Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Notices 33299 

1 49 CFR 555.5(b)(5) and 555.5(b)(7). 

2 49 CFR 555.8(b) and (e). 

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. 

4 75 FR 50971. 

5 75 FR 50971–50972. 

6http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive/ 

projects/safety_consid_long_stg.pdf. 

7MAP–21 states at § 32702(6) that ‘‘the term 

‘motorcoach’ has the meaning given the term ‘overthe-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.’’ 

Continued 

email to SmallVessels@dot.gov. Include 

in the email subject heading ‘‘Contains 

Confidential Commercial Information’’ 

or ‘‘Contains CCI’’ and state in your 

submission, with specificity, the basis 

for any such confidential claim 

highlighting or denoting the CCI 

portions. If possible, please provide a 

summary of your submission that can be 

made available to the public. 

In the event MARAD receives a 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

request for the information, procedures 

described in the Department’s FOIA 

regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be 

followed. Only information that is 

ultimately determined to be confidential 

under those procedures will be exempt 

from disclosure under FOIA. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of all comments received into any 

of our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). For information on DOT’s 

compliance with the Privacy Act, please 

visit https://www.transportation.gov/ 

privacy. 

(Authority: 49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 

55103, 46 U.S.C. 12121) 

By Order of the Acting Maritime 

Administrator. 

T. Mitchell Hudson, Jr., 

Secretary, Maritime Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11644 Filed 5–31–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P 

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

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

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’’ 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
33300 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Notices 

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.’’ 

8For 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. 

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. 

10Editors: Fildes, B., Digges, K., ‘‘Occupant 

Protection in Far Side Crashes,’’ Monash University 

Accident Research Center, Report No. 294, April 

2010, pg. 57. 

11 78 FR 70448. 

12 84 FR 61966. 

13Originally, 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. 

15The 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.’’ 16 85 FR 51550; Docket No. NHTSA–2020–0075. 

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

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. 

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. 

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 sidefacing 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 sidefacing seats on entertainer buses, which 

NHTSA granted on November 14, 

2019.12 13 NHTSA published a notice of 

receipt of the 13 petitions on August 20, 

2020.14

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— 

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 sidefacing 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. 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Notices 33301 

17Superior Coach Interiors, which was among the 

‘‘other petitioners’’ attached to the Hemphill 

petition. 

18National 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. 

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). 

20We 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. 

21On 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. 

22According 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. 

motorcoach manufacturer 17 stated that 

there are no statistics or test models 

showing that a shoulder belt provides a 

benefit on side-facing seats. 

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. 

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. 

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 sidefacing seats. 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. 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 sidefacing 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. 

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 forwardfacing 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

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.’’ 

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 § 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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
33302 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Notices 

23 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; 

February 14, 2005). 

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.lll.’’ 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.23

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 

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 NHTSA Exemption 

No.lll.’’ 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 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

[Docket No. PHMSA–2022–0035] 

Pipeline Safety: Request for Special 

Permit; Tennessee Gas Pipeline 

Company, LLC 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA); DOT. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: PHMSA is publishing this 

notice to solicit public comments on a 

request for special permit received from 

the Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, 

LLC (TGP). The special permit request 

is seeking relief from compliance with 

certain requirements in the federal 

pipeline safety regulations. At the 

conclusion of the 30-day comment 

period, PHMSA will review the 

comments received from this notice as 

part of its evaluation to grant or deny 

the special permit request. 

DATES: Submit any comments regarding 

this special permit request by July 1, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should reference 

the docket number for this special 

permit request and may be submitted in 

the following ways: 

• E-Gov Website: http://

www.Regulations.gov. This site allows 

the public to enter comments on any 

Federal Register notice issued by any 

agency. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management System: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, M–30, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Docket Management 

System: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9:00 

a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Instructions: You should identify the 

docket number for the special permit 

request you are commenting on at the 

beginning of your comments. If you 

submit your comments by mail, please 

submit two (2) copies. To receive 

confirmation that PHMSA has received 

your comments, please include a selfaddressed stamped postcard. Internet 

users may submit comments at http://

www.Regulations.gov. 

Note: There is a privacy statement 

published on http://

www.Regulations.gov. Comments, 

including any personal information 

provided, are posted without changes or 

edits to http://www.Regulations.gov. 

Confidential Business Information: 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

is commercial or financial information 

that is both customarily and actually 

treated as private by its owner. Under 

the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

(5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from 

public disclosure. If your comments 

responsive to this notice contain 

commercial or financial information 

that is customarily treated as private, 

that you actually treat as private, and 

that is relevant or responsive to this 

notice, it is important that you clearly 

designate the submitted comments as 

CBI. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 190.343, you may ask 

PHMSA to give confidential treatment 

to information you give to the agency by 

taking the following steps: (1) Mark each 

page of the original document 

submission containing CBI as 

‘‘Confidential’’; (2) send PHMSA, along 

with the original document, a second 

copy of the original document with the 

CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the 

information you are submitting is CBI. 

Unless you are notified otherwise, 

PHMSA will treat such marked 

submissions as confidential under the 

FOIA, and they will not be placed in the 

public docket of this notice. 

Submissions containing CBI should be 

sent to Kay McIver, DOT, PHMSA– 

PHP–80, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. Any 

commentary PHMSA receives that is not 

specifically designated as CBI will be 

placed in the public docket for this 

matter. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

General: Ms. Kay McIver by telephone 

at 202–366–0113, or by email at 

kay.mciver@dot.gov. 

Technical: Mr. Steve Nanney by 

telephone at 713–272–2855, or by email 

at steve.nanney@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PHMSA 

received a special permit request from 

the TGP, a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, 

Inc., seeking a waiver from the 

requirements of 49 CFR 192.611(a) and 

(d): Change in class location: 

Confirmation or revision of maximum 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1