7234 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Notices 

1 49 U.S.C. 30112(a)(1). 

2 49 U.S.C. 30112(b); 49 U.S.C. 30113; 49 U.S.C. 

30114. 

3 49 U.S.C. 30113. 

4 49 CFR 1.95. 

5 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3). 

6 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(A). 

Buy America waivers will not be 

granted through the Emergency Relief 

Docket. 

An FTA decision, either granting or 

denying a petition, shall be posted in 

the Emergency Relief Docket and shall 

reference the document number of the 

petition to which it relates. FTA 

reserves the right to reconsider any 

decision made pursuant to these 

emergency procedures based upon its 

own initiative, based upon information 

or comments received subsequent to the 

three business day comment period, or 

at the request of a grantee or subgrantee 

upon denial of a request for relief. FTA 

shall notify the grantee or subgrantee if 

FTA plans to reconsider a decision. 

Pursuant to FTA’s Charter Rule at 49 

CFR 604.2(f), grantees and subgrantees 

may assist with evacuations or other 

movement of people that might 

otherwise be considered charter 

transportation when that transportation 

is in response to an emergency declared 

by the President, governor or mayor, or 

in an emergency requiring immediate 

action prior to a formal declaration, 

even if a formal declaration of an 

emergency is not eventually made by 

the President, governor or mayor. 

Therefore, a request for relief is not 

necessary in order to provide this 

service. However, if the emergency lasts 

more than 45 calendar days and the 

grantee will continue to provide service 

that would otherwise be considered 

charter service, the grantee or 

subgrantee shall follow the procedures 

set out in this notice. 

The contents of this document do not 

have the force and effect of law and are 

not meant to bind the public in any 

way. This document is intended only to 

provide clarity to the public regarding 

existing requirements under the law or 

agency policies. Grantees and 

subgrantees should refer to FTA’s 

regulations, including 49 CFR part 601, 

for requirements for submitting a 

request for emergency relief. 

Veronica Vanterpool, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2025–01251 Filed 1–17–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2025–0002] 

Legacy Limousines and Luxury 

Coaches; Grant of Petition for 

Temporary Exemption From Shoulder 

Belt Requirement for Side-Facing 

Seats on Motorcoaches 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of grant of a petition for 

temporary exemption. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with our 

regulations, NHTSA is granting a 

petition from Legacy Limousines and 

Luxury Coaches for a temporary 

exemption from the requirement to 

install Type 2 seat belts (i.e., shoulder 

belts) at side-facing locations in the 

company’s motorcoaches. The petitioner 

is a final-stage manufacturer of 

entertainer-type motorcoaches, seeking 

temporary exemption from the shoulder 

belt requirement of Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

208, ‘‘Occupant crash protection,’’ for 

side-facing seats on motorcoaches. The 

granted exemption permits the 

petitioner to install Type 1 seat belts 

(lap belt only) at side-facing seating 

positions, instead of the Type 2 seat 

belts (lap and shoulder belts) required 

by FMVSS No. 208. After reviewing the 

petition and the comments received, the 

agency has determined that the 

requested exemption is warranted to 

enable the petitioner to sell a vehicle 

whose overall level of safety or impact 

protection is at least equal to that of a 

nonexempted vehicle. 

DATES: This exemption applies to the 

petitioner’s motorcoaches produced 

from January 21, 2025 until January 21, 

2027. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara 

R. Bennett, Office of the Chief Counsel, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

Telephone: (202) 366–2992; Fax: (202) 

366–3820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

II. Authority and Procedures for Temporary 

Exemption 

III. FMVSS No. 208 

IV. Legacy Limousine and Luxury Coaches’ 

Petition 

V. Public Participation 

I. Background 

This notice grants a petition 

submitted by Legacy Limousines and 

Luxury Coaches from the shoulder belt 

requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, 

‘‘Occupant crash protection,’’ for sidefacing seats on motorcoaches. 

As background, NHTSA is responsible 

for promulgating and enforcing Federal 

motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) 

designed to improve motor vehicle 

safety. Generally, a manufacturer may 

not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for 

sale, or introduce or deliver for 

introduction into interstate commerce a 

vehicle that does not comply with all 

applicable FMVSS.1 There are limited 

exceptions to this general prohibition.2

One path permits manufacturers to 

petition NHTSA for an exemption for 

noncompliant vehicles under a 

specified set of statutory bases.3 The 

details of these bases, and under which 

basis Legacy Limousines and Luxury 

Coaches’ petition is granted, are 

provided in the sections of this notice 

that follow. 

II. Authority and Procedures for 

Temporary Exemption 

The National Traffic and Motor 

Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), codified 

at 49 U.S.C. chapter 301, authorizes the 

Secretary of Transportation to exempt 

motor vehicles, on a temporary basis 

and under specified circumstances, and 

on terms the Secretary considers 

appropriate, from a FMVSS or bumper 

standard. This authority is set forth at 

49 U.S.C. 30113. The Secretary has 

delegated the authority for 

implementing this section to NHTSA.4

The Safety Act authorizes the 

Secretary to grant, in whole or in part, 

a temporary exemption to a vehicle 

manufacturer if the Secretary makes one 

of four specified findings.5 The 

Secretary must also look 

comprehensively at the request for 

exemption and find that the exemption 

is consistent with the public interest 

and with the objectives of the Safety 

Act.6

The Secretary must evaluate the 

petition for exemption under at least 

one of the following bases: 

(ii) Compliance would cause 

substantial economic hardship, and the 

manufacturer tried to comply in good 

faith; 

(ii) the exemption would make easier 

the development or field evaluation of 

a new motor vehicle safety feature, and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Notices 7235 

7 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B). 

8 75 FR 50958 (Aug. 18, 2010). 

9http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive/ 

projects/safety_consid_long_stg.pdf. 

10 78 FR 70416, 70448 (Nov. 25, 2013), citing the 

2004 Anton’s Law final rule. 

11 Id. 

12 Id. 

13 Id. 

14The first petition was submitted by Hemphill 

Brothers Leasing Company, LLC (Hemphill). (Notice 

of receipt of petition, 84 FR 11735 (Mar. 28, 2019); 

notice of grant of petition, 84 FR 69966 (Nov. 14, 

2019)). In its original petition, Hemphill stated that 

39 ‘‘other petitioners’’ were covered by it. Later, 

NHTSA granted the 13 petitions submitted by All 

Access Coach Leasing LLC, Amadas Coach, Creative 

Mobile Interiors, D&S Classic Coach Inc., Farber 

Specialty Vehicles, Florida Coach, Inc., Geomarc, 

Inc., Integrity Interiors LLC, Nitetrain Coach 

Company, Inc., Pioneer Coach Interiors LLC, 

Roberts Brothers Coach Company, Russell 

Coachworks LLC, and Ultra Coach Inc. (Notice of 

receipt of the petitions, 85 FR 51550 (Aug. 20, 

2022); notice of grant of petitions, 87 FR 33299 

(June 1, 2022)). Most recently, NHTSA granted an 

exemption to Beat the Street Interiors, Inc. (BTS). 

(Notice of receipt of petition, 88 FR 25445 (Apr. 26, 

2024); notice of grant of petition, 88 FR 78093 (Nov. 

14, 2023)). 

15 88 FR 25445. 

the safety level is equal to the safety 

level of the standard; 

(iii) the exemption would make the 

development or field evaluation of a 

low-emission motor vehicle easier, and 

the safety level of the vehicle is not 

unreasonably lowered; or 

(iv) compliance would prevent the 

manufacturer from selling a motor 

vehicle with an overall safety level at 

least equal to the overall safety level of 

nonexempt vehicles.7

NHTSA established 49 CFR part 555, 

Temporary Exemption from Motor 

Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards, 

to implement the statutory provisions 

concerning temporary exemptions. The 

requirements in 49 CFR 555.5 state that 

the petitioner must set forth the basis of 

the petition by providing the 

information required under 49 CFR 

555.6, and the reasons why the 

exemption would be in the public 

interest and consistent with the 

objectives of the Safety Act. A petition 

submitted on the basis that the 

applicant is otherwise unable to sell (or 

in this instance, manufacture) a vehicle 

whose overall level of safety or impact 

protection is at least equal to that of a 

nonexempt vehicle must include the 

information specified in 49 CFR 

555.6(d). 

III. FMVSS No. 208 

On November 25, 2013, NHTSA 

published a final rule amending FMVSS 

No. 208 to require seat belts for each 

passenger seating position in all new 

over-the-road buses (OTRBs) (regardless 

of gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)), 

and all other buses with GVWRs greater 

than 11,793 kilograms (kg) (26,000 

pounds (lb)) (with certain exclusions). 

In the notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) preceding the final rule, 

NHTSA proposed to permit 

manufacturers the option of installing 

either a Type 1 (lap belt) or a Type 2 

(lap and shoulder belt) on side-facing 

seats.8 The proposed option was 

consistent with a provision in FMVSS 

No. 208 that allows lap belts for sidefacing seats on buses with a GVWR of 

4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less. NHTSA 

proposed the option because the agency 

was unaware of any demonstrable 

increase in associated risk of lap belts 

compared to lap and shoulder belts on 

side-facing seats. NHTSA stated that ‘‘a 

study commissioned by the European 

Commission regarding side-facing seats 

on minibuses and motorcoaches found 

that due to different seat belt designs, 

crash modes and a lack of real-world 

data, it cannot be determined whether a 

lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt would be 

the most effective.’’ 9

However, after the NPRM was 

published, the Motorcoach Enhanced 

Safety Act of 2012 was enacted as part 

of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 

21st Century Act (MAP–21), Public Law 

112–141 (July 6, 2012). Section 32703(a) 

of MAP–21 directed the Secretary of 

Transportation (authority delegated to 

NHTSA) to ‘‘prescribe regulations 

requiring safety belts to be installed in 

motorcoaches at each designated seating 

position.’’ As MAP–21 defined ‘‘safety 

belt’’ to mean an integrated lap and 

shoulder belt, the final rule amended 

FMVSS No. 208 to require lap and 

shoulder belts at all designated seating 

positions, including side-facing seats, 

on OTRBs. 

Even so, the agency reiterated its view 

that ‘‘the addition of a shoulder belt at 

[side-facing seats on light vehicles] is of 

limited value, given the paucity of data 

related to side facing seats.’’ 10 The 

agency also noted that Australian 

Design Rule ADR 5/04, ‘‘Anchorages for 

Seatbelts’’ specifically prohibits 

shoulder belts for side-facing seats. 

Given that background, and believing 

that few OTRBs would have side-facing 

seats, NHTSA stated in the November 

2013 final rule that the manufacturers at 

issue may petition NHTSA for a 

temporary exemption under 49 CFR part 

555 to install lap belts instead of lap and 

shoulder belts at side-facing seats.11 In 

the November 2013 final rule, NHTSA 

stated that the agency would be 

receptive to the argument that lap belts 

provide an equivalent level of safety to 

lap/shoulder belt combinations for sidefacing seats.12 NHTSA stated that the 

basis for any petition for exemption 

from this requirement would be that the 

applicant is unable to sell a bus whose 

overall level of safety is at least equal to 

that of a non-exempted vehicle.13

As noted in the notice of receipt, 

since issuing the November 2013 final 

rule, NHTSA has granted temporary 

exemptions to more than a dozen final 

stage manufacturers of entertainer buses 

for the same shoulder belt requirement 

of FMVSS No. 208 for side-facing seats 

on entertainer buses.14

In the most recent decision notice 

granting one of these exemptions, 

NHTSA’s rationale for granting the 

exemption cited the uncertainties about 

shoulder belts on side-facing seats, the 

relatively small number of side-facing 

seats on buses subject to the November 

2013 final rule, and that FMVSS No. 208 

does not require shoulder belts on sidefacing seats on any other vehicle type.15

NHTSA stated that it believes the 

potential safety risk at issue is 

theoretical, as explained in the in 

November 2013 final rule, and the 

agency cannot affirmatively conclude, 

based on available information, that 

shoulder belts on side-facing seats are 

associated with a demonstrated risk of 

serious neck injuries in front crashes. 

NHTSA also stated that it believes a 

shoulder belt is of limited value on sidefacing seats for the reasons explained in 

the final rule and further explained that 

it believed granting the exemption was 

consistent with the public interest and 

the Safety Act. 

IV. Legacy Limousine and Luxury 

Coaches’ Petition 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 

and the procedures in 49 CFR part 555, 

Legacy Limousine and Luxury Coaches 

submitted a petition asking NHTSA for 

a temporary exemption from the 

shoulder belt requirement of FMVSS 

No. 208 for side-facing seats on its 

vehicles. The petitioner seeks to install 

Type 1 seat belts (lap belt only) at sidefacing seating positions, instead of Type 

2 seat belts (lap and shoulder belts) as 

required by FMVSS No. 208. Petitioner 

seeks this exemption because it states it 

is otherwise unable to sell a motor 

vehicle whose overall level of safety is 

equivalent to or exceeds the overall 

level of safety of nonexempted motor 

vehicles. 49 CFR 555.6(d). The only 

difference between the requested 

exempt vehicles and non-exempted 

vehicles is that the non-exempted 

vehicles have lap/shoulder belts at sidefacing seating positions, while 

exempted vehicle would have no belts 

or lap belts at side-facing seating 

positions. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
7236 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Notices 

16 78 FR 70448 (quoting the agency’s Anton’s Law 

final rule, which required lap/shoulder belts in 

forward-facing rear seating positions of light 

vehicles, 59 FR 70907). 

17Eds.: Fildes, B., Digges, K., ‘‘Occupant 

Protection in Far Side Crashes,’’ Monash University 

Accident Research Center, Report No. 294, April 

2010, pg. 57. 

18 89 FR 87722. 

Legacy Limousine and Luxury 

Coaches is a corporation that identifies 

itself as a final-stage manufacturer of 

entertainer-type motorcoaches. Legacy 

Limousine and Luxury Coaches states it 

is responsible for ensuring that the 

completed coach meets the FMVSS. The 

company typically receives a bus shell 

from an incomplete vehicle 

manufacturer and customizes the OTRB. 

According to the petition, the bus 

shell received from the incomplete 

vehicle manufacturer generally contains 

the following components: exterior 

frame; driver’s seat; dash cluster, 

speedometer, emissions light and 

emissions diagnosis connector; exterior 

lighting, headlights, marker lights, tum 

signal lights, and brake lights; exterior 

glass, windshield and side lights with 

emergency exits; windshield wiper 

system; braking system; tires, tire 

pressure monitoring system and 

suspension; and engine and 

transmission. 

Petitioner states it then builds out the 

complete interior of the vehicle, which 

might include: roof escape hatch; fire 

suppression systems (interior living 

space, rear tires, electrical panels, bay 

storage compartments, and generator); 

ceiling, side walls and flooring; seating; 

electrical system, generator, invertor 

and house batteries; interior lighting; 

interior entertainment equipment; 

heating, ventilation and cooling system; 

galley with potable water, cooking 

equipment, refrigerators, and storage 

cabinets; bathroom and showers; and 

sleeping positions. 

Pursuant to 49 CFR 555.5(b)(7), the 

petitioner must state why granting an 

exemption allowing it to install Type 1 

instead of Type 2 seat belts in sidefacing seats would be in the public 

interest and consistent with the 

objectives of the Safety Act. 

Petitioner argues that NHTSA clearly 

had reservations about the safety effects 

of Type 2 seat belts on side-facing seats 

in motorcoaches. Petitioner notes that 

Congress mandated that NHTSA require 

Type 2 seat belts in side-facing seating 

positions in motorcoaches. NHTSA 

required it, per the direction from 

Congress, but NHTSA stated ‘‘the 

addition of a shoulder belt at [sidefacing seats on light vehicles] is of 

limited value, given the paucity of data 

related to side facing seats.’’ 16 Petitioner 

raises the fact that NHTSA has also 

reiterated that there have been concerns 

expressed in literature in this area about 

shoulder belts on side-facing seats, 

noting in the final rule that, although 

the agency has no direct evidence that 

shoulder belts may cause serious neck 

injuries when applied to side-facing 

seats, simulation data indicate potential 

carotid artery injury when the neck is 

loaded by the shoulder belt.17 Similarly, 

petitioner states that NHTSA also noted 

that Australian Design Rule ADR 5/04, 

‘‘Anchorages for Seatbelts,’’ specifically 

prohibits shoulder belts for side-facing 

seats. Petitioner also notes that there 

was no testing before or after the 

issuance of the 2013 final rule requiring 

Type 2 seat belts on side-facing seats in 

motorcoaches. 

