
[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: 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


