Notice2022-11697
Grant of Petitions for Temporary Exemption From Shoulder Belt Requirement for Side-Facing Seats on Motorcoaches
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
June 1, 2022
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33299-33302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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\ <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive/projects/safety_consid_long_stg.pdf">http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive/projects/safety_consid_long_stg.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on June 1, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.