Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Notices 64879 

1This authority is set forth at 49 U.S.C. 30113. 

The Secretary has delegated the authority for 

implementing this section to NHTSA. 

2The 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. 

3 72 FR 51908 (September 11, 2007); response to 

petitions for reconsideration 73 FR 32473 (June 9, 

2008), 75 FR 12123 (March 15, 2010). 

4References in this paragraph are to sections in 

FMVSS No. 214. 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78). 

Dated: October 23, 2014. 

By Order of the Maritime Administrator. 

Julie P. Agarwal, 

Secretary, Maritime Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25954 Filed 10–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P 

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

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. 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
64880 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Notices 

5Aston 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. 

6Aston Martin petition for temporary exemption, 

p. 18. 

7 Id., p. 11. 

8 Id., exhibit 6, p. 2. 

9The 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. 

10The petitioner provided the values recorded by 

the test dummy in the crash test. 

11The 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. 

12On 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.) 

13Aston 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. 

14Aston Martin references the Ferrari grant, in 

which NHTSA stated (71 FR at 29390): ‘‘We note 

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)). 

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

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. 

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

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— 

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

4. Granting the exemption would 

protect consumer choice.12

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

7. The denial of the exemption 

request would have a negative effect on 

U.S. employment.14


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Notices 64881 

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.’’ 

15 In this section, we refer to comments by their 

entry number in Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0032. 

16See, e.g., comment 0028. 

17See, e.g., comments 0020 and 0032. 

18Comment 0028. 

19Comment 0048. 

20Comment 0003. 

21 Id. 

22 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i). 

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. 

26 49 CFR 555.6(a)(2). [Footnote in text.] 

27See 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. 

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

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. 

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. 

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)— 

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

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-tovehicle crashes of higher-riding light 

trucks and vans (LTVs) with passenger 

cars.27 The voluntary installation of side 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
64882 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Notices 

28 Id. 

29Aston Martin petition for temporary 

exemption, p. 11. 

30NHTSA has traditionally found that the public 

interest is served by affording consumers the choice 

of a wider variety of motor vehicles. 

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

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. 

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. 

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 

§ 555.9(c), this information must also be 

included on the vehicle’s certification 

label. 

The text of § 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Notices 64883 

31See Aston Martin petition for temporary 

exemption, p. 5. 

32Accorded confidential treatment by NHTSA. 

33NHTSA 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. 

1MassDOT states that MRC is not a rail carrier for 

purposes of the present transaction and, therefore, 

is not listed in the proceeding caption. 

2A motion to dismiss the notice of exemption on 

grounds that the transaction does not require 

authorization from the Board was concurrently filed 

with this notice of exemption. The motion to 

dismiss will be addressed in a subsequent Board 

decision. 

basis for the request appears to be to 

allow the petitioner to avoid having 31— 

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. 

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. 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[Docket No. FD 35866] 

Massachusetts Department of 

Transportation—Acquisition 

Exemption—Certain Assets of 

Housatonic Railroad Company, Inc. 

The Massachusetts Department of 

Transportation (MassDOT), a noncarrier, 

has filed a verified notice of exemption 

under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire from 

Housatonic Railroad Company, Inc. 

(HRRC) and Maybrook Railroad 

Company (MRC) 1 certain railroad assets 

comprising a section of the ‘‘Berkshire 

Line,’’ extending from approximately 

milepost 50.0 at the MassachusettsConnecticut border at Sheffield, Mass., 

to a connection with CSX 

Transportation, Inc., at approximately 

milepost 86.3 at Pittsfield, Mass., a 

distance of approximately 36.3 miles 

(the Line). 

According to MassDOT, the 

acquisition of the Line is intended to 

facilitate the Commonwealth’s longterm plans to restore regional passenger 

train service linking the Berkshire 

region of western Massachusetts with 

the New York City metropolitan area 

and the Northeast Corridor megalopolis. 

MassDOT states that the acquisition of 

the Line is one step in what MassDOT 

anticipates will be an involved, multistep process that ultimately will lead to 

the establishment of a new railroad 

passenger service route in the Northeast. 

MassDOT states that, pursuant to a draft 

Purchase and Sale Contract, MassDOT 

has secured the right to purchase MRC’s 

and HRRC’s respective rights, title, and 

interest in the right-of-way, trackage, 

and other physical assets (such as 

signboard and fiber optics unrelated to 

the provision of common carrier freight 

service) associated with the Line, 

subject to HRRC’s retained exclusive, 

irrevocable, perpetual, assignable, 

divisible, licensable, and transferable 

freight railroad operating easement. 

MassDOT also states that it will not 

acquire the right, nor will it have the 

ability, to provide rail common carrier 

service over the Line.2 According to 

MassDOT, the agreements governing the 

subject asset sale and post-transaction 

railroad operations preclude MassDOT 

from interfering materially with the 

provision of railroad common carrier 

service over the Line. MassDOT, 

however, will be entitled in the future 

to initiate (itself, or through a 

designated third party) intercity 

passenger service and regional 

commuter rail service over the Line. 

MassDOT states that the proposed 

transaction does not involve any 

provision or agreement that would limit 

future interchange with a third-party 

connecting carrier. 

MassDOT certifies that, because it 

will conduct no freight operations on 

the line segment being acquired, its 

revenues from freight operations will 

not result in the creation of a Class I or 

Class II carrier. 

MassDOT also states that the parties 

expect to consummate the transaction 

on or about December 15, 2014, which 

is after the effective date of November 

15, 2014. 

If the verified notice contains false or 

misleading information, the exemption 

is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the 

exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) 

may be filed at any time. The filing of 

a petition to revoke will not 

automatically stay the effectiveness of 

the exemption. Petitions to stay must be 

filed no later than November 7, 2014 (at 

least seven days before the exemption 

becomes effective). 

An original and ten copies of all 

pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 

35866, must be filed with the Surface 

Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20423–0001. In 

addition, a copy of each pleading must 

be served on Robert A. Wimbish, 

Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker 

Drive, Suite 920, Chicago, IL 60606– 

2832. 

Board decisions and notices are 

available on our Web site at 

www.stb.dot.gov. 

Decided: October 28, 2014. 

By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, 

Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Jeffrey Herzig, 

Clearance Clerk. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25938 Filed 10–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Docket No. FD 35523] 

CSX Transportation, Inc.—Joint Use— 

Louisville & Indiana Railroad 

Company, Inc. 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, 

DOT. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES