Receipt of Petitions for Temporary Exemption From Shoulder Belt Requirement for Side-Facing Seats on Motorcoaches |
|---|
|
James Clayton Owens
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
20 August 2020
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 162 (Thursday, August 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51550-51552]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18214]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0075]
Receipt 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 receipt of petitions for temporary exemption; request
for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA has received almost identical petitions from 13 final-
stage manufacturers of ``entertainer-type motorcoaches,'' seeking
temporary exemption from a shoulder belt requirement of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,''
for side-facing seats on motorcoaches. The petitioners seek to install
Type 1 seat belts (lap belt only) at side-facing seating positions,
instead of Type 2 seat belts (lap and shoulder belts) required by FMVSS
No. 208. Each petitioner states that, absent the requested exemption,
it will otherwise be unable to sell a vehicle whose overall level of
safety or impact protection is at least equal to that of a nonexempted
vehicle. NHTSA is publishing this document to notify the public of the
receipt of the petitions and to request comment on them, in accordance
with statutory and administrative provisions.
DATES: If you would like to comment, you should submit your comment not
later than October 19, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deirdre Fujita, Office of the Chief
Counsel, NCC-200, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, 20590. Telephone: 202-366-2992;
Fax: 202-366-3820.
ADDRESSES: You may submit your comment, identified by the docket number
in the heading of this document, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. To be sure someone is
there to help you, please call (202) 366-9322 before coming.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number.
Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below. NHTSA will
consider all comments received before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible, NHTSA
will also consider comments filed after the closing date.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays. Telephone: 202-366-9826. To be sure someone is
there to help you, please call (202) 366-9322 before coming.
Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible
through www.dot.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate comment tracking
and response, the agency encourages commenters to provide their name,
or the name of their organization; however, submission of names is
completely optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all
timely comments will be fully considered. If you wish to provide
comments containing proprietary or confidential information, please see
below.
Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three
copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim
to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA,
at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the
address given above. When you send a comment containing information
claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a
cover letter setting forth the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).
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
Secretary has delegated the authority for implementing this section to
NHTSA.
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
[[Page 51551]]
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\ Each petitioner is applying on the
basis that compliance with the standard 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 (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\ 555.8(b) and 555.8(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 at 50971.
\5\ 75 FR at 50971-50972.
\6\ http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive/projects/safety_consid_long_stg.pdf [Footnote in text.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 at 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. [Footnote in text.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that background, and believing there would be few side-facing
seats on OTRBs, NHTSA stated in the November 2013 final rule that
manufacturers 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; i.e., for side-facing
seats, lap belts provide at least an equivalent level of safety as lap
and shoulder belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 78 FR at 70448.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Receipt of Petitions
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the procedures in 49 CFR
part 555, 13 final-stage manufacturers of entertainer motorcoaches have
submitted individual, mostly identical \12\ petitions asking NHTSA for
a temporary exemption from the shoulder belt requirement of FMVSS No.
208 for side-facing seats on their vehicles. The petitions seek 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. The basis for each of the applications is
that compliance would prevent the petitioners from selling a motor
vehicle with an overall safety level at least equal to the overall
safety level of nonexempt vehicles (49 CFR 555.6(d)).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The petitions just differed in the name, address and
business structure of each petitioner.
\13\ 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. (Notice of receipt of
petition, 84 FR 11735 (March 28, 2019); notice of grant of petition,
84 FR 69966 (November 14, 2019).) In its original petition, Hemphill
stated that 39 ``other petitioners'' were covered by it. After NHTSA
noted that the Safety Act and NHTSA's procedures did not clearly
allow bundling such petitions (84 FR at 11738), the other
manufacturers submitted individual petitions. Originally, 41
manufacturers submitted petitions, but later all but 13 withdrew
their petitions. Today's notice pertains to those 13 remaining
petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the convenience of readers, and to facilitate administrative
processing of the petitions, NHTSA is issuing this single document to
notify the public of and request comment on the petitions rather than
publishing separate notices for each petition. Copies of each petition
have been placed in the docket listed in the heading of this notice. To
view the petitions, go to http://www.regulations.gov and enter the
docket number in the heading.
The petitioners are listed alphabetically as follows:
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.
[[Page 51552]]
c. Brief Overview of the Petitions
Each petitioner states that it typically receives a bus shell \14\
from an ``original manufacturer'' and ``customizes 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.'' Each petitioner states that it
``builds 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The petitions describe the bus as generally containing 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.
Each petitioner states that ``fewer than 100 entertainer-type
motorcoaches with side-facing seats are manufactured and enter the U.S.
market each year.''
Pursuant to 49 CFR 555.6(d), an application must provide ``[a]
detailed analysis of how the vehicle provides the overall level of
safety or impact protection at least equal to that of nonexempt
vehicles.''
Each petitioner reiterates the agency's discussion from the
November 2013 seat belt final rule, summarized above. The petitioners
also 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.'' Each petitioner believes 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.
Pursuant to 49 CFR 555.5(b)(7), petitioners 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.
Each petitioner states that granting an exemption to allow
manufacturers an option of installing a Type 1 lap belt at side-facing
seating positions is consistent with the public interest because
``NHTSA's analysis in developing this rule found that such belts
presented no demonstrable increase in associated risk.'' The
petitioners also each 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 referenced herein and noted in the rulemaking,
petitioners assert that Type 1 belts at side-facing seats may provide
equivalent or even superior occupant protection than Type 2 belts.''
Petitioners believe that an option for Type 1 belts at side-facing
seats is consistent with the objectives of the Safety Act because, they
state, Sec. 30111(a) of the Safety Act states that the Secretary shall
establish motor vehicle safety standards that ``shall be practicable,
meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective
terms.'' Petitioners state that--
an option for Type 1 or Type 2 belts at side-facing seating
positions is practicable as 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 option
to install either Type 1 or Type 2 belts at such locations meets the
need for motor vehicle safety as it is consistent with current
analysis by NHTSA and the European Commission that indicates no
demonstrable difference in risk between the two types of belts when
installed in sideways-facing seats. Finally, the option for Type 1
or Type 2 belts at side-facing seat locations provides an objective
standard that is easy for manufacturers to understand and meet.
The petitioners indicate that if there is no future NHTSA research,
testing or analysis to justify the use of Type 2 belts in side-facing
seats in over-the-road buses, they expect to seek to renew the
exemption, if granted, at the end of the exemption period.
f. Comment Period
The agency seeks comment from the public on the merits of the
petitions requesting a temporary exemption from FMVSS No. 208's
shoulder belt requirement for side-facing seats. NHTSA would like to
make clear that the petitioners seek to install lap belts at the side-
facing seats; they do not seek to be completely exempted from a belt
requirement. Further, the petitioners' requests do not pertain to
forward-facing designated seating positions on their vehicles. Under
FMVSS No. 208, forward-facing seating positions on motorcoaches must
have Type 2 lap and shoulder belts, and the petitioners are not raising
issues about that requirement for forward-facing seats. After
considering public comments and other available information, NHTSA will
publish a notice of final action on the petitions in the Federal
Register.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.95 and 501.4.
James Clayton Owens,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-18214 Filed 8-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P