Petitioner states that granting its 

petition would be consistent with the 

Safety Act and in the public interest 

because NHTSA’s analysis in 

developing the 2013 final rule found no 

demonstrable increase in associated risk 

related to the use of Type 1 seat belts. 

V. Notice of Receipt and Comments 

Received 

On November 4, 2024, NHTSA 

published the notice of receipt for this 

petition to solicit input from the 

public.18 Much of the information 

included in the notice of receipt is 

included in this grant notice. NHTSA 

received six comments in response to 

the notice of receipt. Commenters 

included the American Bus Association 

and five individuals. The American Bus 

Association strongly supported granting 

the petition. The five individuals who 

commented did not support granting the 

petition for the reasons summarized 

below. NHTSA includes its responses to 

the commenters’ concerns below, too. 

A few commenters expressed general 

support for shoulder belts in 

motorcoaches, stating that they 

significantly enhance safety. One 

commenter stated that the automotive 

industry has resisted the adoption of 

safety features, and seemed to indicate 

his belief that this petition was broadly 

seeking an exemption from all shoulder 

belt requirements, not just those in sidefacing seats. This commenter also 

believes that the scope of the petition 

includes limousines, which it does not 

because it is focused on entertainer-type 

motorcoaches. Rather, the name of the 

company petitioning has limousine in 

the title, which may have been the 

source of confusion. 

One individual commenter stated that 

she did not believe that the petitioner 

had proven its inability to sell vehicles 

outweighs the value of Type 2 seat belts 

in side-facing seating positions in 

motorcoaches. This commenter pointed 

to the ‘‘Effectiveness of Lap/Shoulder 

Belts in the Back Outboard Seating 

Positions’’ study, which stated that 

‘‘back seat lap/shoulder belts are 15 

percent effective in reducing fatalities 

when compared to back seat lap belts.’’ 

She also stated that competitors of the 

petitioner are producing vehicles with 

Type 2 seat belts in side-facing seating 

positions in motorcoaches. 

One commenter suggests that industry 

produce a study to demonstrate that lap 

belts in side-facing seats are as effective 

as Type 2 seat belts, or that NHTSA 

independently conduct a limited study 

on the utility of shoulder harnesses for 

side-facing or perimeter seating to 

further understand their benefits and 

potential areas for improvement. 

Other commenters misunderstood this 

petition for exemption as a petition for 

rulemaking, or other rulemaking effort. 

To be clear, this grant notice is not a 

rulemaking document and anything 

included in the grant notice applies to 

the petitioner alone. 

NHTSA does not question the value of 

Type 2 seat belts for forward facing 

seating positions. The portion of the 

report cited by the commenter does not 

refer to information about side-facing 

seating positions, so it does not 

demonstrate the safety need suggested 

by the commenter. The report cited by 

one commenter that references 15 

percent efficacy in reducing fatalities 

was describing a study that focused on 

passenger cars, which are not at issue in 

this decision notice. Additionally, the 

commenter did not specify which 

competitors she was referring to or what 

‘‘vehicles’’ those competitors were 

producing, or whether those 

competitors were producers of 

entertainer-type motor coaches (as 

opposed to other motorcoaches). As 

such, the commenter did not provide 

NHTSA with enough information to use 

to assess the veracity of her claims 

opposing a grant. 

NHTSA generally agrees that shoulder 

belts in motorcoaches increase safety, 

though the application of that statement 

to side-facing seats becomes 

complicated due to the issues discussed 

in the 2013 rulemaking. At that time, 

NHTSA stated that it believes a 

shoulder belt is of limited value on sidefacing seats for the reasons explained in 

detail in the final rule. Until new 

research indicates that the situation has 

changed, NHTSA affirms its analysis in 

other similar exemptions and in the 

2013 final rule. 

As mandated by the Bipartisan 

Infrastructure Law (BIL), NHTSA is 

currently researching the protection of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Notices 7237 

19 ‘‘On November 15, 2021, President Biden 

signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 

(IIJA or the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law), Public 

Law 117–58. Sections 23015 and 23023 of the 

Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) mandated that 

the Secretary of Transportation, NHTSA through 

delegation, shall conduct a variety of research and 

actions including research into the development of 

motor vehicle safety standards for side impact 

protection, roof crush resistance, and air bag 

systems for the protection of occupants in 

limousines with alternative seating positions— 

including perimeter seating arrangements, safety 

features and standards that aid evacuation in the 

event that an exit in the passenger compartment of 

a limousine is blocked, and amending FMVSS Nos. 

