Vol. 78 Monday, No. 227 November 25, 2013

Part II

Department of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection; Final Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 70416 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey b. Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of Avenue SE., West Building, 2012 National Highway Traffic Safety Washington, DC 20590. c. Agency Views Administration III. Background SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: a. The Agency’s 2007 ‘‘NHTSA’s Approach Completing the first initiative of to Motorcoach Safety’’ Plan 49 CFR Part 571 NHTSA’s 2007 ‘‘NHTSA’s Approach to b. DOT’s 2009 Task Force Action Plan [Docket No. NHTSA–2013–0121] Motorcoach Safety’’ plan and one of the c. NTSB Recommendations principal undertakings of DOT’s 2009 d. Congressional Mandate RIN 2127–AK56 Motorcoach Safety Action Plan, and IV. Safety Need fulfilling a statutory mandate of the a. Introduction Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of b. FARS Data Standards; Occupant Crash Protection c. Updated FARS Data 2012, incorporated into the Moving V. Summary of the NPRM AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century VI. Overview of the Comments Safety Administration (NHTSA), Act, this final rule amends the Federal VII. Differences Between the Final Rule and Department of Transportation (DOT). motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) the NPRM ACTION: Final rule. on occupant crash protection to require VIII. Motorcoach Definition lap/shoulder seat belts for each a. GVWR SUMMARY: Completing the first initiative passenger seating position in: (a) All 1. Response to Comments On Looking Like of NHTSA’s 2007 ‘‘NHTSA’s Approach new over-the-road buses; and (b) in new A Traditional Motorcoach to Motorcoach Safety’’ plan and one of 2. On Lowering the GVWR Criterion buses other than over-the-road buses, b. Sixteen Designated Seating Positions the principal undertakings of DOT’s with a gross vehicle weight rating c. At Least 2 Rows of Forward-Facing Seats 2009 Motorcoach Safety Action Plan, (GVWR) greater than 11,793 kilograms Rearward of the Driver’s Seat and fulfilling a statutory mandate of the (kg) (26,000 pounds (lb)).1 The notice of d. Treatment of Various Bus Types and Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of proposed rulemaking preceding this Configurations Under the Final Rule 2012, incorporated into the Moving final rule called buses with GVWR 1. Shuttle Buses Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) 2. Trolley and Double-Decker Sightseeing Act, this final rule amends the Federal ‘‘motorcoaches.’’ Although Buses motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) 3. Limousine and Entertainment Buses, transportation by these buses overall is Buses With Multiple Wheelchair on occupant crash protection to require a safe form of transportation in the U.S., Positions lap/shoulder seat belts for each several bus crashes in recent years have 4. Military Ambulances passenger seating position in all new illustrated that crashes of these vehicles 5. Prison Buses over-the-road buses, and in new buses can cause a significant number of fatal e. Transit Buses other than over-the-road buses with a or serious injuries in a single event, due f. School Buses gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) in part to the high occupancy rate of the g. Agency Observations greater than 11,793 kilograms (kg) vehicles, the speed at which they travel, IX. Requiring Seat Belts at Passenger Seating (26,000 pounds (lb), with certain Positions and occupant ejection in rollovers. X. Type of Belt System on Forward-Facing exclusions. By requiring the passenger NHTSA’s safety research on seat belts in Seats lap/shoulder seat belts, this final rule large buses (greater than 11,793 kg XI. Integrated Anchorages significantly reduces the risk of fatality (26,000 lb) GVWR) completed in 2009, XII. Seat Belt Adjustment, Fit, Lockability, and serious injury in frontal crashes and shows that the installation of lap/ and Other Requirements the risk of occupant ejection in shoulder belts on the vehicles is XIII. Passenger Seats That Are Not Forward- rollovers, thus considerably enhancing practicable and effective and could Facing the safety of these vehicles. reduce the risk of fatal injuries in XIV. Driver’s Seat XV. Seat Belt Signage and Other Reminders DATES rollover crashes by 77 percent, primarily : The effective date of this final XVI. Strength Requirements rule is November 28, 2016. Optional by preventing occupant ejection. Lap/ XVII. Lead Time early compliance is permitted. shoulder belts are also highly effective XVIII. On Retrofitting Used Buses Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions in preventing fatalities and serious XIX. Regulatory Alternatives for reconsideration of this final rule injuries in frontal crashes, and will XX. Overview of Costs and Benefits must be received not later than January enhance protection in side crashes in XXI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 9, 2014. the affected buses. By requiring I. Executive Summary ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration passenger lap/shoulder seat belts on (a) of this final rule must refer to the docket new over-the-road buses, and (b) new One of the guiding principles NHTSA and notice number set forth above and buses, other than over the road buses, considers in determining the priorities be submitted to the Administrator, with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg of our rulemaking projects is to protect National Highway Traffic Safety (26,000 lb), this final rule significantly the public against unreasonable risk of Administration, 1200 New Jersey reduces the risk of fatality and serious death or injury in high-occupancy Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. injury in frontal crashes and the risk of vehicles. In 2007, NHTSA published a comprehensive plan to research FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For occupant ejection in rollovers, thus considerably enhancing the safety of improvements to bus safety, entitled, non-legal issues, you may contact ‘‘NHTSA’s Approach to Motorcoach Lawrence Valvo or Louis Molino, these vehicles. Safety.’’ 2 In the plan, the term NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Table of Contents ‘‘motorcoach’’ referred to intercity Standards, telephone 202–366–1740, fax transport buses. This plan was 202–493–2739. For legal issues: Deirdre I. Executive Summary II. NHTSA’s Statutory Authority developed in direct response to several Fujita, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, a. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle National Transportation Safety Board telephone 202–366–2992, fax 202–366– Safety Act 3820. The mailing address for these 2 http://www.regulations.gov/ officials is: National Highway Traffic 1 Some buses are excluded from this latter #!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2007-28793-0001. See Safety Administration, U.S. Department category, such as transit and school buses. Docket No. NHTSA-2007-28793.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 70417

(NTSB) recommendations and also to This final rule is based on scientific lb). Data from 2000–2009 FARS show address several crashes that occurred data from an extensive test program that most fatal crashes of large buses since the recommendations were issued. completed in 2009 at NHTSA’s Vehicle involve buses with a GVWR greater than NHTSA’s plan identified as our highest Research and Test Center (VRTC). The 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) and most of the priorities four specific areas where we program began with a full-scale frontal fatal crashes involving these buses (55 can most effectively address open NTSB 48 kilometers per hour (km/h) (30 miles percent) are rollover crashes. Ejections recommendations in the near-term, and per hour (mph)) barrier crash test of a account for 66 percent of the fatalities also improve the safety of the buses 54-passenger over-the-road bus. The in rollover crashes of these buses, 20 most expeditiously. The four priority testing involved instrumented test percent of the fatalities in non-rollover areas were: (1) Passenger ejection; (2) dummies representing 50th percentile crashes and 45 percent of all fatalities. rollover structural integrity; (3) adult males, 5th percentile adult The risk of ejection can be reduced by emergency egress; and (4) fire safety.3 females, and 95th percentile adult males seat belts, a simple and effective This final rule addresses the first in belted and unbelted seating countermeasure. Seat belts are estimated priority area of the NHTSA plan, to configurations. The weight of the bus as to be 77 percent effective 9 in preventing minimize intercity bus passenger and tested (including test dummies and fatal injuries in rollover crashes, driver ejection by requiring the equipment) was 19,377 kg (42,720 lb), primarily by preventing ejection.10 which was less than the GVWR of the installation of seat belts for all Another important goal is to improve bus (∼24,500 kg (54,000 lb)).7 In the occupants of: (a) New over-the-road passenger crash protection of the buses crash test, NHTSA analyzed the head buses; 4 and (b) new buses, other than in crashes generally, particularly frontal accelerations (head injury criterion, over-the-road buses, with a GVWR crashes. Frontal crashes account for 42 (HIC)), neck injury (Nij) values, and greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb).5 The percent of the fatalities involving buses other injury criteria measured by the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg test dummies, the kinematics of the preceding this final rule, published on (26,000 lb). Lap/shoulder 11 belts are dummies during the crash, and the August 18, 2010 (75 FR 50958), estimated to be 29 percent effective in structural integrity of the seats, floor proposed to call buses with a GVWR preventing fatal injuries in frontal and bus. Follow-on sled testing was also greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) 12 conducted to evaluate the performance crashes of the subject buses. The ‘‘motorcoaches,’’ and proposed to apply of seat belt systems on motorcoach seats ability of the belts to improve the seat belt requirements to those vehicles. under a range of belted and unbelted passenger crash protection of heavy This final rule fulfills a statutory conditions, and to evaluate seat buses was demonstrated in our test mandate on motorcoach safety set forth anchorage strength testing. program, which found that lap/shoulder in the ‘‘Moving Ahead for Progress in Transportation by buses with a GVWR belts prevented critical head and neck the 21st Century Act’’ (MAP–21), On greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) injury values from being exceeded for July 6, 2012, President Obama signed overall is a safe form of transportation. belted test dummies. (In contrast, MAP–21, which incorporated the Data from NHTSA’s Fatal Analysis unbelted test dummies and test ‘‘Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of Reporting System (FARS) shows that dummies in lap-only belts measured 2012’’ (Motorcoach Enhanced Safety over the 10-year period between 2000 head and neck injury values surpassing Act) in Subtitle G. Among other matters, and 2009, there were 87 fatal crashes of critical thresholds.) We also estimate the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act buses covered by this final rule, lap/shoulder belts to be 42 percent requires DOT to ‘‘prescribe regulations resulting in 209 fatalities.8 During this effective in preventing side fatalities.13 requiring safety belts to be installed in period, on average, 21 fatalities have motorcoaches 6 at each designated occurred annually to occupants of these 9 Estimated based on Kahane, ‘‘Fatality Reduction seating position’’ not later than 1 year buses in crash and rollover events, with by Safety Belts for Front-Seat Occupants of Cars and Light Trucks,’’ December 2000, Washington, DC, after the date of enactment of the Act. about 4 of these fatalities being drivers National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. We have completed this final rule in and 17 being passengers. However, 10 We estimate that even at a minimum seat belt furtherance of NHTSA’s goal to enhance while transportation on these buses is usage rate of only 6 percent, the rule will remain the safety of all heavy buses used in safe overall, given the typical high cost effective for the bus passengers. intercity bus transportation, while occupancy of the subject buses and the 11 FMVSS No. 209, an equipment standard, currently applies to all seat belt assemblies installed attending to the Motorcoach Enhanced intercity operation of many of them at in buses. FMVSS No. 209 uses the term ‘‘Type 2 Safety Act’s focus on over-the-road high speeds, when serious crashes do seat belt assembly’’ to refer to a lap/shoulder belt buses. occur, a significant number of fatal or system. As defined in that standard, a Type 2 seat serious injuries can result, particularly belt assembly is ‘‘a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints.’’ In this preamble, we use the term 3 In 2009, DOT issued a Departmental Motorcoach when occupants are ejected. ‘‘lap/shoulder’’ belt system rather than ‘‘Type 2 seat Safety Action Plan, which is described later in this A primary goal of this rulemaking is belt assembly’’ for plain language purposes. preamble. Today’s final rule completes one of the to reduce occupant ejections occurring Documents may occasionally refer to lap/shoulder principal rulemakings included in the DOT plan to in crashes of buses the NPRM identified belts as 3-point belts. Under FMVSS No. 209, a enhance motorcoach safety. http:// as ‘‘motorcoaches,’’ i.e., buses with a ‘‘Type 1’’ seat belt assembly is ‘‘a lap belt for pelvic www.fmcsa.dot.gov/documents/safety-security/ restraint.’’ This preamble refers to Type 1 belts as _ MotorcoachSafetyActionPlan finalreport-508.pdf GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 ‘‘lap-only belts.’’ 4 An over-the-road bus is a bus characterized by 12 This is discussed in NHTSA’s Final Regulatory an elevated passenger deck located over a baggage 7 GVWR means the value specified by the Impact Analysis (FRIA) that discusses issues compartment. See section 3038(a)(3) of the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single relating to the estimated costs, benefits and other Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, vehicle (49 CFR 571.3). Under NHTSA’s impacts of this regulatory action. The FRIA is cited in section 32702(6) of Subtitle G, the certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), the available in the docket for this final rule and may Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, of MAP–21. GVWR ‘‘shall not be less than the sum of the be obtained by downloading it or by contacting 5 Certain bus types are excepted. unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 Docket Management at the address or telephone 6 Under the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, pounds times the number of the vehicle’s number provided at the beginning of this ‘‘motorcoach’’ means an over-the-road bus, but does designated seating positions. However, for school document.) not include a bus used in public transportation buses the minimum occupant weight allowance 13 Estimated based on Morgan, ‘‘Effectiveness of provided by, or on behalf of, a public transportation shall be 120 pounds per passenger and 150 pounds Lap/Shoulder Belts in the Back Outboard Seating agency, or a school bus. for the driver.’’ Positions,’’ June 1999, Washington, DC, National [Footnote added.] 8 These data have been updated from the NPRM. Highway Traffic Safety Administration. See FRIA.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 70418 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

