The petitioner believes that 670 vehicles would be covered by the requested exemption. This would be the total number of exempted vehicles imported into the United States over the entire exemption period.
According to the petition, Aston Martin originally planned for the “roll out of the next generation” DB9 and Vantage models to meet the new pole and MDB requirements of FMVSS No. 214. [Emphasis in text.] The petitioner states that Aston Martin started development work on its two models (the Vanquish and the Rapide) that would not be moving into a new generation by the compliance dates of the new pole and MBD requirements. Petitioner states that these two models are on track for meeting the new FMVSS No. 214 requirements by the date specified by the standard. Petitioner states that Aston Martin “did not foresee the need to reengineer the current DB9 and Vantage for new MDB and pole test compliance because these models were scheduled to be replaced by the next generation vehicles.”
However, Aston Martin explains, the arrival of the next generation of the DB9 and Vantage models has been delayed. Petitioner states:
Because of little market recovery since 2009, Aston Martin sales volumes have not been sufficient to fund the investment required to deliver the original 2011 plan. Due to these funding constraints, spending on the next generation of vehicles wasminimal, and Aston Martin could not initiate the start of FMVSS 214 compliance programs on DB9 or Vantage. Therefore, the company investigated options to deliver more cash into the business. It was not until 30 April 2013 that Aston Martin received a capital increase of £150m into the business from Investindustrial in return for a 37.5% interest in the company. This capital injection provided the funds needed to deliver the next generation of vehicles. In short, Aston Martin needs the exemption to continue the DB9 and Vantage USA production until the replacement vehicles are ready.
The petition provides information on the effect that compliance—or a failure to obtain an exemption—would have on the manufacturer. Petitioner states that the DB9 and Vantage models will not comply with the pole and enhanced MDB test requirements “without complete revision of the side air bag systems and complete validation of crash testing.” Aston Martin states that developing completely new pole and MDB test compliance systems for the 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.”
Aston Martin indicates that its past three year financial statements show a cumulative loss of approximately £39 Million. Petitioner believes that the effect amounts to substantial economic hardship “above and beyond the substantial economic hardship that Aston Martin is presently experiencing.” Among other matters, petitioner states that approximately $30 million expenditure would be required to achieve compliance, and the finances needed to meet the new pole and MDB requirements are “just not available.”
In addition, petitioner states, “The new investor in Aston Martin has committed its investment money for the next generation vehicle—as obviously the longer term hopes for the company depend on the future models. Aston Martin funding needs to be focused on the next generation of vehicles to ensure the recovery of the company and protect its dealer network.”
Aston Martin provides information related to its efforts to comply with the standard. Petitioner states that its challenges to reengineer the DB9 and Vantage relate to: its being a small organization with limited skilled internal resources; at least two global restraint system suppliers have indicated that Aston Martin's volumes are too low for the suppliers to be interested in its projects; “few external CAE/Structural suppliers have experience in Aston Martin's unique bonded aluminum structural concept; and the need to also engineer compliance with FMVSS No. 226, “Ejection mitigation.” Petitioner states that “for Aston Martin to find an interim MDB/Pole solution for only 670 cars and then to be compelled to reengineer FMVSS 208, 214 and 226 compliance for 2017 would be a huge investment which Aston Martin neither has nor can justify.” [Emphases in text.]
Aston Martin believes that the number of vehicles to be sold in the U.S. during the exemption would be “very low and the number of annual miles driven in Aston Martin vehicles is very low (on average 2617 miles).” Further, Aston Martin contends that “denial of the exemption request here will have a negative effect on U.S. employment.” Petitioner believes that if the petition were denied, “for a 2-3 year period U.S. dealers would be restricted in their product range and would only be able to sell Vanquish and Rapide S, which would impact their ability to maintain a financial viable operation.” Aston Martin notes that the DB9 was tested to the pole test with the ES-2re adult male dummy and passed the injury criteria, but did not do so with a compliance margin sufficient for the manufacturer to certify compliance based on a single test.

Petitioner states that the DB9 and Vantage models will not comply with the pole and enhanced MDB test requirements “without complete revision of the side air bag systems and complete validation of crash testing.” Aston Martin states that developing completely new pole and MDB test compliance systems for the 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.”