[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33299-33302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11697]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0075]


Grant of Petitions 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 petitions for temporary exemption.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures in our regulations, NHTSA is 
granting 13 petitions from various final stage manufacturers (the 
petitioners) of motorcoaches for a temporary exemption from a shoulder 
belt requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 
208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' for side-facing seats. This grant 
permits the petitioners to install Type 1 seat belts (lap belt only) at 
side-facing seating positions, instead of Type 2 seat belts (lap and 
shoulder belts). After reviewing the petitions and the comments 
received, the agency has determined that the requested exemption is 
warranted to enable the petitioners 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 June 1, 2022 until June 1, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Koblenz, Office of Chief 
Counsel, NCC-200, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 
(202) 366-2992.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

a. Statutory Authority for Temporary Exemptions

    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), 
codified as 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, provides the Secretary of 
Transportation authority to exempt, on a temporary basis, under 
specified circumstances, and on terms the Secretary deems appropriate, 
motor vehicles from a motor vehicle safety standard or bumper standard. 
This authority and circumstances are set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30113. The 
authority for implementing this section has been delegated to NHTSA by 
49 CFR 1.95.
    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, subpart A, 
a vehicle manufacturer seeking an exemption must submit a petition for 
exemption containing specified information. Among other things, the 
petition must set forth (a) the reasons why granting the exemption 
would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of 
the Safety Act, and (b) required information showing that the 
manufacturer satisfies one of four bases for an exemption.\1\ The 
petitioners submitted individual petitions and applied on the basis 
that they are otherwise unable to sell a motor vehicle with an overall 
safety level at least equal to that of nonexempt vehicles (see 49 CFR 
555.6(d)). A manufacturer is eligible for an exemption under this basis 
only if NHTSA determines the exemption is for not more than 2,500 
vehicles to be sold in the U.S. in any 12-month period. An exemption 
under this basis may be granted for not more than 2 years but may be 
renewed upon reapplication.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 CFR 555.5(b)(5) and 555.5(b)(7).
    \2\ 49 CFR 555.8(b) and (e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. 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).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 78 FR 70416 (November 25, 2013); response to petitions for 
reconsideration, 81 FR 19902 (April 6, 2016). The final rule became 
effective November 28, 2016 for buses manufactured in a single 
stage, and a year later for buses manufactured in more than one 
stage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) preceding the final 
rule (75 FR 50958, August 18, 2010) 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.\4\ 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 believed that \5\ 
``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.\6\''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 75 FR 50971.
    \5\ 75 FR 50971-50972.
    \6\ 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.'' \7\ As MAP-21 defined ``safety

[[Page 33300]]

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.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ MAP-21 states at Sec.  32702(6) that ``the term `motorcoach' 
has the meaning given the term `over-the-road bus' in section 
3038(a)(3) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 
U.S.C. 5310 note), but does not include a bus used in public 
transportation provided by, or on behalf of, a public transportation 
agency; or a school bus, including a multifunction school activity 
bus.'' Section 3038(a)(3) (49 U.S.C. 5310 note) states: ``The term 
`over-the-road bus' means a bus characterized by an elevated 
passenger deck located over a baggage compartment.''
    \8\ For side-facing seats on buses other than OTRBs, in the 
final rule NHTSA permitted either lap or lap/shoulder belts at the 
manufacturer's option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even as it did so, however, 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.'' \9\ NHTSA 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, there are simulation data 
indicative of potential carotid artery injury when the neck is loaded 
by the shoulder belt.\10\ The agency also noted that Australian Design 
Rule ADR 5/04, ``Anchorages for Seatbelts'' specifically prohibits 
shoulder belts for side-facing seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 78 FR 70448, quoting from 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.
    \10\ Editors: Fildes, B., Digges, K., ``Occupant Protection in 
Far Side Crashes,'' Monash University Accident Research Center, 
Report No. 294, April 2010, pg. 57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that background, and believing there would be few side-facing 
seats on OTRBs, 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\ The basis for the petition 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. In other 
words, for side-facing seats, lap belts provide at least an equivalent 
level of safety as lap and shoulder belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 78 FR 70448.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Overview of Petitions

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the procedures in 49 CFR 
part 555, 13 final stage manufacturers of motorcoaches submitted 
petitions asking NHTSA for a temporary exemption from the shoulder belt 
requirement of FMVSS No. 208 for side-facing seats on their OTRBs under 
49 CFR 555.6(d). The petitions are related to a petition for temporary 
exemption NHTSA received from Hemphill Brothers Leasing Company, LLC 
(Hemphill) on the same shoulder belt requirement of FMVSS No. 208 for 
side-facing seats on entertainer buses, which NHTSA granted on November 
14, 2019.<SUP>12 13</SUP> NHTSA published a notice of receipt of the 13 
petitions on August 20, 2020.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 84 FR 61966.
    \13\ Originally, 41 manufacturers submitted petitions, but later 
all but 13 withdrew their petitions. The petitions are almost 
identical but for the name and address of the petitioner.
    \14\ 85 FR 51550.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners describe themselves as ``final stage 
manufacturers'' of motorcoaches. The petitioners state that they 
typically receive a bus shell \15\ from an ``original manufacturer'' 
and ``customize[s] the Over-the-Road Bus (`OTRB') to meet the needs of 
entertainers, politicians, musicians, celebrities and other specialized 
customers who use motorcoaches as a necessity for their businesses.'' 
The petitioners state that they build out the complete interior of the 
bus shell, including--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The petitions state that the bus shell ``generally contains 
the following components: Exterior frame; driver's seat; dash 
cluster, speedometer, emissions light and emissions diagnosis 
connector; exterior lighting, headlights, marker lights, turn 
signals 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.''

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.

    In support of their assertions that the exempted vehicles would 
provide an overall level of safety or impact protection at least equal 
to that of nonexempt vehicles, the petitioners reiterate NHTSA's 
statements in the November 2013 final rule. The petitioners state that 
NHTSA has not conducted testing on the impact or injuries to passengers 
in side-facing seats in motorcoaches, so ``there is no available 
credible data that supports requiring a Type 2 belt at the side-facing 
seating positions.'' The petitioners state that if they comply with the 
final rule as published, they would be ``forced to offer'' customers--

a motorcoach with a safety feature that could make the occupants 
less safe, or certainly at least no more safe, than if the feature 
was not installed. The current requirement in FMVSS 208 for Type 2 
belts at side-facing seating positions in OTRBs makes the applicants 
unable to sell a motor vehicle whose overall level of safety is 
equivalent to or exceeds the level of safety of a non-exempted 
vehicle.

    In support of their assertion that the exemption would be 
consistent with the public interest, the petitioners state that 
``NHTSA's analysis in developing this rule found that such belts 
presented no demonstrable increase in associated risk.'' The 
petitioners also state that the final rule requiring Type 2 belts at 
side-facing seats ``was not the result of any change in NHTSA policy or 
analysis, but rather resulted from an overly broad mandate by Congress 
for `safety belts to be installed in motorcoaches at each designated 
seating position.' '' They state that, based on the existing studies 
noted in the rulemaking, Type 1 belts at side-facing seats may provide 
equivalent or even superior occupant protection than Type 2 belts.
    The petitioners believe that an option for Type 1 belts at side-
facing seats is consistent with the objectives of the Safety Act 
because it allows the manufacturer to determine the best approach to 
motor vehicle safety depending on the intended use of the vehicle and 
its overall design. Additionally, the petitioners state the option 
meets the need for motor vehicle safety because data indicate no 
demonstrable difference in risk between the two types of belts when 
installed in side-facing seats. Finally, the petitioners note that the 
option would provide an objective standard that is easy for 
manufacturers to understand and meet.
Comments
    On August 20, 2020 NHTSA published a notice of receipt of the 13 
petitions for temporary exemption and requested comment on the 
petitions.\16\ The agency received 15 comments on the petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 85 FR 51550; Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0075.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most commenters were final-stage manufacturers of entertainer-type 
motorcoaches that submitted identical comments supporting the petition, 
including from some of the petitioners themselves. These commenters 
state that the entertainer motorcoaches at issue are custom built and 
typically include side-facing, perimeter seating. They state that fewer 
than 100 entertainer motorcoaches are manufactured each year. They 
believe that there are no available data supporting requiring a Type 2 
belt at side-facing seats and are concerned that serious injury to 
passengers could result if they installed the shoulder belts at those 
seats. Another entertainer

[[Page 33301]]