Accordingly, to reduce the likelihood lap portion and a force of 13,345 N buses will add an additional $16,597 of occupant ejection and to improve (3,000 lb) applied simultaneously to the ($18.86 × 2,200 × .4). occupant protection in all crashes, torso portion of the seat belt assembly. The incremental cost of adding lap/ particularly frontal crashes, this final This final rule does not adopt a shoulder belts and to change the seat rule amends FMVSS No. 208, ‘‘motorcoach’’ definition. Comments anchorages for a two passenger seat is ‘‘Occupant crash protection’’ (49 CFR responding to the NPRM expressed $78.14 or $39.07 per seating position. 571.208), under NHTSA’s rulemaking some confusion and disagreement over On a 54-passenger bus the cost for the authority set forth in the National attaching the name of ‘‘motorcoach’’ to passenger seats is $2,110 ($39.07 × 54). Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act buses that may not have been widely The total cost of adding lap/shoulder (‘‘Vehicle Safety Act’’) (49 U.S.C. 30101 thought of as motorcoaches in the past. belts to all new 54-passenger buses is et seq.) and the Motorcoach Enhanced In addition, the Motorcoach Enhanced about $4.4 million ($2,110 × 2,100). The Safety Act. The standard is amended to: Safety Act uses the term ‘‘motorcoach’’ cutaway buses have seats for an average • Require a lap/shoulder belt at all differently than the NPRM. After of 45 passengers. The incremental cost designated seating positions on all over- considering these factors, we have of adding lap/shoulder belts on a 45- the-road buses,14 including over-the- determined that it is unnecessary to passenger cutaway bus with two road buses used in public define the term ‘‘motorcoach’’ to passengers per seat is $1,758 ($39.07 × transportation,15 but excluding school accomplish the objective of this 45). The total cost of adding passenger buses. rulemaking. To avoid potential lap/shoulder belts to all new cutaway • For buses other than over-the-road confusion over use of the term, and covered buses is about $0.2 million buses, this final rule requires a lap/ since the term is unnecessary, we have ($1,758.15 × 100). Thus, the total cost shoulder belt at all passenger seating decided not to use the term for all covered bus passenger positions positions on new buses with a GVWR ‘‘motorcoach’’ to describe the is about $4.6 million. The total cost of greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), applicability of the lap/shoulder seat adding lap/shoulder belts for passengers 16 belt requirements. Instead, we have except for certain excluded bus types. and shoulder belts to 40 percent of the decided to simply amend FMVSS No. (For buses other than over-the-road driver’s seats is $4.6 million ($4,606,353 208 such that the provisions of FMVSS buses, we permit side-facing seats to be + $25,238). equipped with a lap belt, for reasons Nos. 208 and 210 relevant to lap/ The agency has also estimated discussed later in this document.) shoulder belt and anchorages, increased costs in fuel usage. The • Require a lap/shoulder belt at the respectively, are applied to (a) all over- increased fuel costs depend on added driver’s seating position on subject the-road buses, and to (b) non-over-the- weight (estimated to be 161 lb 19) and buses.17 road buses with a GVWR greater than • Require the lap/shoulder belt 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), excepting the few the discount rate used. NHTSA system for passenger seats to meet bus types. estimates the increased costs in fuel provisions for seat belt adjustment and We estimate that installing lap/ usage for added weight and discounts fit, so that the seat belts can shoulder seat belts on new subject buses the additional fuel used over the accommodate children as well as large will save approximately 1.7 to 9.2 lives lifetime of the bus using a 3 percent and (95th-percentile) adult males, be and prevent 146 to 858 injuries per year 7 percent discount rate. See the FRIA for lockable for use with a child restraint (3.46–25.17 equivalent lives), depending more details. system, and be releasable at a single on the usage of lap/shoulder belts in the The cost per equivalent life saved is point and by a pushbutton action. buses (see Table 1 below).18 The cost of estimated to be $0.3 million to $1.8 • Require the seat belt anchorages, installing lap/shoulder belts on new million (see Table 3 below). Annualized both torso and lap, on passenger seats to buses is estimated as follows (see Table costs and benefits are provided in Table be integrated into the seat structure, so 2 below). The incremental cost of 4. as not to impede emergency egress. adding a shoulder belt to the already The ‘‘performance requirement’’ for required lap belt for drivers is estimated TABLE 1—ESTIMATED BENEFITS the lap/shoulder seat belts is the FMVSS to be $18.86. With about 60 percent of No. 210 strength requirement, measured the driver seating positions already Fatalities ...... 1.7 to 9.2. in a static ‘‘pull’’ test. The seat belt equipped with lap/shoulder belts, the AIS 1 injuries (Minor) ...... 89 to 536. assembly anchorages must meet the average bus cost will increase by $7.54. AIS 2–5 (Moderate to Severe) ... 57 to 322. following FMVSS No. 210 requirement: For the driver position, the total cost to • Total Non-fatal Injuries ...... 146 to Withstand a force of 13,345 the fleet of adding a shoulder belt to the 858. Newtons (N) (3,000 lb) applied to the driver seat for 40 percent of covered

14 There is no lower GVWR bound on the 16 The exceptions are transit buses, school buses, requires a lap/shoulder belt at the driver’s seating definition of over-the-road bus used in the ‘‘prison buses’’ (buses manufactured for the purpose position on school buses with a GVWR greater than Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act and none adopted of transporting persons subject to involuntary 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). by this final rule for such buses. Nonetheless, as a restraint or confinement), and ‘‘perimeter-seating 18 See FRIA for this final rule. The FRIA assumes practical matter, NHTSA is not aware of any bus buses’’ (which the NPRM had referred to as buses that the seat belt use rate on buses regulated by meeting the over-the-road bus definition with a with fewer than two rows of forward-facing seats. today’s rule will be between 15 percent and the GVWR of less than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). As explained in a later section of this preamble, we percent use in passenger vehicles, which was 83 15 We are mindful that the Motorcoach Enhanced have decided it would be simpler to define a percent in 2008. These annual benefits accrue when Safety Act excludes a bus used in public perimeter-seating bus by reference to the number of all subject buses in the fleet have lap/shoulder transportation provided by, or on behalf of, a public forward-facing seats it has than the number of rows belts. transportation agency from the meaning of it has. Note that, as a result of the Motorcoach 19 See FRIA for this final rule. This estimate is ‘‘motorcoach.’’ However, as discussed in the NPRM Enhanced Safety Act, only buses other than over- based on results from a NHTSA contractor and in this final rule, we are applying the final rule the-road buses (which we sometimes refer to as conducting cost/weight teardown studies of to over-the-road buses used for public ‘‘non-over-the-road buses’’) can be included in this motorcoach seats. The weight added by lap/ transportation based on determinations we have excepted category of a perimeter-seating bus. shoulder belts was 5.96 per 2-person seat. This is made pursuant to NHTSA’s Vehicle Safety Act 17 The buses are all over-the-road buses, and non- the weight only of the seat belt assembly itself and authority, 49 U.S.C. 30111, which has existed and over-the road buses with a GVWR greater than does not include changing the design of the seat, continues to exist prior to and separate from the 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), except transit buses and reinforcing the floor, walls or other areas of the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act provisions. perimeter-seating buses. This final rule also motorcoach.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 70419

TABLE 2—ESTIMATED COSTS [2008 Economics]

Per Total average fleet vehicle ($millions)

Bus Driver ...... $7.54 $0 .02 Bus Passenger ...... 2,094 4.6 Fuel Costs @3% ...... 1,077 2 .4 Fuel Costs @7% ...... 794 1.7 New Vehicle and Fuel Costs @3% ...... 3,178 7 .0 @7% ...... 2,895 6 .4

TABLE 3—COST PER EQUIVALENT LIFE SAVED

Cost per equivalent life saved

50% Belt use for drivers and 15% Belt usage for passengers ...... $1.5 to $1.8 mill. 83% Belt usage for drivers and passengers ...... $0.3 to $0.43 mill. Breakeven Point in passenger belt usage ...... 4 to 5%.

TABLE 4—ANNUALIZED COSTS AND BENEFITS [In millions of $2008 Dollars]

Annualized costs Annualized benefits Net benefits

3% Discount Rate ...... $7.0 $28.5—158.6 ...... $21.5 to 151.6. 7% Discount Rate ...... $6.4 $21.8—121.1 ...... $15.4 to 114.7.

We have assessed the feasibility, comments on the retrofit issue stated in objective terms.21 ‘‘Motor benefits, and costs with respect to the supported a finding that the impacts vehicle safety’’ is defined in the Vehicle application of the seat belt requirements would be unreasonable. After Safety Act as ‘‘the performance of a to buses manufactured before the date considering the low likelihood that a motor vehicle or motor vehicle on which this final rule applies to new retrofit requirement would be equipment in a way that protects the vehicles. Based on that assessment, we technically practicable at a reasonable public against unreasonable risk of have decided not to require retrofitting cost, the cost impacts on small accidents occurring because of the of used buses with seat belts. To learn businesses, and the low benefits that design, construction, or performance of more about retrofitting, the NPRM would accrue from a retrofit a motor vehicle, and against requirement we have decided not to requested comment on issues unreasonable risk of death or injury in concerning the structural viability of pursue a retrofit requirement for seat an accident, and includes used buses to accommodate seat belts belts. (See FRIA discussion of cost/ nonoperational safety of a motor and the crash forces from belted benefit of retrofit). vehicle.’’ 22 ‘‘Motor vehicle safety passengers, the reinforcement needed to II. NHTSA’s Statutory Authority the bus structure to accommodate the standard’’ means a minimum loads, and the cost of retrofitting. Our a. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle performance standard for motor vehicles 23 hypothesis at the time of the NPRM was Safety Act or motor vehicle equipment. When prescribing such standards, the that the cost of and engineering This final rule is issued under the Secretary must consider all relevant, expertise needed for a retrofitting National Traffic and Motor Vehicle operation would be beyond the means Safety Act (‘‘Vehicle Safety Act’’) (49 available motor vehicle safety of bus owners (for-hire operators), many U.S.C. 30101 et seq.). Under the Vehicle information, and consider whether a of which are small businesses.20 The Safety Act, the Secretary of standard is reasonable, practicable, and Transportation is responsible for appropriate for the types of motor 20 The agency estimated in the NPRM that the prescribing motor vehicle safety vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for service life of a motorcoach can be 20 years or which it is prescribed.24 The Secretary longer. We estimated that the cost of retrofitting can standards that are practicable, meet the vary substantially. To retrofit a vehicle with lap need for motor vehicle safety, and are must also consider the extent to which belts, we estimated it could cost between $6,000 the standard will further the statutory (assuming that the motorcoach structure is lap belt- $997,050,000 ($34,000 × 29,325), while the fleet purpose of reducing traffic accidents ready, and can accommodate the loads set forth in cost of retrofitting lap/shoulder belts was estimated and associated deaths and injuries.25 the NPRM) to $34,000 per vehicle to retrofit the to be $1,173,000,000 ($40,000 × 29,325). These costs vehicle with the lap belts and with sufficient did not include increased remaining lifetime fuel The responsibility for promulgation of structure to meet the NPRM’s requirements. To costs incurred by adding structural weight to the retrofit it with lap/shoulder belts and reinforced motorcoach. Later in the analysis we examine a structure so as to meet FMVSS No. 210 to support range of costs and include the lifetime fuel costs for 21 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). the loads during a crash, we estimated it could cost the weight of the belts themselves. Weight would 22 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8). $40,000 per vehicle. The existing fleet size was vary depending upon the needed structural 23 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9). estimated to be 29,325 motorcoaches. Hence, the changes, and lifetime fuel cost would vary fleet cost of retrofitting lap belts was estimated to depending upon the age of motorcoaches that 24 49 U.S.C. 30111(b). range from $175,950,000 ($6,000 × 29,325) to would be retrofitted. 25 Id.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 70420 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

Federal motor vehicle safety standards Section 32702(2) of the Act states: and (3) avoid duplicative benefits, costs, is delegated to NHTSA. (49 CFR 1.95)26 ‘‘The term ‘bus’ has the meaning given and countermeasures. the term in section 571.3(b) of title 49, Section 32711 of the Act states: Any b. Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect standard or regulation prescribed or 2012 on the day before the date of enactment modified pursuant to the Motorcoach On July 6, 2012, President Obama of this Act).’’ 49 CFR 571.3(b) is a Enhanced Safety Act of 2012 shall be signed MAP–21, which incorporated in NHTSA regulation that defines ‘‘bus’’ prescribed or modified in accordance Subtitle G the ‘‘Motorcoach Enhanced as: ‘‘a motor vehicle with motive power, with section 553 of title 5, United States Safety Act of 2012,’’ P.L. 112–141 (July except a trailer, designed for carrying Code. more than 10 persons.’’ 6, 2012). Section 32703(a) of the Act c. Agency Views states that, not later than 1 year after the Section 32702(12) of the Motorcoach date of enactment of the Act, the Enhanced Safety Act states: ‘‘The term At the time of the enactment of the Secretary shall prescribe regulations ‘safety belt’ has the meaning given the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, the requiring safety belts to be installed in term in section 153(i)(4)(B) of title 23, agency’s August 18, 2010 NPRM to motorcoaches at each designated seating United States Code.’’ Section require lap/shoulder belts in new buses position. The Motorcoach Enhanced 153(i)(4)(B) of Title 23 defines ‘‘safety with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg Safety Act also directs the Secretary to belt’’ as ‘‘an occupant restraint system (26,000 lb) had been published and consider various motorcoach consisting of integrated lap shoulder work was close to completion in DOT rulemakings, in provided timeframes, belts.’’ on the final rule. Congress was aware of relating to improved roof support Under section 32703(e)(1) of the Act, our progress on the agency’s 2007 standards, advanced glazing standards any regulation prescribed in accordance NHTSA’s Approach to Motorcoach with section 32703(a) (and several other and other portal improvements to Safety Plan and the achievements of the subsections) shall apply to all prevent partial and complete ejection of Department’s Motorcoach Safety Plan motorcoaches manufactured more than motorcoach passengers, rollover when it passed the statute. Given that 3 years after the date on which the stability enhancing technology, tire the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act regulation is published as a final rule, pressure monitoring systems, and tire provides a very short timeframe (1 year) take into account the impact to seating performance standards. The Act also for issuance of a final rule, we believe capacity of changes to size and weight includes provisions on fire research, that Congress intended that a final rule of motorcoaches and the ability to interior impact protection, enhanced based on the 2010 NPRM would comply with State and Federal size and seating designs, and collision avoidance complete the rulemaking proceeding weight requirements, and be based on systems, and the consideration of specified in section 32703(a) of the Act. the best available science. This final rule fulfills the rulemaking rulemaking based on such research. Section 32703(e)(2), ‘‘Retrofit There also are provisions in the mandate of section 32703(a). Assessment For Existing We interpret the Motorcoach Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act Motorcoaches,’’ states: ‘‘The Secretary relating to improved oversight of Enhanced Safety Act as providing us may assess the feasibility, benefits, and discretion in most areas, while limiting motorcoach service providers, including costs with respect to the application of enhancements to driver licensing and it in some. This regulation was initiated any requirement established under by NHTSA prior to enactment of Act training programs and motorcoach subsection (a) or (b)(2) to motorcoaches inspection programs. and we are required by the statute to manufactured before the date on which complete it in 1 year, and to complete In Section 32702, ‘‘Definitions,’’ of the the requirement applies to new it in such a way as to prescribe ‘‘safety Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, the motorcoaches under paragraph (1).’’ The belts’’ (lap/shoulder belts) at ‘‘each Act states at Section 32702(6) that ‘‘the requirements of today’s final rule were designated seating position’’ in the term ‘motorcoach’ has the meaning established under subsection (a). buses the statute calls ‘‘motorcoaches’’ given the term ‘over-the-road bus’ in Section 32706, ‘‘Concurrence of (over-the-road buses except for buses section 3038(a)(3) of the Transportation Research and Rulemaking,’’ states in used in public transportation provided Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 paragraph (a) that, to the extent feasible, by, or on behalf of, a public the Secretary shall ensure that research U.S.C. 5310 note), but does not include transportation agency, or school buses). programs are carried out concurrently, a bus used in public transportation This final rule achieves the and in a manner that concurrently provided by, or on behalf of, a public Congressional goal that focuses on over- assesses results, potential transportation agency; or a school bus, the-road buses 27 and requires all countermeasures, costs, and benefits. including a multifunction school designated seating positions on the Paragraph (b), ‘‘Authority to Combine activity bus.’’ Section 3038(a)(3) (49 over-the-road buses to have lap/ Rulemakings,’’ states: ‘‘When U.S.C. 5310 note) states: ‘‘The term shoulder belts regardless of the seating considering each of the rulemaking ‘over-the-road bus’ means a bus configuration of the bus or the vehicle provisions, the Secretary may initiate a characterized by an elevated passenger GVWR. To the extent discretion in our single rulemaking proceeding deck located over a baggage decision-making on a particular issue encompassing all aspects or may compartment.’’ for over-the-road buses is limited by the combine the rulemakings as the Act, we have identified those 26 Secretary deems appropriate.’’ The Secretary also delegated to NHTSA the circumstances in this preamble. authority set out for Section 101(f) of Public Law Paragraph (c), ‘‘Considerations,’’ states: Yet, this regulation was initiated by 106–159 to carry out, in coordination with the If the Secretary undertakes separate NHTSA under the authority of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator, the rulemaking proceedings, the Secretary authority vested in the Secretary by subchapter 311 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle shall (1) consider whether each added and section 31502 of title 49, U.S.C., to promulgate Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), safety standards for commercial motor vehicles and aspect of rulemaking may contribute to prior to enactment of the Motorcoach equipment subsequent to initial manufacture when addressing the safety need determined the standards are based upon and similar to a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard to require rulemaking; (2) consider the 27 An over-the-road bus is a bus characterized by promulgated, either simultaneously or previously, benefits obtained through the safety an elevated passenger deck over a baggage under chapter 301 of title 49, U.S.C. belts rulemaking in section 32703(a); compartment.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 70421

Enhanced Safety Act, and Congress was particular statutory instructions of the enhance motorcoach safety.29 In aware of the NPRM when it enacted the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act. addition to the four priority action items 2012 statute. NHTSA issued the NPRM As to the latter, among the matters we specified in NHTSA’s 2007 ‘‘NHTSA’s under rulemaking authority that has have taken into account are the impact Approach to Motorcoach Safety’’ plan, existed and continues to exist prior to on seating capacity and the impact on the DOT plan identified other strategies and separate from the 2012 Act. There the size and weight of motorcoaches. the Department will pursue to enhance is no provision in the Motorcoach We have considered the best available motorcoach safety, such as pursuing Enhanced Safety Act limiting NHTSA’s science. We have weighed the electronic stability control (ESC) rulemaking authority under the Vehicle cumulative effect of our rulemakings systems, event data recorders (EDR), and Safety Act to require belts on buses, and whether rulemaking could be programs addressing driver fatigue and other than specific mandate for ‘‘over- combined. We have analyzed retrofit operator maintenance. On May 23, 2012, the-road buses,’’ which the statute requirements. In sum, we have issued NHTSA issued an NPRM to establish a defines. Thus, we believe that the this final rule after careful deliberation new Federal motor vehicle safety Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act calls of the factors emphasized for standard on ESC, to reduce rollover and for a regulation for ‘‘over-the-road consideration in the Motorcoach loss of directional control crashes of buses’’ without limiting our authority Enhanced Safety Act, which we note are truck tractors and large buses, including under the Vehicle Safety Act to apply also factors NHTSA investigates motorcoaches (77 FR 30766, Docket the regulation to other buses as NHTSA carefully and as a matter of course when number NHTSA–2012–0065). Work is finds appropriate under the Vehicle the agency conducts rulemaking under underway in NHTSA and the other DOT Safety Act, including over-the-road the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle agencies on other motorcoach safety buses used in public transportation, and Safety Act. initiatives discussed in the plan. buses other than over-the-road buses III. Background c. NTSB Recommendations (e.g., body-on-frame buses) with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 a. The Agency’s 2007 ‘‘NHTSA’s The following NTSB lb). Approach to Motorcoach Safety’’ Plan recommendations relate to this final Accordingly, this final rule requires In 2007, NHTSA undertook a rule. • H–90–75: Revise Federal Motor lap/shoulder belts on buses other than comprehensive review of motorcoach Vehicle Safety Standard 208, Occupant those called ‘‘motorcoaches’’ in the (intercity bus) safety issues and the Crash Protection, to include a Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act. We course of action that the agency could requirement that lap shoulder belt also believe that NHTSA has wider pursue to address them. The agency systems for the driver position be decision-making discretion regarding considered various prevention, installed in all newly manufactured those ‘‘other buses,’’ and is able to mitigation, and evacuation approaches buses, including city, intercity, small, exclude a particular type of non-over- in developing the course of action. Many considerations were factored into and large. (Class II, Priority Action). the-road bus from a requirement of the • H–99–47 (‘‘Most Wanted’’): In 2 determining the priorities, including: final rule if the agency finds good years, develop performance standards Cost and duration of testing, reason to do so. For example, for sound, for motorcoach occupant protection development, and analysis required; practical reasons, including the safety of systems that account for frontal impact likelihood that the effort would lead to prison guards, this regulation does not collisions, side impact collisions, rear the desired and successful conclusion; require designated seating positions for impact collisions, and rollovers. prisoners on ‘‘prison buses’’ to have seat target population and possible benefits • H–99–48: Once pertinent standards belts. that might be realized; and anticipated have been developed for motorcoach NHTSA is authorized under the cost of implementing the ensuing occupant protection systems, require Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor requirements into the bus fleet. newly manufactured motorcoaches to The result was NHTSA’s 2007 vehicle safety standards that ‘‘shall be have an occupant crash protection ‘‘NHTSA’s Approach to Motorcoach practicable, meet the need for motor system that meets the newly developed Safety’’ plan (Docket No. NHTSA–2007– vehicle safety, and be stated in objective performance standards and retains 28793–001), in which we identified the terms’’ (49 U.S.C. 30111(a)). When passengers, including those in child following areas as the highest priorities prescribing a motor vehicle safety safety restraint systems, within the for possible near term regulatory action standard, NHTSA considers, inter alia, seating compartment throughout the to enhance the safety of the vehicles: (1) relevant available motor vehicle safety accident sequence for all accident Passenger ejection; (2) rollover information, whether a standard is scenarios. reasonable, practicable, and appropriate structural integrity; (3) emergency • H–05–01: Develop performance for the particular type of motor vehicle egress; and (4) fire safety. For passenger standards for passenger seat anchorages or motor vehicle equipment for which it ejection (action (1)), we pursued the in motorcoaches. is prescribed, and the extent to which incorporation of passenger seat belts as • H–10–002: To maintain consistency the standard will carry out the purpose the most effective and expeditious way in bus body classifications and to clarify and policy of the Act, i.e., reduce traffic to mitigate ejection. the scope of bus safety initiatives, accidents and deaths and injuries Today’s final rule completes the develop regulatory definitions and resulting from traffic accidents (49 agency’s initiative in achieving the first 28 classifications for each of the different U.S.C. 30111(b)). In exercising this goal of the plan. bus body types that would apply to all authority, we have responded to the b. DOT’s 2009 Task Force Action Plan U.S. Department of Transportation comments on the NPRM and assessed In 2009, DOT issued a Departmental agencies and promote use of the other information relevant to this Motorcoach Safety Action Plan, which rulemaking in a manner that ensures 29 http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/documents/safety- outlined a Department-wide strategy to that the final rule meets the criteria of security/MotorcoachSafetyActionPlan_finalreport- 508.pdf. In the DOT plan, ‘‘motorcoach’’ is the Vehicle Safety Act, the 28 NHTSA is completing work on a proposal with generally used to describe over-the-road buses Administrative Procedure Act, other regard to action (2) on improving rollover structural (buses characterized by an elevated passenger deck relevant statutes and orders, and the integrity. over a baggage compartment).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 70422 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

definitions among the bus industry and attach a clip or any other device to the in 2007.33 These motorcoach carriers state governments. vehicle’s seat belt webbing. operated over 33,000 motorcoaches, • H–10–003: In NHTSA’s rulemaking This final rule addresses H–05–01, they logged nearly 750 million to improve motorcoach occupant which recommended that NHTSA passenger trips, and they traveled over protection, include all buses with a develop performance standards for 1.8 billion miles yearly. Approximately GVWR greater than 10,000 lb, other than passenger seat anchorages in 3,100 of the carriers were chartered U.S. school buses. motorcoaches. This final rule requires carriers that operated about 29,000 H–90–75, H–99–47, H–99–48, H–05–01, that the lap/shoulder seat belt motorcoaches. According to the ABA report, the H–10–002, and H–10–003 anchorages on the affected buses meet the anchorage strength requirements for services provided by these commercial It should be noted that, at the time lap/shoulder belts in FMVSS No. 210. buses in 2007 included charter services NTSB recommendations H–90–75, H– Those existing strength requirements (pre-formed group (organization, 99–47, H–99–48, and H–05–01 were specify that each lap/shoulder belt be association, tour company, shuttle issued, there were no crash test data or tested with a load of 13,345 N (3,000 lb) service, church, school, etc.) that hires countermeasure studies available. applied simultaneously to the lap and a motorcoach for exclusive use under a Today, the testing we conducted as part shoulder belt, for a total load of 26,690 fixed contract) (46.4 percent of the miles of the ‘‘NHTSA’s Approach to N (6,000 lb). This requirement is based driven), scheduled service (specified, Motorcoach Safety’’ plan provides on test data from our research program, ticketed, predetermined regular-route extensive data upon which the agency discussed in ‘‘NHTSA’s Approach to service between cities or terminals) has assessed the practicability of Motorcoach Safety’’ plan, showing the (26.5 percent of the miles driven), installing lap/shoulder belt systems on 13,345 N (3,000 lb) strength requirement commuter service (transporting people the affected buses and the potential is needed to address loads that can between home and work) (10.3 percent effectiveness of the belts at passenger occur in serious frontal crashes. of the miles driven), tour/sightseeing seating positions.30 service (planned trip at fixed price for In issuing today’s final rule, NHTSA H–90–75 recommended that we leisure and/or sightseeing) (8.2 percent carefully considered H–10–002, which amend FMVSS No. 208 to require that of the miles driven), special operations asked NHTSA to develop regulatory lap/shoulder belt systems for the driver (published, regular-route service to definitions and classifications for each position be installed in all newly special events, or service for employees of the different bus body types that manufactured buses. This final rule to work sites) (3.5 percent of the miles would apply to all DOT agencies. This adopts a lap/shoulder belt requirement driven), and airport shuttle services issue is discussed in a later section of for the driver’s position of large school (private motorcoaches used to enhance this preamble on the proposed buses, all over-the-road buses, and non- public transportation system service to ‘‘motorcoach’’ definition. over-the-road buses with a GVWR and from the airport) (3.4 percent of the greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) with We also carefully considered H–10– miles driven). In 2007, each motorcoach certain exceptions.31 003, which asked NHTSA to include was driven an average of 56,000 miles. H–99–47 and H–99–48 requested us buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 The majority of the motorcoach trips (65 to develop performance standards for lb) or more in rulemaking to improve percent) were made by children and motorcoach occupant protection motorcoach occupant protection. NTSB senior citizens. systems that account for frontal impact and others raised this issue in Although commercial bus collisions, side impact collisions, rear comments on the NPRM, and our transportation overall is a safe form of impact collisions, and rollovers, and response on this issue is provided in the transportation in the U.S., a number of apply those standards to new definition section of this preamble. crashes in recent years have illustrated motorcoaches. Today’s final rule d. Congressional Mandate that fatal crashes of high-capacity buses, requires lap/shoulder belts at each while a relatively rare event, can cause passenger seating position in the On July 6, 2012, President Obama a significant number of fatal or serious affected buses, which includes all over- signed the ‘‘Moving Ahead for Progress injuries in a single event. Pursuant to the-road buses. In the NHTSA test in the 21st Century Act’’ (MAP–21),’’ the requirements of the Vehicle Safety program conducted as part of our which incorporated in Subtitle G the Act, NHTSA developed its ‘‘Approach ‘‘Approach to Motorcoach Safety’’ plan, ‘‘Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of to Motorcoach Safety’’ plan and lap/shoulder belts on forward-facing 2012.’’ Section II of this preamble, commenced the associated safety seats were found to prevent elevated above, summarizes the provisions of the rulemakings to explore whether there head and neck injury values and Act relevant to this final rule. are unreasonable safety risks associated provided enhanced occupant protection IV. Safety Need with these buses, and if there are, compared to lap belts. whether the risks can be reduced in a Addressing H–99–48, this final rule a. Introduction reasonable manner by the issuance of requires the lap/shoulder belts on Each year, the commercial bus crashworthiness and crash avoidance passenger seating positions to meet industry transports millions of people safety standards. We started by analyzing fatal accident FMVSS No. 208’s ‘‘lockability’’ between and in cities, for long and short crash data from 2000–2009 to assess requirement (S7.1.1.5, 49 CFR 571.208). distance tours, school field trips, whether there are unreasonable safety The requirement is for the lap belt to be commuter, and entertainment-related risks associated with high-occupancy lockable so as to secure child restraint trips. According to the American Bus bus transportation. We analyzed data for systems tightly, without the need to Association (ABA), there were buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 approximately 3,400 motorcoach 32 30 NHTSA’s research program evaluating the kg (10,000 lb). The 2000–2009 FARS performance of seat belt systems on motorcoach carriers in the United States and Canada passenger seats is discussed in detail in the NPRM, 33 ‘‘Motorcoach Census 2008, A Benchmarking Section V. See 75 FR at 50967. See also the FRIA 32 As used in the report, ‘‘motorcoach’’ refers to Study of the Size and Activity of the Motorcoach for this final rule. an over-the-road bus. When we discuss this report, Industry in the United States and Canada in 2007.’’ 31 Exceptions are transit buses and perimeter- we use the term motorcoach to mean an over-the- Paul Bourquin, Economist and Industry Analyst, seating buses. road bus. December 18, 2008.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 70423

data revealed that 83 percent of the included in FARS, a crash must involve intercity buses’’ in the body type fatalities in the buses were in buses with a motor vehicle traveling on a traffic variable.36 ‘‘Cross-country/intercity a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 way customarily open to the public, and buses’’ is defined in FARS as buses lb). We focused our rulemaking on those must result in the death of an occupant designed to travel long distances buses, effectively using agency of a vehicle or a non-occupant within 30 between cities (e.g. Greyhound) and is resources. days of the crash. represented by the over-the-road bus FARS data show that over half of the In developing this rulemaking, we characterized by an elevated passenger fatalities in buses with a GVWR greater analyzed 10 years of FARS data for all deck located over a baggage than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) were high-occupancy buses, i.e., buses with a compartment. attributable to rollovers, and that the GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). After the NPRM was published, we vast majority of fatalities in rollovers We analyzed these FARS data to became aware that we had missed some were due to ejections. understand the involvement of these FARS data that had been filed in the NHTSA’s research on passenger buses in fatal crashes, and to develop a ‘‘other buses’’ and ‘‘unknown buses’’ vehicle and motorcoach rollovers has focused strategy for improving the FARS body type categories by crash shown that there exists a proven crashworthiness and crash-avoidance investigators. To address this, when we countermeasure (a lap/shoulder seat attributes of such buses involved in fatal updated the FARS data for this final belt) that is readily available, crashes. We did not include data for rule to include the 2009 FARS data, we practicable, and cost effective, that transit and school buses in this analysis, also examined 2000–2009 FARS data for successfully mitigates the risk of as these vehicles are not used as ‘‘other buses’’ and ‘‘unknown buses’’ ejection in rollovers. We have also motorcoaches or coded as such in FARS bus body types. We expanded our found that nearly half of the fatalities in FARS, and were not the vehicles analysis to make sure that we identified the covered vehicles were in non- targeted by the NHTSA and DOT safety and examined FARS data for all high- rollover crashes, and that more than half plans, or by the Motorcoach Enhanced occupancy bus crashes (GVWR greater of the fatalities in the 2000–2009 FARS Safety Act of 2012, as the subjects of than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb)).37 We files were not ejected. The potential this rulemaking initiative. considered data from all three bus body benefit of lap/shoulder seat belts in The FARS data analysis for fatalities type categories to assess the fatal crash reducing those non-ejection fatalities is of occupants in buses with a GVWR involvement of buses with a GVWR also remarkable. greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) showed greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). This final rule addresses the present that 83 percent of the occupant fatalities The findings of the reanalyzed 2000– occupant fatality risk in over-the-road were in buses with a GVWR greater than 2009 FARS data of all buses with a buses and in other buses with a GVWR 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). That is, in these GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), given 10 years of data, one noteworthy still showed the merits of focusing this the occurrence of fatality and serious attribute of the high-occupancy vehicles particular rulemaking on buses with a injury in rollover and frontal crashes, involved in fatal crashes was that in an GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 and the proven protection afforded by overwhelming majority of cases, the lb). These buses have a substantially lap/shoulder seat belts. Various GVWR of the vehicles was more than higher involvement in fatal crashes commenters have urged us also to 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). Thus, based on involving passenger fatalities than buses require lap/shoulder seat belts on all these data, NHTSA determined that the with a GVWR of 4,536 kg to 11,793 kg buses with a GVWR between 4,536 kg vehicles of significance for this (10,000 lb to 26,000 lb). Over the 10- and 11,793 kg (10,000 lb and 26,000 lb). immediate rulemaking were buses with year period (2000–2009), there were a Although we decline to do so in today’s a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 total of 42 (7 drivers, 35 passengers) rulemaking, we can continue our lb).35 The FARS data indicated that fatalities in cross-country/intercity evaluation of whether belts should be these buses have a substantially higher buses, other buses, and unknown buses required for all buses with a GVWR less involvement in fatal crashes involving with a GVWR of 4,536 kg to 11,793 kg than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) after this final passenger fatalities than buses with a (10,000 lb to 26,000 lb). In contrast, rule. GVWR of 4,536 kg to 11,793 kg (10,000 among the cross-country/intercity buses, lb to 26,000 lb). The buses with a GVWR other buses, and unknown buses b. FARS Data greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) also categories with a GVWR greater than To identify the vehicles to which this had more involvement in rollover 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), there were a total rulemaking should apply, the agency crashes resulting in occupant ejection of 209 (41 drivers, 168 passengers) examined FARS data files to understand than buses with a lighter GVWR. occupant fatalities 38 in crashes during characteristics and trends associated the 10-year period (2000–2009). This with bus fatal crashes.34 FARS contains c. Updated FARS Data number includes 134 occupant fatalities data on a census of fatal traffic crashes For the NPRM, the agency assumed in cross-country/intercity buses, 47 in within the 50 States, the District of that the vehicles of significance were other buses, and 28 in unknown buses Columbia, and Puerto Rico. To be coded in FARS as ‘‘cross-country/ (see Table 5 and Figure 1 below).

34 Previous discussion of the FARS data is set than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) in describing the affected categorized as such by crash investigators and those forth in the 2010 seat belt NPRM and in the DOT vehicles. coding the FARS data. By considering all data for 2009 Motorcoach Action Plan, http:// 36 The FARS database has five bus body type the cross-country/intercity bus, other bus and www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/reports/ categories: (1) cross-country/intercity bus, (2) transit unknown bus categories, today’s final rule analyzes HS811177.pdf. In the DOT 2009 Motorcoach Action bus, (3) school bus, (4) other bus, and (5) unknown all available FARS data relevant to ‘‘motorcoach’’ Plan, ‘‘motorcoach’’ referred to over-the-road buses bus. and other bus fatal crashes. only. 37 By considering the data for buses categorized 38 There were 232 occupant fatalities in the 35 In the NPRM, NHTSA described the GVWR as cross-country/intercity buses, other buses, and affected buses in this 10-year period but 23 fatalities criterion as 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) or greater, which unknown buses as relevant data, we are analyzing occurred due to a fire (Wilmer, Texas motorcoach was not consistent with FMCSA’s criterion FARS data for all buses in FARS except data for fire) and were not related to a crash event. To describing the affected class of commercial vehicles transit buses and school buses. It is reasonable to accurately assess the fatality, NHTSA did not (GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)). This exclude transit bus and school bus body types include the 23 Wilmer, Texas fatalities since those final rule uses the FMCSA criterion (GVWR greater because those bus types are easily recognized and were not crash-related.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 70424 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 5—NUMBER OF BUS OCCUPANT FATALITIES IN CRASHES BY BUS BODY TYPE, GVWR, AND OCCUPANT TYPE. FARS 2000–2009 DATA FILES

Bus body type GVWR (lb) Cross-country Other Unknown Total Driver Pass Driver Pass Driver Pass Driver Pass

10,000–26,000 ...... 0 2 5 26 2 7 7 35 >26,000 ...... 22 112 11 36 8 20 41 168

To promulgate a ‘‘motorcoach’’ lap/ information specific to those buses to a small number of serious crashes shoulder seat belt standard most could be more closely analyzed. Safety during the year which caused a large effectively, expeditiously, and most is our highest priority, and we will number of fatalities. closely aligned with NHTSA’s Vehicle continuously work to adopt practical For example, the majority of fatalities Safety Act, the Motorcoach Enhanced measures that make our transportation in 2004 resulted from a crash in Safety Act, and the NHTSA and DOT systems safer. Arkansas, which involved an over-the- motorcoach safety plans, the agency has road bus hitting a highway signpost and Fatality Trends for Buses With a GVWR subsequently rolling over. The rollover focused this particular rulemaking on Greater Than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) all over-the-road buses and other buses and partial detachment of the roof Among the 209 occupant fatalities in with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg resulted in the ejection of all 30 buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 (26,000 lb). The present crash data occupants. This crash resulted in 15 kg (26,000 lb) in the 10-year period fatalities, including the driver. All 14 indicate a current need to require lap/ (2000–2009), the FARS data show that passengers who died in this crash were shoulder seat belts in buses with a 168 (80 percent) were passengers, and ejected. GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 The 42 passenger fatalities in the 39 41 (20 percent) were drivers. In lb). We can examine buses with a addition, the data show that 64 percent covered buses in 2008 were mainly a GVWR less than or equal to 11,793 kg of the fatalities were in cross-country/ result of 3 separate crashes. The first (26,000 lb) in a separate action, where intercity buses and 36 percent were in event was a rollover crash that occurred the other bus and unknown bus in Mexican Hat, Utah, where the over- 39 We note that, consistent with the Motorcoach categories (see Table 5 above). the-road bus overturned as it departed Enhanced Safety Act, today’s final rule includes over-the-road buses with a GVWR less than 11,793 As shown in Figure 1, fatalities in the the roadway and rolled one full turn, kg (26,000 lb). However, the FARS data in Table 1 affected vehicles in certain years were striking several rocks in a drainage ditch shows only 2 fatalities in over-the-road buses significantly higher than average. There bed at the bottom of the embankment, (coded as cross-country by FARS) with a GVWR of were 28 or more occupant fatalities in and came to rest on its wheels. The roof 4,536 kg to 11,793 kg (10,000 lb to 26,000 lb). These are most likely miscoded. Thus, the field data the covered buses in 2002, 2004, and of the bus separated from the body, and analysis focuses on buses with a GVWR greater than 2008. We note that such increases in the 51 of the 53 occupants were ejected. 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). fatality statistics were often attributable Nine passengers were fatally injured

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES ER25NO13.000 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 70425

and 43 passengers and the driver Approximately a dozen passengers were the occupant fatalities in crashes of the received various injuries. ejected from the bus. affected buses. Figure 2, below, shows The second 2008 event was a crash in Rollover and Ejection Statistics the 209 fatalities in the affected buses Sherman, Texas, where the over-the- categorized by rollover/first impact road bus went through the bridge railing Using the aforementioned FARS bus point for the 10-year period 2000–2009. and off the bridge about 15 feet above body type categories (cross-county/ If a bus had been involved in a rollover, a creek, then rolled onto its side. intercity, other buses and unknown it is categorized as a rollover crash since buses), the agency examined the 2000– Seventeen passengers died in the crash. a rollover is generally the most harmful The third 2008 event was a rollover 2009 FARS data for vehicles with a event in a crash and results in most of crash near Williams, California, where GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) the over-the-road bus flipped and rolled to understand more about the fatal the passenger fatalities. Buses not into a ditch, killing 9 people and crashes. The FARS data show that involved in a rollover are categorized by injuring more than 30 others. rollovers account for more than half of first impact point (front, side, and rear).

Among the 209 occupant fatalities in The agency further examined these occupant type and ejection status. For buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 data and found that a majority of the 10-year period from 2000 to 2009, kg (26,000 lb) (2000–2009 FARS data), fatalities in rollover crashes of buses there were 32 fatal rollover crashes, rollovers accounted for 114 fatalities (55 with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg resulting in 114 fatalities. In these percent). There were no fatalities in side (26,000 lb) involved occupant ejections. rollover crashes, two-thirds (75 out of impacts in cross-country and unknown Figure 3 shows the distribution of 114) of the fatalities were occupants bus body type categories and no fatalities in rollover crashes of cross- who were ejected. Three drivers (3 fatalities in rear impacts for all three bus country, other, and unknown buses with percent) involved in rollover crashes body type categories. a GVWR greater than 26,000 lb, by were ejected.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES ER25NO13.001 70426 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

Figure 4 shows ejection status as percent (95/209) of the total. In non- were split nearly equally between related to the occurrence of rollovers of rollover crashes only 20.0 percent (19/ ejected (45.0 percent (94/209)) and non- the covered buses. For non-rollover 95) of the 95 fatalities were ejected. ejected (55.0 percent (115/209)). crashes there were 95 fatalities, or 45.5 Considering all crash types, fatalities

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES ER25NO13.002 ER25NO13.003 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 70427

V. Summary of the NPRM 13,345 N (3,000 lb) applied requirement, as did the Automotive 42 The FARS data showed that rollovers simultaneously to the lap and torso Occupant Restraints Council. accounted for 55 percent of fatalities in portions of the belt assembly. Bus manufacturers and associations mostly did not overtly support or buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 VI. Overview of the Comments kg (26,000 lb). Further, the vast majority oppose the proposal, but most expressed of fatalities in rollover crashes of these NHTSA received approximately 130 concern about one or more aspects of it. covered buses involved occupant comments on the NPRM. Comments Motor Coach Industries (MCI), a ejections. NHTSA proposed in the were received from consumer and other motorcoach manufacturer, stated that August 18, 2010 NPRM to amend groups, individuals, bus seat suppliers, the NPRM’s claiming that seat belts FMVSS No. 208 to require lap/shoulder bus manufacturers and industry groups, would enhance rollover protection was belts at all passenger seating positions and motorcoach owners and operators. speculative and that NHTSA should on ‘‘motorcoaches,’’ which the NPRM This section provides a high-level conduct more research on this subject. identified as buses with a GVWR greater overview of the comments, and focuses Turtle Top, a bus manufacturer, asked than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb).40 The agency mainly on the reaction of the that seat belts be a safety option. Blue focused the NPRM on these buses to commenters to the general issue of Bird, a bus and school bus address the ejection safety problem as whether lap/shoulder belts should be manufacturer, indicated that it quickly as possible, and to improve required for motorcoach passengers. We supported NHTSA’s efforts, but asked occupant protection in frontal crashes. note below the general support or that NHTSA exclude buses that met Federal school bus roof crush and NHTSA’s bus research showed that lap/ opposition to that issue, but readers occupant protection (lap belt) shoulder belts would improve the should keep in mind that there were requirements. Several European bus survivability of occupants in frontal many issues in the NPRM to which manufacturers (Van Hool, Setra) stated crashes even when a rollover was not commenters replied. Summaries of that the FMVSS No. 210 seat belt involved. responses to sub-issues are provided, to To define the types of vehicles to the extent relevant, in the appropriate anchorage requirement will cause seat which the amended requirements would sections of this preamble. backs to be too rigid, and suggested we apply, the NPRM proposed to add a adopt European belt anchorage Many consumer and other groups requirements instead. Several bus definition of ‘‘motorcoach’’ to 49 CFR strongly supported the proposal that manufacturers asked for a ‘‘prison bus’’ Part 571.3 and to apply FMVSS No. lap/shoulder belts be provided for exclusion. 208‘s amended requirements to motorcoach passengers. Commenters Motorcoach transportation providers ‘‘motorcoaches.’’ The proposed supporting the proposal included: were divided in their reaction to the definition was as follows: NTSB, Consumers Union, Advocates for proposed requirement for lap/shoulder [Proposed definition] Motorcoach means a Highway Safety, Center for Automotive seat belts. The operators of the larger bus with a gross vehicle weight rating Safety, National Association of Bus fleets in the industry were supportive of (GVWR) of 11,793 kilograms (26,000 pounds) Crash Families/West Brook Bus Crash the proposal. There was concern about or greater, 16 or more designated seating Families, groups representing positions (including the driver), and at least costs associated with the upkeep and pediatricians, child passenger safety maintenance of seat belts and 2 rows of passenger seats, rearward of the advocates, and school bus driver’s seating position, that are forward- enforcement of belt use. The majority of facing or can convert to forward-facing transportation organizations, and smaller transportation providers without the use of tools. Motorcoach private individuals. Of the opposed having seat belts for passenger includes buses sold for intercity, tour, and approximately 42 individual members seating positions. Most of these commuter bus service, but does not include of the public commenting on the NPRM, commenters cited the excellent overall a school bus, or an urban transit bus sold for over 31 supported the proposed safety record for their industry, and operation as a common carrier in urban requirement for lap/shoulder belts. transportation along a fixed route with expressed concerns about increased frequent stops. The 10 individual members of the cost, possible low seat belt use rate, and public opposing the proposed difficulties in enforcing seat belt use. The NPRM proposed to modify requirement for lap/shoulder belts About 30 submitted a form letter that FMVSS No. 208 to require lap/shoulder generally cited the low annual number stated that the costs associated with a belts at each seating position (except of motorcoach fatalities, low seat belt retrofit requirement would put many side-facing seats were permitted to have use, poor comfort, difficulty of enforcing companies out of business since they either a lap or a lap/shoulder belt), use, and a perceived high cost per life are already operating at or close to a require the belts to be integral to the seat saved. Many suggested that efforts loss. (except the driver seat) and to meet should be placed on ‘‘more meaningful’’ An issue in the NPRM on which many current FMVSS No. 208 provisions for safety reforms than seat belts, such as commented was: To which vehicles seat belt adjustment, fit, lockability, and driver training programs, limiting the should lap/shoulder seat belt release. By virtue of the FMVSS No. 208 driver’s operating hours and/or distance requirements apply, i.e., the proposed requirement for lap/shoulder belts at traveled between breaks, and definition of ‘‘motorcoach.’’ Many each seat, the NPRM proposed the lap/ monitoring driver performance. The consumer groups, seat suppliers, and shoulder belt anchorages meet FMVSS People’s Republic of China opposed the some bus manufacturers supported No. 210, which specifies a force of NPRM, stating that seat belts should be applying the seat belt requirements to optional except for seats in rows that all buses with a GVWR greater than 40 Exceptions were transit and school buses and lack ‘‘obvious shielding’’ (e.g., the first buses with fewer than two rows of forward-facing 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). Many bus seats. Also, as noted earlier, the NPRM stated row). manufacturers believed that the ‘‘GVWR of 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) or more,’’ when it Seat suppliers IMMI 41 and American proposal did not clearly differentiate should have stated ‘‘GVWR greater than 11,793 kg Seating supported the proposed seat belt between motorcoaches and ‘‘transit (26,000 lb)’’ to be consistent with FMCSA regulations. The latter term is also consistent with buses.’’ A number of bus manufacturers other NHTSA standards, which use the ‘‘GVWR 41 IMMI was founded as Indiana Mills and greater than’’ phrasing rather than the ‘‘GVWR of X Manufacturing, Inc. IMMI also manufactures seat 42 In 2011 the organization changed its name to or more.’’ belt systems. the Automotive Safety Council (ASC).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 70428 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

wanted to reduce the reach of the bus would not need to install seat NHTSA typically analyzes the definition and exclude more bus types. belts.45 For simplification, we have construction type and the purpose for Many commenters had questions about decided to exclude such perimeter- which the vehicle is being built when or suggested changes to various seating buses by referring to the number the agency establishes a vehicle class for components of the proposed definition. of forward-facing designated seating the FMVSSs. NHTSA has defined a positions (DSPs) rearward of the driver number of motor vehicle types in 49 VII. Differences Between the Final Rule (7 or fewer DSPs) rather than refer to the CFR 571.3, including: passenger cars, and the NPRM term ‘‘row,’’ which is not defined in 49 multipurpose passenger vehicles The most significant differences CFR 571.3. However, as noted in the (MPVs), trucks, buses, trailers, and between this final rule and the NPRM footnote above, because of the motorcycles. For the most part, for are described briefly below. Less Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, only purposes of objectivity and to facilitate significant changes are discussed in the non-over-the-road buses can be the ability of manufacturers to know at appropriate sections of this preamble.43 included in this excepted category of a the time of vehicle manufacture which This final rule does not adopt a perimeter-seating bus. FMVSS the vehicle must meet, and the ‘‘motorcoach’’ definition. We have The transit bus exclusion now refers ability of dealers knowing at the time of determined that it is unnecessary to to a simple description of a physical vehicle sale which vehicles may be sold, define ‘‘motorcoach’’ to accomplish the feature typically present on a transit the agency seeks to define vehicles by objective of this rulemaking. Instead, it bus—the passenger ‘‘stop request’’ their attributes and construction amends FMVSS No. 208 to require seat system—to identify a transit bus under features rather than by their purported belts and the associated requirements at the rule. intended use.46 To make manufacturers’ all seating positions on over-the-road The passenger seats in buses used for and dealers’ responsibilities in meeting buses and on buses, other than over-the- the transport of passengers under the Vehicle Safety Act as clear as road buses, with a GVWR greater than physical restraint (prison buses) are also possible, NHTSA sought to define 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), with the excluded from the seat belt ‘‘motorcoach’’ using reference to 44 exception of certain bus types. requirements adopted today. However, relevant visible attributes and Further, simply applying FMVSS No. as noted in the footnote above, because construction characteristics rather than 208 and 210 to all over-the-road buses of the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, by the intended use of the vehicles, or and to other buses based on the GVWR only non-over-the-road buses can be some other factor determined after criterion avoids some confusion included in this excepted category of manufacture or sale. associated with using the term prison bus. NHTSA reviewed various definitions ‘‘motorcoach’’ to describe certain buses used in motorcoach safety legislation. VIII. Motorcoach Definition that may not have been widely thought The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of as motorcoaches in the past or The Vehicle Safety Act requires the defines the term ‘‘motorcoach’’ as the described as such by the Motorcoach FMVSSs to be appropriate for the meaning given the term ‘‘over-the-road Enhanced Safety Act. vehicle type to which they apply. Each bus’’ in section 3038(a)(3) of the The proposed GVWR criterion of FMVSS specifies the vehicle types Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) has been slightly subject to the standard. Century (TEA–21).47 Section 3038(a)(3) changed to ‘‘GVWR greater than 11,793 The vehicles affected by this final rule of TEA–21 states that the term ‘‘over- kg (26,000 lb)’’ from ‘‘GVWR of 11,793 currently fall under the definition of the-road bus’’ means a bus characterized kg (26,000 lb) or greater.’’ The one- ‘‘bus’’ for the purposes of applying the by an elevated passenger deck located pound change was made to make the FMVSSs (49 CFR Section 571.3) and over a baggage compartment. GVWR cut-off more consistent with the must comply with the FMVSSs that TEA–21’s definitions also include the regulations of FMCSA, which refer to apply to buses, consistent with GVWR following: the ‘‘greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)’’ specifications. A ‘‘bus’’ is defined in • The term ‘‘intercity, fixed-route terminology in applying its regulations § 571.3 as ‘‘a motor vehicle with motive over-the-road bus service’’ means to commercial vehicles. power, except a trailer, designed for regularly scheduled bus service for the The definition of ‘‘motorcoach’’ carrying more than 10 persons.’’ Some general public, using an ‘‘over-the-road proposed in the NPRM excluded buses FMVSSs (or requirements within those bus,’’ that (a) operates with limited with fewer than two rows of passenger standards) apply to buses with a GVWR stops over fixed routes connecting two seats, rearward of the driver’s seat, that equal to or less than 4,536 kg (10,000 or more urban areas not in close are forward-facing or can convert to lb), others apply to buses with a GVWR proximity; (b) has the capacity for forward-facing. The intent of this greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb), and transporting baggage carried by exclusion was to assure that buses some apply to buses without passengers; and (c) makes meaningful whose seating configuration was distinguishing GVWR. connections with scheduled intercity primarily around the perimeter of the The agency issued the NPRM to bus service to more distant points. reduce the risk of ejection in intercity • The term ‘‘other over-the-road bus 43 For the convenience of the reader, we have transport buses (75 FR at 50969). A placed in the docket for this final rule a service’’ means any other transportation memorandum that describes this final rule’s ‘‘motorcoach’’ definition was proposed using over-the-road buses including changes to the organization of FMVSS No. 208. ‘‘to define the vehicle type to which the local fixed-route service, commuter 44 The exceptions are transit buses, school buses, proposed requirements apply and to service, and charter or tour service ‘‘prison buses’’ (buses manufactured for the purpose distinguish motorcoaches from other (including tour or excursion service that of transporting persons subject to involuntary restraint or confinement), and ‘‘perimeter-seating bus types.’’ Id. buses’’ (which the NPRM had referred to as buses 46 An exception is the ‘‘school bus’’ definition, with fewer than two rows of forward-facing seats). 45 Perimeter seating is exemplified by a single which is statutory in origin and which refers to the Note that under the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety forward-facing row of seats at the back of the intended purpose for which the vehicle is sold. Act, only non-over-the-road buses can be included vehicle, inward-facing seats and a large luggage 47 The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act states in these excepted categories of prison bus and rack, along the side walls. This configuration is also that the term does not include a bus used in perimeter-seating bus. The Act requires each intended to increase the speed and ease of public transportation provided by, or on behalf of, designated seating position on an over-the-road bus passenger boarding and alighting, such as for a public transportation agency; or a school bus, to have a lap/shoulder belt. airport shuttle buses. including a multifunction school activity bus.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 70429

includes features in addition to bus under 49 CFR 571.3.48 Our discussion of data show that for buses over 4,536 kg transportation such as meals, lodging, the GVWR criterion is discussed further (10,000 lb), only 17 percent of the admission to points of interest or special later in this section. Further, the passenger fatalities were in buses with attractions or the services of a tour reference to ‘‘not designed to carry a GVWR less than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), guide). standing passengers’’ would not be but that 83 percent of the fatalities were We believed that the definitions sufficiently objective for our purposes, in buses with a GVWR greater than 11, referring to over-the-road buses or over- as people could reasonably disagree as 793 kg (26,000 lb). the-road bus service were too narrow for to whether a particular design allowed We reviewed the underlying chassis our purpose, because a number of or did not allow standees. structure of high-occupancy vehicles intercity transport buses involved in We examined the terms used in involved in fatal crashes. Some had a fatal crashes were body-on-chassis buses FARS. The FARS database uses the 50 that lacked an elevated passenger deck monocoque structure with a luggage following description of a motorcoach: compartment under the elevated over a baggage compartment. The issue ‘‘Cross Country/Intercity Bus (e.g., of body-on-chassis buses is discussed passenger deck (‘‘over-the-road buses’’). Greyhound).’’ Other descriptive However, an elevated passenger deck further below. Further, as explained information is also collected in the bus over a baggage compartment was not an above, definitions that were based on use sub-category, i.e., commuter, tour, element common to the buses involved the intended use of the vehicle could scheduled service, shuttle, etc. For our in fatal intercity transport. In FARS data pose difficulties for manufacturers and purposes, as explained in the NPRM (75 for buses with a GVWR greater than dealers, since the intended use of a FR at 50970), the FARS bus body type 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), 36 percent of the vehicle might not be known at the time definition for ‘‘Cross Country/Intercity’’ fatalities were in the other bus and of vehicle manufacture or sale. We and the use-based sub-categories are not unknown bus categories, i.e., not in the wanted to make sure as reasonably appropriate. One problem is that these over-the-road bus category. Some buses possible that the buses we most wanted terms lack sufficient specificity. In were built using body-on-chassis to affect (high-capacity buses associated addition, the use-based subcategories configurations. with known fatality and injury risks) are problematic simply because they would meet the ‘‘motorcoach’’ safety describe use and not physical We believe that body-on-chassis standards, without having to depend on characteristics, which limits their configurations are newer entrants into the state of knowledge of persons in the potential efficacy in determining the the motorcoach services market. They manufacturing and distribution chain appropriate applicability of the FMVSS appear to be increasing in number. A about the prospective use of the bus. at time of vehicle manufacture and sale. cursory review of the types of buses We were also concerned that the The FARS designations are not clear being used in the Washington, DC area meaning of some of the terms used in enough to give manufacturers and for motorcoach services showed that the above definitions was not dealers knowledge of the FMVSSs the traditional motorcoaches are generally sufficiently objective for use in the bus must meet at the time of used for fixed-route services between FMVSSs. Examples of these are: manufacture or sale of the vehicle. major metropolitan areas. However, for ‘‘regularly scheduled,’’ ‘‘two or more In developing the NPRM, NHTSA charter, tour, and commuter urban areas not in close proximity,’’ and sought to develop a motorcoach transportation from outlying areas, ‘‘meaningful connections . . . to more definition as an expedient means of many bus types are used. Some are of distant points.’’ monocoque structure, while others are Currently, there is no common applying FMVSSs to the vehicles of body-on-chassis structure. Departmental or industry definition of targeted by the agency’s safety plan. The ‘‘motorcoach.’’ FMCSA does not have a vehicles of interest were high- The review of the FARS files definition for motorcoach in its occupancy buses associated with a performed for the NPRM also showed regulations, but it considers a known fatality and injury risk. The other characteristics that were common ‘‘motorcoach’’ to be an over-the-road buses typically carried a large number of to high-occupancy buses involved in bus. As noted above, over-the-road passengers and were operated at fatal crashes: 16 or more designated buses are a subset of the buses NHTSA highway speeds. Specific safety risks seating positions, and two or more rows believed should be regulated as addressed by the NHTSA plan were the of forward-facing seats that were ‘‘motorcoaches,’’ encompassing a part of risks of ejection, prolonged emergency rearward of the driver’s seating position but not enough of the heavy bus safety egress from the vehicles, fire risk, and (i.e., this feature distinguishes the bus problem we seek to address. structural vulnerability to roof loading from a bus with perimeter seating). in a rollover event. In developing criteria for defining With this information, we included To develop a definition for motorcoaches, we also examined other these criteria in the proposed definition, application of these safety initiatives, countries’ approaches. For countries noting that the 16 or more capacity we examined the involvement of high- that have adopted United Nations criterion also was consistent with occupancy buses 49 in fatal crashes over Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) FMCSA regulations for commercial a 10-year period (FARS data files, for regulations, motorcoaches are defined as driver’s licenses. We intended the the NPRM, 1999–2008; for the final rule, Class III, M3 vehicles. Class III, M3 definition to include buses sold for 2000–2009). In this examination of high- vehicles are defined as having occupant ‘‘intercity, tour, and commuter bus occupancy bus data, we inspected crash seating locations for more than 8 service’’ (75 FR at 50970) and listed data for buses with a GVWR greater than passengers, vehicle weights in excess of those types of service in the definition. 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). We analyzed the 5 metric tons (11,023 lb) and are not We proposed to exclude school buses construction type and various attributes designed to carry standing passengers. and urban transit buses from the of the vehicles. The 2000–2009 FARS We consider this ECE definition too definition, for reasons explained in the broad for us to use as a definition of NPRM. motorcoach, as it captures vehicles that 48 Under 571.3, a bus is designed to carry 10 or more passengers. Vehicles designed to carry fewer are not subject to today’s lap/shoulder than 10 passengers are multipurpose passenger 50 Monocoque means a type of vehicular seat belt standard. The ECE definition vehicles (MPVs) or passenger cars. construction in which the body is combined with includes vehicles that are not ‘‘buses’’ 49 Other than transit buses and school buses. the chassis as a single unit.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 70430 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

a. GVWR motorcoach definition beyond what we use in a motorcoach definition, such as Approximately 11 commenters would consider the traditional vehicle floor height (low or high height) addressed the proposed GVWR criterion motorcoach,’’ then IC Bus would (e.g., a passenger compartment that is of 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) or greater. Some support a mandate for seat belts on all more than 45 inches above the ground); commenters expressed their support for forward-facing passenger seats on all engine location; body/chassis the criteria proposed in the NPRM, buses with a GVWR over 10,000 lb, construction (monocoque versus body- including the 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) excluding urban transit buses and on-chassis); 40 or more passenger seats; GVWR cut-off, without providing school buses. Similarly, MCI stated that whether the bus has equipment for specific reasons for their agreement. the GVWR criterion should be lowered standees; center of gravity (CG), the Many commenters believed that the to include buses with a GVWR less than number of entrance/exit doors, the presence of a lavatory, and the presence criterion should be lowered to 4,536 kg 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) if the vehicles are of three axles. Some of these features (10,000 lb) from 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). sold for and/or are engaged in highway NTSB commented in favor of a 4,536 speed operations that are the same as or were suggested to distinguish kg (10,000 lb) GVWR criterion, stating similar to the typical operation as motorcoaches from transit buses. Some appeared to be suggested by that ‘‘all buses with a GVWR above motorcoaches. commenters seeking to avoid having 10,000 pounds should be defined and United Motorcoach Association (UMA) commented in favor of applying their buses called motorcoaches. have standards addressing roof strength, After the NPRM, NHTSA and FMCSA occupant protection, and window the rulemaking to buses with a GVWR between 4,536 kg and 11,793 kg (10,000 met to determine whether it was glazing.’’ NTSB stated that the 11,793 kg necessary to define the term (26,000 lb) GVWR criterion in the lb and 26,000 lb), stating that these buses are being increasingly used in ‘‘motorcoach’’ in the final rule given the motorcoach definition will exclude public comments and the types of buses some medium-sized buses from the intercity charter and tour bus applications and have been in accidents. NHTSA intended to cover under its proposed lap/shoulder seat belt rulemaking. Although FMCSA does not requirements while including other Agency Response define the term motorcoach, it uses the buses that ‘‘are essentially the same.’’ We begin by separating two entwined term in its programs and many of its The commenter stated that medium-size subjects addressed in the comments on constituency groups have long buses should be categorized as the proposed definition. First is a matter understood the term ‘‘motorcoach’’ to motorcoaches because of the buses’ about which buses should be called mean an over-the-road bus. FMCSA interior design, use for tour operations, ‘‘motorcoaches,’’ and the second informed NHTSA that defining and seating capacity. concerns the vehicles to which this ‘‘motorcoach’’ to mean buses other than The National Association of State rulemaking ought to apply. over-the-road buses could cause some Directors of Pupil Transportation consternation among user groups (e.g., Services, Safe Ride News, and 1. Response to Comments on Looking bus operators and inspectors) who are Advocates for Highway Safety Like A Traditional Motorcoach accustomed to thinking of a motorcoach (Advocates) also supported lowering the As to the first matter, some as an over-the-road bus. For instance, if GVWR criterion to 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). commenters were troubled that certain NHTSA considered all buses with a These commenters stated that the buses would be ‘‘motorcoaches’’ under GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) proposed definition would exclude the proposed definition when ‘‘motorcoaches,’’ confusion in the field buses that serve the same function and ‘‘motorcoaches’’ were traditionally may arise as to whether FMCSA’s in-use are similar in design to buses that understood by various industry and user requirements for ‘‘motorcoaches’’ apply transport many passengers on high- groups to be over-the-road buses to the vehicles. speed roads. (characterized by an elevated passenger Although each agency in DOT is able Seat suppliers Freedman Seating deck located over a baggage to define specific terms in their Company (Freedman) and IMMI compartment) and not trolley buses regulations that have legal relevance supported lowering the criterion to (buses configured to look like trolley only in the context of that agency’s 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). Freedman stated cars), double-decker buses, buses using regulations, NHTSA agrees that that the definition of motorcoach body-on-chassis design, entertainment confusion should be avoided as proposed in the NPRM would leave a buses, and the like. MCI, IC Bus, and reasonably possible over the use of the class of vehicles with a GVWR between UMA presented their arguments in a word ‘‘motorcoach’’ by the agencies of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) and 11,793 kg manner that appeared to reserve the DOT. (26,000 lb) that would not be required term ‘‘motorcoach’’ for buses that they Thus, after evaluating the above to have seat belts. Seat supplier described as a ‘‘traditional motorcoach,’’ information, we have made the American Seating suggested a GVWR i.e., an ‘‘over-the-road’’ bus. IC Bus following conclusions. NHTSA seeks to require passenger criterion of 8,618 kg (19,000 lb) or further recommended that lap/shoulder seat belts in high- greater in order to include vehicles of ‘‘motorcoach’’ be defined as a ‘‘Class 8’’ occupancy buses that, according to similar construction and design intent bus, which has a GVWR greater than accident data, are associated with an as ‘‘motorcoaches.’’ 33,000 lb. Bus manufacturers IC Bus and MCI Several commenters identified unreasonable risk of passenger fatality suggested various vehicle attributes and and injury due to ejection. Accident physical features 51 of a ‘‘motorcoach’’ features of a ‘‘traditional motorcoach’’ data indicate that these buses, which we that they believed would be helpful to for use in a definition (e.g., 40+ proposed in the NPRM to call passenger seats, an elevated passenger 51 Some commenters also suggested operating ‘‘motorcoaches,’’ are buses with a deck over a baggage compartment, buses speed and where the bus is driven (such as GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 engaged in highway speed). These exclusively in urban areas), but these features were lb). FARS data did not show that any features are typically associated with not helpful. Since these issues relate to how the feature other than GVWR—such as floor vehicle would be used, as discussed earlier, these over-the-road buses. Alternatively, IC use-based suggestions are not conducive toward height, seating capacity, CG, number of Bus suggested that, if NHTSA believes determining the applicability of the FMVSSs during axles or emergency exits, body/chassis there is a need to ‘‘expand the vehicle manufacture. construction, or presence of a toilet—

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 70431

was relevant in distinguishing these from other manufacturers which even greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) and buses from buses that did not pose the offer luggage storage under the exclude those excepted bus types. increased fatality risk. passenger deck.54 After passage of the Motorcoach As explained previously and in the An elevated passenger deck over a Enhanced Safety Act, it became NPRM, we believe that limiting the necessary to modify this approach baggage compartment was not an scope of this rulemaking only to slightly for buses meeting the Act’s element common to the buses involved ‘‘traditional motorcoaches’’ (over-the- over-the-road bus definition. The Act in fatal crashes. We believe it would be road buses) would only be a partial, does not place a 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) short-sighted for our regulation to refer incomplete response to the safety lower limit on over-the-road buses, and to an under-compartment storage problem. FARS data for 2000–2009 does not permit other than lap/shoulder show that buses other than over-the- location for baggage as determinative of belts on designated seating positions in road coaches were involved in high the applicability of this regulation since those buses. With the Act’s provisions speed crashes involving multiple a separate storage location has been in mind, we decided to apply FMVSS passenger fatalities due to rollover, irrelevant to distinguishing the buses’ No. 208’s requirements separately to ejection and frontal impacts. FARS data involvement in fatal crashes. Also, tour over-the-road and to non-over-the-road show that 64 percent of the fatalities buses are frequently equipped with just buses. This is the approach adopted by were in cross-country/intercity buses an overhead rack for passengers to store this final rule. (traditional over-the-road type buses) personal belongings. Some buses offer This approach is preferable to the and 36 percent were in the ‘‘other bus’’ the baggage compartment as an option NPRM’s approach for several reasons. and ‘‘unknown bus’’ categories. We do to the purchaser. Some commenters had trouble not find good reason to exclude from We also determined that a self- reconciling the traditional view of a today’s seat belt requirements buses that contained toilet was only prevalent on motorcoach with our proposed are of a similar size, seating long distance travel buses and was not definition of a motorcoach and were configuration, and function as an over- present in all tour or commuter buses. confused or perplexed that a bus they the-road bus type, and that are Other equipment such as reading lights, had never considered to be a associated with the same safety risk as video displays, ventilation ports and motorcoach would be a motorcoach an over-the-road bus, only because they adjustable seat backs were also not under the regulation. We decided that, have a non-traditional (e.g., body-on- common to all motorcoach type buses. with people having pre-conceived ideas chassis) design and appearance. Accordingly, identifying a motorcoach of what a ‘‘motorcoach’’ is or should be, To illustrate, the IC Bus HC Series is by the presence of these features could it is best not to use the traditional term an example of large ‘‘mid-sized’’ body- exclude many of the buses that have to describe a nontraditional universe of on-chassis bus that approaches the size been in fatal crashes over the years. We buses. This approach accords with plain of a traditional over-the-road also wanted to avoid a definition that writing principles. motorcoach. This vehicle can be ordered could be easily circumvented by Some manufacturers objected to with a GVWR up to 13,608 kg (30,000 persons seeking to have their buses having their buses called motorcoaches lb), an occupant capacity of 37 or 45, excluded from the motorcoach category. and having them subject to this and an interior that has many of the Such a definition would be one that rulemaking. In reality, it does not matter same features as a traditional specified that a motorcoach is a vehicle for the application of the standard what motorcoach. IC Bus advertises this bus with a feature that a manufacturer could name we called the vehicles. The term on its Web site 52 as suitable for tours, readily leave off of the vehicle. was intended as an abbreviated way to shuttle service, sports team transport, apply the seat belt requirements to the high-frequency trips, ski trips, church Yet, after reviewing the comments, buses that crash data indicate need seat group transport, and scheduled route the information from FMCSA, the belts, i.e., buses with a GVWR greater and transit service. The bus is Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, and than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). After advertised as having luxury features other information, we have decided to considering the comments, we decided found on traditional motorcoaches, such adopt a different approach to apply the we did not need to use the term as an audio-video entertainment system requirements of this final rule than ‘‘motorcoach’’ to accomplish our with DVD and AM/FM/CD stereo, defining ‘‘motorcoach’’ as proposed in rulemaking objectives, and that it was overhead parcel rack with aircraft style the NPRM. We have determined it is best to avoid adopting a definition of air conditioning controls, reading light, unnecessary to define the term to ‘‘motorcoach’’ that differed from a plush seating, and availability of WiFi, accomplish our rulemaking objectives, commonly held understanding of the satellite TV, and wide-screen television. and that it is simpler not to define the term. In short, this bus can be ordered in a term at all. This approach is also more practical configuration which lends itself to use In the NPRM, the agency’s proposed than the NPRM’s because of enactment as a motorcoach with motorcoach definition basically sought to apply of the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, features. There is no reason to believe FMVSS No. 208’s passenger lap/ which refers specifically to over-the- that it poses a lesser ejection crash shoulder belt requirements to buses road 56 buses without a limitation on safety risk than a traditional over-the- with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg GVWR, and calls specifically for lap/ road motorcoach. The main difference (26,000 lb), excepting certain bus types. shoulder belts at all designated seating between this bus and an over-the-road After reviewing the comments, we positions on these vehicles. To our bus is body-on-chassis construction and decided that if those excepted bus types knowledge, all buses ‘‘characterized by a dedicated luggage compartment in the were defined (e.g., transit bus, school an elevated passenger deck located over rear.53 There are similarly sized buses bus 55), a preferred approach would be a baggage compartment’’ currently to simply apply FMVSS No. 208’s manufactured in the U.S. have GVWRs 52 www.icbus.com/ICBus/buses/commercial/ requirements to buses with a GVWR hcseries/features. Last accessed July 10, 2012. 56 An over-the-road bus is statutorily defined as 53 Similar buses are being offered by several other ‘‘a bus characterized by an elevated passenger deck manufacturers, including Turtle Top, Glaval Bus, 54 www.turtletop.com/OdysseyXLT/Options.aspx. located over a baggage compartment.’’ See section Starcraft Bus, Krystal Koach, and Thor Industries 55 ‘‘School bus’’ is already defined in 49 CFR 3038 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st and their subsidiaries. 571.3. Century (49 U.S.C. 5310 note).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 70432 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). It also public that might result from a NHTSA than over-the-road buses, this rule does not seem likely that an ‘‘over-the- definition of ‘‘motorcoach’’ that differed adopts the GVWR criterion of 11,793 kg road’’ bus would be produced in the from the understanding of the FMCSA (26,000 lb) 59 and does not lower it to future with a GVWR under 4,536 kg community or from the Motorcoach 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). Our reasons for not (10,000 lb). However, markets change, Enhanced Safety Act. lowering the GVWR criterion for buses and we are aware of buses apparently Accordingly, for the reasons other than over-the-road buses are meeting the ‘‘elevated passenger deck discussed above, this final rule does not discussed below. located over a baggage compartment’’ adopt a ‘‘motorcoach’’ definition. It This rulemaking originated to focus description with GVWRs below 11,793 amends FMVSS No. 208 to apply seat on the risk of fatality associated with kg (26,000 lb) being sold for use in other belts and associated requirements at all ‘‘motorcoaches,’’ which NHTSA’s 2007 countries. Thus, to ensure that all over- seating positions and thereby applies Motorcoach Safety Plan had called the-road buses in the U.S. in the future the FMVSS No. 210 anchorage strength intercity transport buses. This are equipped with lap/shoulder belts at requirements to over-the-road buses, rulemaking was not intended to address all designated seating positions, we are and to non-over-the-road buses with a whether seat belts should be required on adopting the TEA–21 definition of over- GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) buses regardless of vehicle weight class. the-road bus and explicitly applying with the exception of certain excluded This final rule also responds to the today’s regulation to that bus type, as bus types. Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, well as to buses other than over-the-road As indicated above, the Motorcoach which requires NHTSA to issue a final buses with GVWRs greater than 11,793 Enhanced Safety Act also directs the rule ‘‘requiring safety belts to be kg (26,000 lb). This approach not only Secretary to consider various other installed in motorcoaches’’ within one ensures that Congress’s intent to motorcoach rulemakings aside from year after date of enactment of the Act. enhance the safety of over-the-road today’s final rule, and directs us to Congress was aware of the August 2010 buses is realized now and in the future, conduct those rulemakings in NPRM preceding this final rule, and the but better attains our overarching goal accordance with the National Traffic short timeframe provided by the Act under the National Traffic and Motor and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We note indicates that Congress was aware that Vehicle Safety Act of enhancing the that in future rulemaking actions NHTSA intended this rulemaking to be safety of intercity buses used for targeted at over-the-road buses and focused on heavy buses and that motorcoach transportation.57 other large buses taken pursuant to Congress wanted NHTSA to complete it Thus, we are amending FMVSS No. these statutory authorities, there might quickly. 208 to require lap/shoulder belts at all be a need for the agency to clarify one The decision to focus this rulemaking seating positions on: (a) Over-the-road or more descriptive parameters in the on buses with a GVWR greater than buses; and (b) non-over-the-road buses definition of over-the-road bus, such as 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) is data-driven. In with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg the terms ‘‘elevated’’ and ‘‘baggage developing this rulemaking, NHTSA (26,000 lb) (with the exception of compartment’’ in deciding the analyzed accident data that identified excluded bus types). By extending applicability of the amended rules. unique safety risks affecting buses that FMVSS No. 208 to these vehicles, we Clarification might be needed so as to were not sufficiently addressed by the are also extending associated avoid possible conflict among the current FMVSSs. These risks include requirements to the seat belt systems on Federal motor vehicle safety standards the risks of occupant ejection, prolonged the vehicles, such as the FMVSS No. for buses of various types and weights, emergency egress from the vehicles, and 210 anchorage strength requirements. or to make the applicability of a structural vulnerability to roof loading This approach makes the applicability standard easier to understand. in a rollover event. of the amended FMVSS No. 208 2. On Lowering the GVWR Criterion As to which buses posed these risks, requirements very clear. Under today’s we examined accident data from a 10- The second matter of concern final rule, if the bus is an over-the-road year period to see which buses were expressed in the comments was: To bus, the seat belt system requirements involved in fatal crashes, the type of which vehicles should this rule apply. apply. If the bus is not an over-the-road crashes that caused the harm, and the Many comments expressed the position bus, if its GVWR is greater than 11,793 specific mechanics of the injury-causing that, since the agency is undertaking a kg (26,000 lb), the seat belt system event. FARS data showed that most rulemaking to install lap/shoulder belts requirements apply unless the bus is in passenger fatalities involved buses with on all seats of large buses, now is the an excluded category of bus (transit bus, a GVWR of more than 11,793 kg (26,000 time to require installation of such belts school bus, perimeter-seating bus, lb). This final rule applies the seat belt on all buses.58 It seemed that some prison bus). This clear-cut approach regulation to these buses associated accords with plain writing principles. commenters wanted the GVWR criterion lowered from 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) to with that risk. Today’s approach is more aligned The decision to focus this rulemaking 4,536 kg (10,000 lb), so that when belts with NTSB H–10–002 than a situation on buses with a GVWR greater than are required and other safety efforts are where the term ‘‘motorcoach’’ had 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) is based on a initiated for ‘‘motorcoaches,’’ the seat different meanings in the NHTSA and sound and focused agency policy. belts and safety improvements would be FMCSA programs. Today’s approach NHTSA established the 2007 ‘‘NHTSA’s avoids potential confusion among the required for all buses. This final rule requires all over-the- Approach to Motorcoach Safety’’ plan after a comprehensive review of safety 57 road buses to have lap/shoulder belts Furthermore, another practical advantage is issues associated with bus this approach enables us to refine the requirements without reference to GVWR, in of today’s final rule in a clearer manner. We read accordance with the Motorcoach the Motorcoach Enhancement Safety Act as limiting 59 This final rule slightly changes the proposed the final rule’s allowance of lap belts on over-the- Enhanced Safety Act. For buses other GVWR criterion ‘‘GVWR of 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) or road buses. We have more discretion for other bus greater’’ to ‘‘GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 types, and we have used our discretion, as 58 FMVSS No. 208 requires lap/shoulder belts for lb).’’ The change referring to the 1-lb difference was appropriate, to allow lap belts for side-facing seats all seats on buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 made to make the GVWR cut-off more consistent on non-over-the-road buses, and to exclude certain lb) or less. It also requires lap belts at the driver seat with the regulations of FMCSA, which use a buses (e.g., prison buses) from requirements for seat of buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 criterion of ‘‘26,001 lb’’ in its definition of belts. lb). ‘‘commercial motor vehicle.’’ See 49 CFR 383.5.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 70433

transportation and the course of action bus categories continue to show that likely cost per equivalent life saved for that the agency could pursue to address buses with a GVWR between 4,536 kg mid-size buses will be much greater them, as well as projects that should be and 11,793 kg (10,000 lb to 26,000 lb) than the $6.3 million value of a priority actions. Many considerations do not constitute a large part of the statistical life guideline in ($2008) at were factored into determining the overall safety problem that we were least for the present and near future, we priorities, including: cost and duration addressing in the ‘‘NHTSA’s Approach would like to continue to examine the of testing, development, and analysis to Motorcoach Safety Plan.’’ (In this need for seat belts on these buses in a required; likelihood that the effort discussion, when we refer to the FARS future context that will allow more time would lead to the desired and data for buses, we are excluding transit to conduct this examination than that successful conclusion; target population bus and school bus body types, for the provided by the Motorcoach Enhanced and possible benefits that might be reasons discussed in the NPRM.) Safety Act for this final rule. realized; and anticipated cost of As discussed in the earlier section of Accordingly, as we have shown in implementing the ensuing requirements this preamble, ‘‘Updated FARS Data,’’ this section, in developing this final into the motorcoach fleet. The agency the new analysis showed that from 2000 rule, we are applying this rule to high- has focused today’s rulemaking on the through 2009, there were 251 occupant occupancy buses that have a high subject buses (GVWR above 11,793 kg fatalities in buses with a GVWR greater involvement in fatal crashes, generally, (26,000 lb)) to achieve the specific goals than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). Only 42 (17 and in fatal rollover crashes involving of NHTSA’s 2007 plan efficiently and percent) of these occupant fatalities ejection, particularly—i.e., buses with a expeditiously. occurred in buses with a GVWR GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 Expanding this rulemaking into a between 4,536 kg and 11,793 kg (10,000 lb). In doing so, we are mitigating the major undertaking on seat belts on all lb to 26,000 lb). In contrast, 209 (83 vast majority of fatalities Congress buses would delay issuance of this final percent) occupant fatalities were in intended to address in the Motorcoach rule and the benefits attained, which buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 Enhanced Safety Act, and which would not accord with the Motorcoach kg (26,000 lb). Among the 137 fatalities NHTSA has targeted in the 2007 Enhanced Safety Act. We believe that a occurring in rollover crashes in buses ‘‘NHTSA’s Approach to Motorcoach belt requirement for buses with a GVWR with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg Safety’’ plan, in a focused and expedited of 4,536 kg to 11,793 kg (10,000 lb to (10,000 lb), 114 (83 percent) were in manner.63 26,000 lb) is an important issue, our buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 understanding of which would benefit kg (26,000 lb).61 b. Sixteen Designated Seating Positions from a fuller discussion of related NHTSA has examined the benefits The proposed ‘‘motorcoach’’ issues. We would like to consider more and costs of our final rule in accordance definition included a provision that one fully matters related to the current and with the principles for regulatory of the attributes of a motorcoach is that future use of the buses, belt use, any decision-making set forth in Executive technical issues, and the benefits and it has 16 or more DSPs. This reference Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563, and has was to make the definition similar to costs of a belt requirement. Also, as the made decisions consistent with those majority of manufacturers of ‘‘mid-size FMCSA’s definition of a ‘‘commercial orders. Fatalities and injuries in transit motor vehicle,’’ for purposes of buses’’ (between 10,000 and 26,000 lb buses and in mid-size buses (between GVWR) are small businesses, a separate FMCSA’s commercial driver’s license 10,000 and 26,000 lb GVWR) were also (CDL) requirements. action on mid-size buses might result in examined by NHTSA after receiving the many small businesses commenting on comments, to obtain a higher-level view Comments the initiative, with NHTSA gaining of the occupant protection provided by Some commenters (e.g., Freedman more information from participation of buses generally. The FRIA provides these entities in the rulemaking process. Seating Company, and MCI) these analyses for informational recommended that the number of DSPs In support of its argument that the purposes.62 Although it appears that the GVWR criterion should be lowered to be reduced to fewer than 16. Freedman and MCI’s comments were related to include buses with a GVWR greater than 61 Notwithstanding the agency’s determinations 4,536 kg (10,000 lb), NTSB provided about limiting the GVWR limit for non-over-the- their suggestion that the rule should be data from the crashes of two body-on- road buses, this final rule also responds to the applied to smaller buses. Turtle Top’s chassis buses (both with a GVWR Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act. That Act requires comment highlighted the increased lap/shoulder belts on over-the-road buses and complexity and possible confusion that between 4,536 kg and 11,793 kg (10,000 provides no explicit limit on GVWR. As mentioned lb to 26,000 lb) as evidence of a safety earlier, we are not aware of any over-the-road bus a ‘‘16 or more DSPs’’ provision could need to lower the GVWR weight limit to being sold in the U.S. with a GVWR below 11,793 create in specifying vehicle types. 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). These crashes kg (26,000 lb). Thus, as a practical matter, the buses affected by this final rule are buses with a GVWR Agency Response resulted in a total of 10 fatalities in 2009 greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). and 2010. As discussed above, the 62 For the FRIA analysis, we estimate that there Under FMCSA’s regulations, buses information from NTSB prompted are approximately 14,600 mid-size buses (between with a GVWR greater than 11,739 kg NHTSA to perform a revised data 10,000 and 26,000 lb GVWR) produced and sold (26,000 lb) are commercial motor review, to include data from the ‘‘other annually for purposes other than school vehicles under the CDL regulation, transportation and transit services. We assume for bus’’ and ‘‘unknown bus’’ FARS bus purposes of our analysis that the average mid-size categories, both at the 4,536 kg to 11,793 bus has 24 passenger seats. The average per vehicle to that we estimate for belts on buses with a GVWR kg (10,000 lb to 26,000 lb) and over costs are estimated at $7.54 for the driver position greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). The cost per 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) GVWR levels.60 and $937.68 for the passenger positions. The total equivalent life saved is estimated to range between fleet cost to install lap/shoulder belts on these $0.3 to $1.2 million for drivers, $4.6 to $35.5 The updated data from the three FARS vehicles is estimated to be $13.8 million and the million for passengers and $4.2 to $33.7 for all additional fuel costs would be approximately $6.9 occupants (assuming a seat belt use rate of 50 60 See the previous discussion of this issue in the to $9.4 million. We estimate that 0.02 to 0.2 driver percent to 83 percent for drivers and 15 percent to section titled, ‘‘Updated FARS Data.’’ For the lives (1 to 12 injuries) and 0.3 to 1.71 passenger 83 percent for passengers). NPRM, only data from the ‘‘cross-country/intercity’’ lives (28 to 153 injuries) would be saved annually 63 This final rule does not prohibit the voluntary FARS bus category were analyzed, as NHTSA had (0.67 to 4.96 total equivalent lives) by a seat belt installation of passenger seat belts in buses with a thought that this cross-country/intercity FARS bus requirement applying to mid-size buses, assuming GVWR between 4,536 kg and 11,793 kg (10,000 lb category contained the relevant data. the effectiveness of belts on mid-size buses is equal to 26,000 lb).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 70434 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

regardless of the number of DSPs.64 baggage and other belongings; the buses For buses other than over-the-road Since this final rule does not lower the are on a tight operating schedule. We buses (typically body-on-frame GVWR criterion, the number of DSPs on proposed to exclude buses with construction), we have decided to a bus with a GVWR greater than 11,793 perimeter seating because we believed exclude buses with perimeter seating for kg (26,000 lb) is of no consequence for that they are used for relatively short the reasons discussed in the NPRM and purposes of CDL requirements. Thus, rides, and are used on set routes and are summarized above. However, we are the comments are moot, and the ‘‘16 or not widely exposed to general traffic. simplifying the language of the standard more DSPs’’ provision is unnecessary Also, because of the nature of the since the proposed language describing and may only add confusion regarding transport (frequent and quick loading a bus of this type was not well the requirements for buses with a and unloading of passengers), and the understood or clear enough. GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 roads on which they generally travel, We wish to note, before beginning our lb), especially those with only 10 to 15 passenger seat belts in such buses are discussion, that we received a comment DSPs. We have deleted the provision. not as needed or likely to be worn by from the family of a man who was passengers. permanently disabled in a crash of an c. At Least 2 Rows of Forward-Facing airport shuttle bus with perimeter Seats Rearward of the Driver’s Seat Comments seating. The comment supported having The proposed ‘‘motorcoach’’ Advocates suggested that passenger- belts on these buses. We have carefully definition included a provision that one carrying commercial motor vehicles considered the comment but we are of the attributes of a motorcoach is that should not be excluded from the unable to concur with its it has ‘‘at least 2 rows of passenger seats, ‘‘motorcoach’’ definition simply on the recommendation to require seat belts on rearward of the driver’s seat, that are basis of ‘‘the arrangement of designated, these buses.66 In our decision-making forward-facing or can convert to forward-facing seating positions.’’ Other on safety regulations, our decisions forward-facing without the use of tools.’’ commenters supported placing seat must be practical, fair, reasonable and This reference was to distinguish belts on airport shuttles. necessary. The available accident data ‘‘motorcoaches’’ from buses with MCI commented changing the indicate that fatalities and serious perimeter seating, such as those used to criterion from ‘‘at least two rows of injuries in crashes of airport shuttle- transport passengers in airports between passenger seats’’ to ‘‘at least 8 seating type buses of GVWRs greater than the terminal and locations such as a positions.’’ 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) with perimeter rental car facility or long term parking. Turtle Top thought the motorcoach seating do not happen with a frequency Buses with perimeter seating usually definition proposed in the NPRM that enables us to conclude that the have a single forward-facing row of seats implied that motorcoaches can have 16 affected buses with perimeter seating at the back of the vehicle and seats DSPs with only two rows of seats, should be required to have seat belts. along one or both sides of the bus. requirements it thought were However, in the future, if data indicate Passengers sitting along the side of the conflictive. IC Bus, American Seating, a need for seat belts, we will be willing bus face the longitudinal centerline of and IMMI commented that all seats in to revisit this issue. motorcoaches should be required to be the vehicle, usually with their backs Simplified Language toward the windows. Buses with forward-facing. The following discussion relates to perimeter seating are used to carry Agency Response people for a relatively short period, buses other than over-the-road buses. It The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act typically are meant to transport does not apply to over-the-road buses. directs NHTSA to ‘‘prescribe regulations standees, and are spacious to The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act requiring safety belts to be installed in accommodate baggage and other carry- requires over-the-road buses to have motorcoaches at each designed seating on items and to maximize the speed of safety belts, so we have therefore position.’’ ‘‘Safety belts’’ mean lap/ passenger boarding and alighting. defined ‘‘perimeter-seating bus’’ as not shoulder belts (see section 32702(12) of Passengers are expected to board and including an over-the-road bus. the Act) and ‘‘motorcoach’’ means The proposed regulatory text that disembark the bus quickly, with large ‘‘over-the-road bus’’ (a bus characterized sought to exclude airport shuttle-type buses with perimeter seating was not 64 Pursuant to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety by an elevated passenger deck located Administration’s Commercial Driver’s License over a baggage compartment) but does well understood by commenters. To Standards at 49 CFR 383.3, persons are required to not include a bus used in public clarify it, we are simplifying the obtain and hold a CDL if they operate in interstate, transportation provided by, or on behalf language describing perimeter-seating foreign or intrastate commerce if they operate a buses in two ways. First, we are vehicle that meets any of the classifications of a of, a public transportation agency, or a ‘‘commercial motor vehicle’’ (CMV) where CMV is school bus (see section 32702(6) of the changing the format of the regulatory defined at 49 CFR 383.5 as follows: Act). In response to the Motorcoach text. As noted above, the NPRM ‘‘Commercial motor vehicle (CMV) means a motor Enhanced Safety Act, this final rule attempted to specify what a motorcoach vehicle or combination of motor vehicles used in requires lap/shoulder belts at each has or does not have (as proposed in the commerce to transport passengers or property if the NPRM, a motorcoach had to have at motor vehicle— designated seating position in over-the- (1) Has a gross combination weight rating or gross road buses, even if the bus has least 2 rows of forward-facing passenger combination weight of 11,794 kilograms or more perimeter seating.65 seats—i.e., a bus with fewer than 2 rows (26,001 pounds or more), whichever is greater, of forward-facing seats was a perimeter- inclusive of a towed unit(s) with a gross vehicle 65 The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act’s weight rating or gross vehicle weight of more than mandate to require seat belts to be installed in over- comments and discussion related to these two niche 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds), whichever is the-road buses at each designated seating position bus types can be found in section VIII.d.3. To the greater; or applies to niche vehicles, such as a vehicles often extent that these niche vehicles are body-on-frame (2) Has a gross vehicle weight rating or gross referred to as a ‘‘limo bus’’ or ‘‘party bus,’’ to the construction (not over-the-road buses) they could vehicle weight of 11,794 or more kilograms (26,001 extent that the ‘‘limo buses’’ are based on an ‘‘over- qualify to be exempted as perimeter-seating buses. pounds or more), whichever is greater; or the-road’’ bus design. Another type of niche vehicle Also, some of these vehicles may not be buses at (3) Is designed to transport 16 or more passengers, is the touring/entertainment bus that is a modified all if they have less than 10 passenger DSPs (11 including the driver; or over-the-road bus, with eating and sleeping total DSPs, including the driver). (4) Is of any size and is used in the transportation accommodations, used by some celebrities and 66 This discussion assumes that the bus is not an of hazardous materials as defined in this section.’’ entertainers when touring the country. Additional over-the-road bus.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 70435