207, 208, 209, and 210 such that they apply to 

limousines on each designated seating position, 

including side-facing seats.’’ https://

www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2024-0054- 

0001. See also 2022 NHTSA Research Public 

Meeting, available at https://

downloads.regulations.gov/NHTSA-2022-0091- 

0007/attachment_7.pdf. 

20 49 CFR 555.9(c)(2) refers to § 567.5(c)(7)(iii) as 

the regulation setting forth the certification 

statement final-stage manufacturers are to use in 

their certification labels. That reference to 

§ 567.5(c)(7)(iii) is outdated; it should be to 

§ 567.5(d)(2)(v)(A). The certification label 

requirements for final-stage manufacturers formerly 

were in § 567(c)(7)(iii) but the requirements were 

moved to § 567.5(d)(2)(v)(A) (see 70 FR 7433 (Feb. 

14, 2005)). 

occupants in limousines, including 

side-facing seats. This research includes 

full-scale crash testing and 

computational modeling of two types of 

limousines in both frontal and side 

impact crash modes. While this research 

does not directly apply to motorcoaches, 

it will include several observations of 

occupant response in side-facing seats, 

which will help clarify the unknowns 

related to shoulder belt loading of an 

occupant’s neck in a side-facing seat.19

VI. Agency Analysis and Decision 

After reviewing Legacy Limousine 

and Luxury Coaches’ petition for 

temporary exemption and the comments 

received on it, NHTSA is granting the 

petition. Granting the petition will 

enable the petitioner to sell a vehicle 

whose overall level of safety or impact 

protection is at least equal to that of a 

nonexempted vehicle. 

In the rulemaking implementing 

MAP–21’s mandate for seat belts on 

motorcoaches, NHTSA’s proposal in the 

NPRM was to allow manufacturers an 

option of installing Type 1 (lap belt) or 

Type 2 (lap and shoulder belt) on sidefacing seats. That proposal was 

consistent with a provision in FMVSS 

No. 208 that allows lap belts for sidefacing seats on buses with a GVWR of 

4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less. NHTSA 

proposed the option because the agency 

was unaware of any demonstrable 

increase in associated risk of lap belts 

compared to lap and shoulder belts on 

side-facing seats. That is, the agency 

believed that lap belts were not less 

protective than lap and shoulder belts 

for side-facing seats. As noted in the 

summary above, NHTSA finalized the 

requirement for Type 2 seat belts in 

side-facing positions because of a 

congressional mandate to do so. In that 

final rule, NHTSA finalized the 

requirement for Type 2 seat belts in 

side-facing positions, while also noting 

that the agency would be receptive to a 

petition for a temporary exemption that 

argues that lap belts provide an 

equivalent level of safety to lap/ 

shoulder belt combinations for sidefacing seats. 

The petitioner does not provide 

information supporting its contentions 

about the potential for Type 2 seat belts 

in side-facing seats to cause injuries 

beyond reciting what NHTSA said on 

the matter in the 2013 final rule. 

Accordingly, NHTSA believes that the 

potential safety risk at issue is 

theoretical at this point; as explained in 

the November 2013 final rule, the 

agency cannot affirmatively conclude, 

based on available information, that 

shoulder belts on side-facing seats are 

associated with a demonstrated risk of 

serious neck injuries in frontal crashes. 

However, at the same time, NHTSA 

believes a shoulder belt is of limited 

value on side-facing seats for the 

reasons explained in the final rule. 

Given the uncertainties about shoulder 

belts on side-facing seats, the few sidefacing seats on buses subject to the 

November 2013 final rule, and that 

FMVSS No. 208 does not require 

shoulder belts on side-facing seats on 

any other vehicle type, NHTSA is 

granting Legacy Limousine and Luxury 

Coach’s petition for temporary 

exemption. The grant will permit the 

petitioner to install Type 1 seat belts 

(lap belt only) at side-facing seating 

positions, instead of Type 2 seat belts 

(lap and shoulder belts) at those 

positions, on the entertainer-type 

motorcoaches it manufactures. This 

exemption does not apply to forwardfacing designated seating positions on 

the petitioner’s vehicles. Under FMVSS 

No. 208, the forward-facing seating 

positions must have Type 2 lap and 

shoulder belts. 

NHTSA believes that granting Legacy 

Limousine and Luxury Coach’s petition 

is consistent with the public interest. 

The exemption will enable the applicant 

to sell buses whose overall level of 

safety is at least equal to that of nonexempted vehicles. Much of the 

petitioner’s analysis for why granting its 

petition is in the public interest relies 

on NHTSA’s own analysis in the 

rulemaking mandating Type 2 seat belts 

in side-facing seats. Chief among that 

analysis is the fact that NHTSA stated 

that it did not have enough data 

available at the time to demonstrate that 

the Type 2 seat belt for side-facing 

seatbelts had more than limited value. 

This dearth of data may change with 

future research, but since additional 

data is not yet available, NHTSA agrees 

that granting this petition is in the 

public interest. 

Granting this petition is also 

consistent with the Safety Act. The 

requested exemption will not impact 

general motor vehicle safety because the 

exempted buses will provide overall 

safety at least equal to that of 

nonexempted buses. Further, Legacy 

Limousines and Luxury Coaches 

produces a small number of affected 

vehicles annually. The petitioner did 

not specify in its petition how many 

buses it would manufacture under the 

exemption but noted that ‘‘fewer than 

100 entertainer-type motorcoaches with 

side-facing seats are manufactured and 

enter the U.S. market each year.’’ Thus, 

NHTSA concludes that the petitioner 

will manufacture very few vehicles 

relative to the 2,500 per manufacturer 

limit set forth in the Safety Act. Further, 

as explained below, in accordance with 

§ 30113(h) of the Safety Act, prospective 

purchasers will also be notified of the 

exemption before making their 

purchasing decisions. The vehicles must 

have a label notifying prospective 

purchasers that the vehicles are 

exempted from the shoulder belt 

requirement of FMVSS No. 208 for the 

side-facing seats. NHTSA believes that 

this combination of factors reinforces 

that this grant notice is consistent with 

the Safety Act. 

VII. Labeling 

Under 49 CFR 555.9(b), a 

manufacturer of an exempted vehicle 

must securely affix to the windshield or 

side window of each exempted vehicle 

a label containing a statement that the 

vehicle meets 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)(2), this information must also 

be included on the vehicle’s 

certification label.20

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 an FMVSS. In this case, 

NHTSA believes that a blanket 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
7238 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Notices 

statement that the vehicle has been 

exempted from Standard No. 208, 

without an indication that the 

exemption is limited to the shoulder 

belt on side-facing seats, could be 

confusing. A purchaser might 

incorrectly believe that the vehicle has 

been exempted from all of FMVSS No. 

208’s requirements. For this reason, 

NHTSA believes the two labels should 

read in relevant part, ‘‘except for the 

shoulder belt requirement for sidefacing seats (Standard No. 208, 

Occupant Crash Protection), exempted 

pursuant to * * *.’’ 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 

30113(b)(3)(B)(iv), the applicant is 

granted NHTSA Temporary Exemption 

No. EX 25–01, from the shoulder belt 

requirement of 49 CFR 571.208 for sidefacing seats on its motorcoaches. The 

exemption shall remain effective for the 

period designated at the beginning of 

this document in the DATES section. 

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5. 

Issued in Washington, DC, under authority 

delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5. 

Sophie Shulman, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2025–01299 Filed 1–17–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2025–003] 

Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Defect Petition DP22–002 has 

been denied. 

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the 

reasons for the denial of defect petition 

DP22–002, submitted on April 29, 2022, 

by Mr. Sergio Betancourt (the petitioner) 

to NHTSA’s Office of Defects 

Investigation (ODI). The petition 

requests that the Agency investigate 

alleged ‘‘wrong-sized wrist pins’’ in 

Mercedes-Benz vehicles equipped with 

the M274 engine (including the Metris 

minivan, GLC300, and C300). After 

conducting a technical review of the 

petitioner’s submissions, information 

provided by Mercedes-Benz in response 

to the Agency’s Information Request, 

and data within its own files, NHTSA 

has concluded that there is insufficient 

evidence to warrant further action at 

this time. Accordingly, the Agency has 

denied the petition. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Tariq Bond, Vehicle Defects Division— 

D, Office of Defects Investigation, 

NHTSA 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. Email: 

Tariq.Bond@dot.gov. Phone: (202) 366– 

5472. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

Interested persons may petition 

NHTSA requesting that the Agency 

initiate an investigation to determine 

whether a motor vehicle or an item of 

replacement equipment does not 

comply with an applicable motor 

vehicle safety standard or contains a 

defect that relates to motor vehicle 

safety. 49 U.S.C. 30162(a)(2); 49 CFR 

552.1. Upon receipt of a properly filed 

petition, the Agency conducts a 

technical review of the petition, 

material submitted with the petition, 

and any additional information. 49 

U.S.C. 30162(a)(2); 49 CFR 552.6. The 

technical review may consist solely of a 

review of information already in the 

possession of the Agency or it may 

include the collection of information 

from the motor vehicle manufacturer 

and/or other sources. After conducting 

the technical review and considering 

appropriate factors, which may include, 

but are not limited to, the nature of the 

complaint, allocation of Agency 

resources, Agency priorities, the 

likelihood of uncovering sufficient 

evidence to establish the existence of a 

defect, and the likelihood of success in 

any necessary enforcement litigation, 

the Agency will grant or deny the 

petition. See 49 U.S.C. 30162(a)(2); 49 

CFR 552.8. 

Background Information 

On February 4, 2022, the petitioner 

filed a Vehicle Owner Questionnaire 

(VOQ) designated ODI 11450360 

reporting that the petitioner’s vehicle 

made a popping sound and began to 

lose power while driving on a freeway 

at 70 mph. Petitioner stated that as he 

applied more accelerator input, the 

vehicle began to shake violently and 

began to expel white smoke through its 

exhaust. The petitioner safely exited 

traffic and arranged for the vehicle to be 

towed to a Mercedes dealership, where 

it was determined that the vehicle had 

a cracked piston. The dealer gave the 

petitioner a repair estimate for engine 

removal and diagnosis of a cracked 

piston, along with several repair options 

that included replacement of the 

catalytic converter and oxygen sensors, 

the damaged piston, and, contingent on 

damage identified during the diagnostic 

inspection, replacement of all four 

pistons and an engine rebuild. 

On April 29, 2022, the petitioner 

submitted a petition requesting that the 

Agency initiate an investigation into 

alleged ‘‘wrong-sized wrist pins’’ in all 

Mercedes-Benz models equipped with a 

variation of the M274 engine. The 

petitioner cited Mercedes technical 

service bulletin (TSB) LI03.10–P– 

060916 as the basis for the wrist pin 

concern. The petition included the 

petitioner’s vehicle repair estimate, the 

TSB, and screenshots of web forum 

statements from other Mercedes owners 

discussing either engine durability 

problems or the TSB. 

TSB LI03.10–P–060916 

The first iteration of TSB LI03.10–P– 

060916 was released on February 27, 

2015. The TSB was updated 16 

additional times through January 30, 

2019. The TSB addressed the following 

complaint condition: ‘‘Clattering/ 

rattling or knocking noise from the 

crank assembly of the engine when cold 

at oil temperatures up to approx. 50°C 

mostly heard on engine deceleration’’ 

and listed the cause as under analysis. 

The TSB gave further instructions on 

the collection of information and 

discouraged the replacement of any 

components. 

TSB Version 4, issued on September 

21, 2015, introduced engine build clean 

points (March 27, 2015 or April 20, 

2015 depending on the engine plant); 

cause (unfavorable tolerance of the 

piston wrist pin resulting in enlarged 

end float of the connecting rod in the 

piston); and remedy (compare the 

complaint vehicle sound to an enclosed 

sound file under various operating 

conditions and then if verified, replace 

the pistons, connecting rods, and 

bearings, using updated pistons that 

include updated wrist pins). 

Petitioner Vehicle History 

The petitioner’s vehicle is a 2015 

Mercedes C300 equipped with the M274 

(LS) 4-cylinder 2.0L direct-injected/ 

turbocharged engine fueled by 91 

Octane or higher gasoline. A synopsis of 

the petitioner’s vehicle history leading 

up to the events prompting the petition 

is listed as follows: 

Date Mileage Action(s) 

• Apr 2015 ................................................ ........................ Vehicle manufactured. . 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1