motorcoach manufacturer \17\ stated that there are no statistics or 
test models showing that a shoulder belt provides a benefit on side-
facing seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Superior Coach Interiors, which was among the ``other 
petitioners'' attached to the Hemphill petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The American Bus Association (ABA), a trade association for 
operators who transport the public, and the National Interstate 
Insurance Company, an insurance provider to the commercial passenger 
transportation industry, strongly supported the petitions.\18\ These 
commenters also affirm that fewer than 100 entertainer motorcoaches are 
manufactured each year. They expressed concern that serious injury to 
passengers could result from operators and manufacturers complying with 
the FMVSS No. 208 rule to install the shoulder belts and believe there 
are no data that support requiring a Type 2 seat belt at side-facing 
seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ National Interstate describes itself as currently insuring 
a significant share of the entertainment motorcoach industry market 
and states that it has consistently insured motorcoaches for 30 
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Automotive Safety Council (ASC) neither supported nor argued 
against the exemption, stating that there is insufficient evidence to 
determine whether shoulder belts on side-facing seats would have a 
positive or negative impact on safety.
    An individual, David DeVeau, from a design and development company 
argued that NHTSA should not approve an exemption from the shoulder 
belt requirement. However, Mr. DeVeau did not provide evidence that 
granting an exemption would impact safety, either positively or 
negatively. NHTSA also received an anonymous comment arguing against 
the exemption citing a recent SAE technical paper on injury risks to 
side-facing occupants.\19\ However, the head/torso restraints examined 
in this paper were side- or seat-mounted air bag systems, not the Type 
2 (lap and shoulder) belt system that is at issue in this request for 
exemption. Thus, NHTSA did not find the cited paper helpful in 
assessing the petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ ``A Human Body Model Study on Restraints for Side-Facing 
Occupants in Frontal Crashes of an Automated Vehicle,'' (SAE 
Technical Paper 2020-01-0980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Analysis and Decision
    After reviewing the 13 petitions and the comments received, the 
agency is granting the petitions. Granting the petitions will enable 
the petitioners 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. 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. That is, the agency believed that lap belts were as 
protective as lap and shoulder belts on side-facing seats.
    Commenters and the petitioners raise safety concerns about the 
shoulder belt portion of a lap and shoulder belt on side-facing seats. 
The commenters and the petitioner do not provide information supporting 
their beliefs about the potential for ``serious injury'' beyond 
reciting what NHTSA said on the matter in the November 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.\20\ Given the uncertainties about shoulder belts on side-facing 
seats, the few side-facing seats there are 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 the petitions for temporary exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ We note that the SAE technical report cited by one of the 
anonymous commenters, which found that lap/torso restraints were 
more effective at protecting side-facing occupants than lap-only 
restraints, is not pertinent to this exemption, since the torso 
restraints studied in the report were air bags, not Type 2 seat 
belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The grant will permit the petitioners 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 OTRBs 
they manufacture. This exemption does not apply to forward-facing 
designated seating positions on the petitioners' vehicles. Under FMVSS 
No. 208, the forward-facing seating positions must have Type 2 lap and 
shoulder belts.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ On October 2, 2019, the National Transportation Safety 
Board (NTSB) issued Recommendation H-19-14 in connection with the 
NTSB's investigation of an October 6, 2018 Schoharie, New York 
limousine crash. H-19-14 recommends that NHTSA ``[r]equire lap/
shoulder belts for each passenger seating position on all new 
vehicles modified to be used as limousines.'' The limousine in the 
Schoharie crash had between 18 and 22 seating positions and a GVWR 
of 13,080 lb. Under FMVSS No. 208, vehicles with 11 or more seating 
positions and a GVWR between 10,000 lb and 26,000 lb are not 
required to have seat belts in passenger seats. The NTSB 
recommendation would apply a passenger seat belt requirement to 
those vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA believes that granting the petitioners' exemption request 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. Further, we believe that the 
petitioners are small entities.\22\ Thus, this temporary exemption not 
only permits the manufacturer to sell vehicles whose overall level of 
safety is at least equal to that of non-exempted vehicles, but provides 
relief to a small business by, as the petitioner notes, providing ``an 
objective standard that is easy for manufacturers to understand and 
meet.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ According to 13 CFR 121.201, the Small Business 
Administration's size standards regulations used to define small 
business concerns, manufacturers of these buses fall under North 
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) No. 336213, Motor 
Home Manufacturing, which has a size standard of 1,250 employees or 
fewer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A grant is 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, the petitioners each produce a small number of affected 
vehicles annually. The petitioners did not specify exactly how many 
buses they would manufacture under the exemption, but several 
commenters, including the ABA and the National Interstate Insurance 
Company, have 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 petitioners will manufacture 
very few vehicles relative to the 2,500 per manufacturer limit set 
forth in the Safety Act and 49 CFR 555.6(d)(4). Further, as explained 
below, in accordance with 49 CFR 555.9 and Sec.  30113(h) of the Safety 
Act, prospective purchasers will also be notified of the exemption 
prior to 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.

[[Page 33302]]

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.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 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; February 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 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 NHTSA Exemption 
No.___.'' The Exemption Number is set forth below for each petitioner.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iv), the applicants are 
granted NHTSA Temporary Exemption Nos. EX 21-01 (All Access Coach 
Leasing LLC), 21-02 (Amadas Coach), 21-03 (Creative Mobile Interiors), 
21-04 (D&S Classic Coach Inc.), 21-05 (Farber Specialty Vehicles), 21-
06 (Florida Coach, Inc.), 21-07 (Geomarc, Inc.), 21-08 (Integrity 
Interiors LLC), 21-09 (Nitetrain Coach Company, Inc.), 21-10 (Pioneer 
Coach Interiors LLC), 21-11 (Roberts Brothers Coach Company), 21-12 
(Russell Coachworks LLC), and 21-13 (Ultra Coach Inc.), from the 
shoulder belt requirement of 49 CFR 571.208 for side-facing seats on 
their 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; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

Steven S. Cliff,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-11697 Filed 5-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P