in which a vehicle
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Notice of receipt of the petition was is double-locked from the inside by the
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; (2) published, with a 30-day public driver and a crash disables the driver,
the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust comment period, on February 17, 2016, leaving the passenger(s) locked inside.
Division, 10th Street & Pennsylvania in the Federal Register (81 FR 8125). No (b) AML stated that the risks of
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530; comments were received. To view the children being locked in the vehicle by
and (3) the U.S. Department of petition and all supporting documents means of the double-locking
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:43 Jun 23, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM 24JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_41492/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 122 / Friday, June 24, 2016 / Notices 41371
mechanism, does not pose an actions that passengers could take in the doors in emergency situations such as
unacceptable risk to motor vehicle event of being double-locked in the those examined, would have
safety. AML believes that compared to subject vehicles (e.g., a passenger will consequential effects on motor vehicle
other motor vehicles, AML’s vehicles be able to disengage the double-lock by safety.
are rarely used to transport children. using the key fob; AML’s vehicles are Based on its analysis of AML’s
With the exception of the Rapide and rarely used to transport children; in the petition, NHTSA has determined that
Rapide S models, all Aston Martin event a driver were to inadvertently lock AML has failed to make a case that
vehicles are two-door sports cars. a passenger in one of the subject having double locked doors in a vehicle
Moreover, AML states that the double- vehicles, the passenger would be able to that is involved in an emergency
locking mechanism in the subject sound the horn to alert the driver and scenario in which the occupants of the
vehicles poses no greater risk to passers-by; many of the subject vehicles subject vehicles are unable to access the
children than the child safety locks have motion sensors that would detect key fob to open the doors and are unable
expressly found to be permitted by the presence of someone in the vehicle, to be seen or heard is inconsequential to
FMVSS No. 206. if that person moved, and sound an safety.
(c) AML stated its belief that there is alarm alerting the driver or passers-by; NHTSA’s Decision: In consideration
little risk that any adults will be locked someone trapped in the vehicle would of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that AML
in its vehicles. probably be able to contact the driver has not met its burden of persuasion
(d) AML stated that in the event a via mobile communication devices, that the FMVSS No. 206 noncompliance
driver were to inadvertently lock a etc.), but offered no specific solution to is inconsequential to motor vehicle
passenger in one of the subject vehicles, lower the risk of being trapped in a car, safety. Accordingly, AML’s petition is
the passenger would be able to sound save complying with the rule, as AML hereby denied and AML is obligated to
the horn, which would remain has been doing since December 2015. provide notification of, and a free
functional, allowing the passenger to In February 2007, NHTSA provided a remedy for, that noncompliance under
alert the driver and passers-by. specific solution towards lowering the 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
(e) AML also stated that many of the risk of a passenger being trapped in a
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
subject vehicles have motion sensors motor vehicle when it published a final
Delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
that would detect the presence of rule 1 to amend FMVSS No. 206. Among 501.8.
someone in the vehicle as soon as that the final rule updates, Paragraphs S4.3
person moved, and an alarm would and S4.3.1, required a lock release/ Gregory K. Rea,
sound, which is audible outside the engagement device located inside the Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
vehicle. Thus, deterring inadvertent vehicle. [FR Doc. 2016–14964 Filed 6–23–16; 8:45 am]
lock-ins of both adults and children and NHTSA also reaffirmed that new BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
would alert passers-by of any passengers requirement for a lock release/
locked in the subject vehicles. engagement device inside the vehicle in
(f) AML stated its belief that if an an interpretation letter to Mr. Thomas DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
adult were locked in a vehicle, he or she Betzer from Keykert, USA. In that
could alert passers-by and would interpretation, NHTSA addressed Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
probably be able to contact the driver whether double-locked doors (doors that Safety Administration
via mobile communication devices that, can only be unlocked using a key)
[Docket No. PHMSA–2016–0023]
in fact, are ubiquitous today and would be allowed under the rule as
certainly are very likely to be in the amended in February 2007 (the current Pipeline Safety: Public Workshop on
possession of the average AML vehicle rule) in a system similar to AML’s in Underground Natural Gas Storage
passenger. that once the driver would activate the Safety
AML also stated that they have not anti-theft alarm with a key, the doors
received any complaints regarding the would be double-locked. Specifically, AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous
subject noncompliance. NHTSA interpreted that double-lock Materials Safety Administration
AML additionally informed NHTSA systems are no longer allowed because (PHMSA), DOT.
that they have corrected the they interfere with the interior door lock ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
noncompliance in vehicles release device. The interpretation also
manufactured from production date makes it clear that in the December 15, SUMMARY: This notice announces a
December 9, 2015 and will correct the 2004, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking public meeting to solicit input and
noncompliance in any unsold and the February 6, 2007, final rule, that obtain background information
noncompliant vehicles prior to sale. NHTSA sought to require interior door concerning underground natural gas
In summation, AML believes that the locks to ‘‘be capable of being unlocked storage safety. PHMSA and the National
described noncompliances are from the interior of the vehicle by Association of Pipeline Safety
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, means of a lock release device that has Representatives (NAPSR) are co-
and that its petition, to exempt AML an operating means and a lock release/ sponsoring this one-day workshop. The
from providing notification of the engagement device located within the workshop will bring federal and state
noncompliances as required by 49 interior of the vehicle.’’ regulators, emergency responders,
U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the NHTSA has examined certain real industry, and interested members of the
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. world situations involving individuals public together to participate in
trapped in motor vehicles, while understanding and shaping the future
sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES
30120 should be granted.
infrequent, are consequential to motor for maintaining the safety of
NHTSA’S Decision vehicle safety. Such scenarios include underground natural gas storage
NHTSA’s Analysis: NHTSA does not vehicle fires, vehicles entering bodies of facilities.
find AML’s rationale that the subject water, and individuals trapped in hot PHMSA and NAPSR recognize that
noncompliance is inconsequential to vehicles. Vehicles with double locked the October, 2015, Southern California
motor vehicle safety persuasive. AML Gas Company’s (SoCal Gas) Aliso
made several assumptions regarding the 1 72 FR 5385, February 6, 2007. Canyon underground natural gas storage
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:43 Jun 23, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM 24JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_41492/page/2.svg)
Document Created: 2016-06-24 00:53:09
Document Modified: 2016-06-24 00:53:09
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Denial of petition. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 41370 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR