```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 21, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7234-7238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01299]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 side-facing 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 49 CFR 1.95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3).
    \6\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 7235]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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 side-facing 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 75 FR 50958 (Aug. 18, 2010).
    \9\ http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive/projects/safety_consid_long_stg.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 78 FR 70416, 70448 (Nov. 25, 2013), citing the 2004 Anton's 
Law final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 side-facing 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The 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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
side-facing 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 side-facing 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 88 FR 25445.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 side-
facing 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 side-facing seating positions, while exempted vehicle would 
have no belts or lap belts at side-facing seating positions.

[[Page 7236]]

    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 side-facing 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 [side-facing 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
    \17\ Eds.: Fildes, B., Digges, K., ``Occupant Protection in Far 
Side Crashes,'' Monash University Accident Research Center, Report 
No. 294, April 2010, pg. 57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 89 FR 87722.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 side-facing 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 side-facing 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

[[Page 7237]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 side-facing seats. That proposal was consistent with a 
provision in FMVSS No. 208 that allows lap belts for side-facing 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 side-facing 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 side-facing 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 forward-facing 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 non-exempted 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  555.9(c)(2), this information must also be 
included on the vehicle's certification label.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 49 CFR 555.9(c)(2) refers to Sec.  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 Sec.  567.5(c)(7)(iii) is outdated; it should be to 
Sec.  567.5(d)(2)(v)(A). The certification label requirements for 
final-stage manufacturers formerly were in Sec.  567(c)(7)(iii) but 
the requirements were moved to Sec.  567.5(d)(2)(v)(A) (see 70 FR 
7433 (Feb. 14, 2005)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of Sec.  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

[[Page 7238]]

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 side-facing 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 side-facing 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
```