seating bus and not a ‘‘motorcoach’’). are typically 4 forward-facing passenger d. Treatment of Various Bus Types and We have decided it is easier to define DSPs in a row on a motorcoach, there Configurations Under the Final Rule ‘‘perimeter-seating bus,’’ and then are 8 forward-facing DSPs in two rows. We stated in the NPRM that we exclude perimeter-seating buses from Thus, the equivalent of saying that a intended the motorcoach definition to FMVSS No. 208’s seat belt motorcoach has at least 2 rows of include buses that are sold for intercity, requirements. forward-facing seats is to say that a tour, and commuter bus service (75 FR Second, we have defined a perimeter- motorcoach has at least 8 forward-facing at 50970). In an effort to be as clear and seating bus by referring to the maximum DSPs. straightforward as possible that buses number of forward-facing DSPs the In other words, to be excluded from sold for intercity, tour, and commuter vehicle may have, rather than the the affected class as a perimeter-seating bus service would be motorcoaches, the number of ‘‘rows’’ the vehicle may have. bus, the bus has to have 7 or fewer 68 proposed regulatory text for the This is along the lines suggested by forward-facing passenger DSPs. This motorcoach definition included the MCI. We are making this change final rule adopts the following term in following statement: ‘‘Motorcoach because we have found it difficult to FMVSS No. 208 to describe a perimeter- includes buses sold for intercity, tour, define the term ‘‘row’’ for purposes of seating bus: A ‘‘perimeter-seating bus’’ and commuter bus service. . . .’’ We today’s amendments using plain is a bus that has 7 or fewer designated did not exclude shuttle buses generally, language. seating positions rearward of the but requested comment on whether FMVSS No. 226, ‘‘Ejection driver’s seating position that are shuttle buses should be excluded from mitigation’’ (49 CFR 571.226) has a forward-facing or can convert to the proposed definition. definition of row, but that definition forward-facing without the use of tools. does not work entirely well with regard The maximum number of forward- 1. Shuttle Buses 67 to motorcoach seating configurations. facing DSPs that can fit side-by side in We received varied comments on 69 For example, assuming the forward- a vehicle 2.6 meters (102.36 inches) whether ‘‘shuttle buses’’ should be facing seating positions in a bus is wide is 5. This is calculated assuming motorcoaches. divided by an aisle, the forward-facing a minimum DSP width of 450 Safe Ride News, Advocates, the seating positions on the left half of the millimeters (17.7 inches, as specified at National Association of State Directors bus may not align with the seats on the 49 CFR 571.3). Thus, a ‘‘perimeter- of Pupil Transportation Services and right half. This lack of alignment may seating bus’’ can have a forward-facing some individuals supported requiring occur when there is a parcel rack, row along the rear wall (5 DSPs) and up ‘‘shuttle buses’’ to have seat belts. They junction box, door, or some other to 2 other forward-facing seats behind believed that these vehicles are often in element of the bus’ design that is the driver. Another example is a bus continuous service and can travel on located on only one side of the bus. that has some side-facing seats and 3 high speed roads, and can match the These elements may shift placement of pairs of seats forward-facing. Under risk exposure to ejection risk of intercity seats on that side of the bus, so that the today’s rule, as long as the number of or over-the-road buses. seats do not align with seats on the forward-facing passenger DSPs is 7 or other side (when viewed from the side fewer, the vehicle is a perimeter-seating Agency Response of the bus, as specified by FMVSS No. bus and is excluded from the The following discussion relates to 226). requirements of this rule. buses other than over-the-road buses. It After reviewing the comments, we We recognize that this approach does not apply to over-the-road buses. have decided that an easier approach is allows a manufacturer to install up to 7 The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act to define ‘‘perimeter-seating bus’’ by individual forward-facing seats (not requires over-the-road buses to have referring to a maximum number of including the driver’s seat) scattered lap/shoulder belts. forward-facing passenger DSPs allowed throughout a bus, and does not require We have decided that there will not under the exclusion. Under the NPRM, that there be a single row of 5 forward- be a general exclusion of ‘‘shuttle a bus that has two or more rows of facing DSPs along the back of the bus. buses’’ from the coverage of this final forward-facing passenger seats is Nonetheless, in limiting the number of rule. Comments and agency potentially a ‘‘motorcoach.’’ Since there forward-facing DSPs to 7 for the bus to observations indicate that there is not a be considered a perimeter-seating bus, clear meaning of the term ‘‘shuttle bus.’’ 67 We have defined ‘‘row’’ in Federal Motor we believe the definition is clearer and We agree with the United Motorcoach Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 226, easier to understand than one referring Association that ‘‘shuttle bus’’ covers a ‘‘Ejection mitigation.’’ (See 49 CFR Section 571.226. ‘‘Row’’ means ‘‘a set of one or more seats whose seat to rows, and adequately describes a bus potentially broad range of uses and bus outlines do not overlap with the seat outline of any with primarily side-facing (perimeter) types. The term can apply to a myriad other seats, when all seats are adjusted to their seats.70 of commercial passenger vehicles in rearmost normal riding or driving position, when diverse road and highway exposures. viewed from the side.’’) That standard’s definition of row is not suited to our goals for today’s 68 The NPRM did not intend to count the driver’s An internet search for buses and rulemaking. The reason is that ‘‘row’’ in FMVSS No. seat in consideration of what is a row. Likewise, we services associated with ‘‘shuttle buses’’ 226 is defined so that any seats that overlap when conclude that the driver’s seat does not count resulted in vehicles that range from vans viewed from the side are considered to be in a toward the 7 forward-facing DSPs. to over-the-road buses, transporting single row, i.e., a row does not end until there is 69 According to the Federal Highway a clear separation between seats. This has the effect Administration’s regulations at 23 CFR 658.15, the passengers over distances of less than a of minimizing the number of rows in a vehicle, maximum width limit for commercial motor mile to over 100 miles. which works well for FMVSS No. 226 because it vehicles (CMVs) operating on the National Network Further, FARS data (2000–2009) maximizes the window area required to be covered (NN) is 102 inches, or its approximate metric indicated that for buses with a GVWR with an ejection mitigation countermeasure. equivalent of 2.6 meters (102.36 inches), except for However, for motorcoaches, if the seats are Hawaii where it is 2.74 meters (108 inches). greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) and configured so that when viewed from the side, there 70 Some commenters thought that the provision in having bus body types other than the is no separation between any seats, the entire the proposed definition referring to ‘‘at least two excluded categories of transit and seating of the bus would be considered one row. rows of forward-facing seats’’ was an attempt to school bus, shuttle bus use constituted Thus, the bus would not be considered to have two require all seats to be forward-facing. We did not rows of forward-facing seats, and therefore, contrary intend to propose such a requirement, nor are we 22.5 percent of fatalities. Accordingly, to the goal of this rulemaking, would not be a aware of safety data showing a need for such a we are not excluding shuttle buses from ‘‘motorcoach.’’ requirement. today’s final rule.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 70436 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

Freedman suggested that ‘‘shuttle Regarding closed top double-decker 3. Limousine and Entertainment Buses, bus’’ should be defined as it is in sightseeing buses, no feature of the Buses With Multiple Wheelchair FMVSS No. 225 (49 CFR 571.225),’’ vehicle would prevent these buses from Positions Child restraint anchorage systems: ‘‘a being operated in the same manner as Turtle Top described three bus bus with only one row of forward-facing double-decker buses operated on the configurations (GVWR greater than seating positions rearward of the highways, such as those operated by 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)) that may be driver’s seat.’’ We note the FMVSS No. Megabus between major metropolitan ordered with fewer than 16 DSPs and 225 definition of ‘‘shuttle bus’’ describes areas of the Northeast corridor. Further, asked whether they would be covered a bus that is classified as a ‘‘perimeter- Van Hool’s distributor advertises Van under the then-proposed motorcoach seating bus’’ in today’s final rule (see Hool double-decker buses for intercity definition. Two of these bus 72 above section). bus service. The vehicles can and are configurations are the limousine and being used just like an over-the-road bus touring coach. Our answer is the 2. Trolley and Double-Decker for intercity and tour services. (We note Sightseeing Buses limousine and touring/entertainment that, if a vehicle meets the definition of coaches are subject to today’s seat belt The NPRM’s proposed regulatory text an over-the-road bus, i.e., if there is a requirements if they are over-the-road for the motorcoach definition stated that baggage compartment under the buses, regardless of seating capacity and ‘‘motorcoaches’’ included ‘‘buses sold elevated passenger deck, the bus must regardless of GVWR, under the for . . . tour . . . bus service. . . .’’ have lap/shoulder belts under the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act. If the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act.) Comments buses are not over-the-road buses, they Regarding open-top double-decker are subject to the final rule if they have Coach USA commented that buses, the vehicles are manufactured as a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 sightseeing buses called ‘‘trolleys’’ buses and are fully capable of operating lb), and have 8 or more forward-facing (which are buses designed to look like at highway speeds. We have observed DSPs rearward of the driver’s position. a trolley car on tires) and ‘‘double- these buses on high-speed freeways, We assume that the vehicles meet the deckers’’ (buses with two levels of with passengers, as they make their way definition of a ‘‘bus,’’ which is defined passenger seating, one above the other, into Washington, DC. We note that in the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act some with the top level open and some passengers on the top deck of an open- and our regulations as ‘‘a motor vehicle with both levels enclosed) operate top double-decker bus face unique risks with motive power, except a trailer, similarly to transit buses and should be compared to other buses. A collision at designed for carrying more than 10 excluded from the definition of a relatively low speed or an unexpected persons.’’ (See section 32702(2) of the ‘‘motorcoach.’’ The commenter stated maneuver may expose passengers to an Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act and that ‘‘[t]hese buses do not operate with ejection risk. There is even a risk of 49 CFR 571.3.) passengers on highways, but rather the injury simply to stand up while the The third bus configuration Turtle 73 buses transport passengers exclusively vehicle is in operation. (We note again Top asked about is ‘‘a coach that has on urban streets, do not exceed about 25 that, if a vehicle meets the definition of many wheelchair positions and not mph, and make frequent stops . . .’’ an over-the-road bus, i.e., if there is a many seats.’’ The coach is subject to Both Coach USA and the American Bus baggage compartment under the today’s seat belt requirements if it is an Association (ABA) suggested that the elevated passenger deck, the bus must over-the-road bus, regardless of seating motorcoach definition exclude buses have lap/shoulder belts under the capacity and regardless of GVWR, under ‘‘sold for urban sightseeing Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act.) the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act. transportation with frequent stops.’’ Excluding ‘‘sightseeing buses’’ would The designated seating positions on the ABA also recommended that low-floor not be reasonable. ‘‘Sight-seeing buses’’ bus (not the wheel chair positions) must buses that are used exclusively within generally are not distinguishable from have lap/shoulder belts. urban areas, such as what the over-the-road and heavy body-on-frame If the bus is not an over-the-road bus, commenter said were intra-city double- buses. They are manufactured as buses the following discussion applies. decker sightseeing buses, be excluded and are capable of and are used on high NHTSA has interpreted the DSP from the motorcoach definition for the speed roads. The sights to which they definition such that wheelchair seating same reasons expressed by Coach USA. travel may be far distances apart. positions are not DSPs and thus are not Travelers are often riding on a particular required to comply with Federal motor Agency Response bus for lengthy tours and may ride the vehicle safety standards that apply to We have decided against excluding bus over long distances over highways. DSPs, such as the requirement in this trolley-type buses and both open and The buses may pose unique ejection final rule to have seat belts. However, closed top double-decker sightseeing risks if they also have overly-large we have said that wheelchair positions buses from the application of today’s window openings. Seat belts for the are counted in determining vehicle final rule. passengers will meet a safety need. seating capacity for the determination of Regarding trolley-type buses (trolley (If the bus meets the definition of an the type classification of a vehicle.74 buses), the agency is concerned that the over-the-road bus, i.e., if there is a Accordingly, a vehicle would be subject vehicles are manufactured as buses and baggage compartment under the to today’s seat belt requirements if it has are fully capable of being operated at elevated passenger deck, the bus must a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg highway speeds. Trolley buses also have have lap/shoulder belts under the (26,000 lb), 8 or more forward-facing overly-large window openings and can Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act.) DSPs or wheelchair positions rearward be and are at times operated with the of the driver’s position, and at least 10 windows open, which exacerbates the 72 See, http://www.abc-companies.com/models/ passenger DSPs or wheelchair positions TD925.asp. Last accessed July 12, 2012. 75 ejection risk. Seat belts for the 73 total. 71 On July 11, 2008, two passengers of an open- passengers will meet a safety need. top double-decker bus were killed when they stood as the bus went under an overpass on an interstate 74 http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/gm/78/nht78- 71 We assume that the trolley buses at issue are highway in Washington, DC. A similar incident 3.31.html. not transit buses. Transit buses are excluded from occurred on May 30, 2009 near Mattoon, IL, which 75 We assume the bus is not a school bus. There coverage of today’s final rule. also killed two passengers. are different provisions for school buses (see, the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 70437

4. Military Ambulances FMVSS No. 208 requirements adopted e. Transit Buses Blue Bird described a military today. The necessary features of the In the NPRM, based on an analysis of ambulance bus that it provides to the bus—fiberglass or stainless steel low- FARS data, we proposed that General Services Administration (GSA) back seats or benches—are incompatible ‘‘motorcoach’’ would not include ‘‘an that is equipped with seats that fold with installation of seat-mounted lap/ urban transit bus sold for operation as down to allow transport of litters for the shoulder belts. Further, according to the a common carrier in urban wounded. Blue Bird asked that the commenters, lap/shoulder belt transportation along a fixed route with agency exclude this type of bus from the equipment pose hazards as the buckle frequent stops.’’ Our analysis of FARS motorcoach definition and thus from the hardware and belt webbing could cause data showed that, for buses with a lap/shoulder seat belt requirements for harm as weapons or tools. In addition, GVWR greater than 11,793 kg it is unlikely that the prisoners will be passenger seats. (26,000 lb), the bus body type with the able to buckle themselves in, as their In response, 49 CFR 571.7(c) specifies fewest fatalities at 8.2 percent was hands are usually handcuffed. that, ‘‘No standard applies to a vehicle ‘‘transit buses.’’ We tentatively or item of equipment manufactured for, Accordingly, this final rule excludes buses other than over-the-road buses determined that, due to a lack of a safety and sold directly to, the Armed Forces need, it was warranted to exclude of the United States in conformity with from the requirement to provide passenger seat belts on a ‘‘prison bus’’ transit buses from the class of affected contractual specifications.’’ It is not vehicles (motorcoaches) to which the clear, but it is possible that the sale Blue for the reasons above. This final rule defines ‘‘prison bus’’ as follows: ‘‘Prison lap/shoulder seat belt requirements Bird describes is covered under would apply. 571.7(c). If the sale is not covered by bus’’ means a bus manufactured for the 571.7(c) and if the bus is an over-the- purpose of transporting persons subject Comments to involuntary restraint or confinement road bus, it is required to have seat In general, most of the bus and seat and has design features consistent with belts. If the ambulance bus is not an manufacturers commented that the that purpose. This definition is based on over-the-road bus, if the ambulance bus definition needs to better distinguish a definition used in FMVSS No. 217. has 7 or fewer forward-facing DSPs between the affected vehicles and However, because these practical rearward of the driver’s position, it is ‘‘transit buses.’’ In general, the public reasons do not apply to the driver’s excluded from the requirements of this transit agencies described three types of seating position, the driver’s seating final rule. operations that cover most of the major position is required to have lap/ 77 5. Prison Buses shoulder belts as proposed in the services they provide. These were: NPRM. For the same reason, any (a) ‘‘Urban transit’’ service, MCI, Blue Bird and Turtle Top asked characterized by fixed route operation that vehicles designed to transport passenger seat opposite (not rearward of) the driver’s seat is also required to with frequent stops; (b) ‘‘express’’ prisoners be excluded from the service, characterized by fixed route formerly-proposed ‘‘motorcoach’’ have a lap/shoulder belt since that seat is not usually used by a prisoner. operation that is similar to, but with less definition. The commenters stated that frequent stops than traditional urban these vehicles are often equipped with For over-the-road buses, the transit service, and with potentially small porthole style windows or metal Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act short portions of the route on the screens over existing windows, requires over-the-road buses to have highway; and, (c) ‘‘commuter express’’ segregation cells, and fiberglass or safety belts at each designated seating or ‘‘premium express’’ service, stainless steel low-back seats or benches position. The driver’s seating position characterized by longer routes with a (to optimize supervision and must be equipped with a lap/shoulder significant portion on the highway, with observation) that are specially designed belt. With regard to the passenger seats, either single or frequent stops at each to be impervious to human fluids and to we agree that the seats and safety belts end of the route, and no or few have no crevices. The interior of the bus could pose sufficient risk to the safety intermediate stops. is designed to provide an enhanced of guards and detainees that compliance The American Public Transportation view of detainees by law enforcement with the final rule for passenger seating Association (APTA) expressed its officers and to be free of loose articles positions could result in an overall concern that the proposed that can be used as weapons and tools, reduced level of safety compared to ‘‘motorcoach’’ definition may confuse such as a seat belt assembly. prison buses without the belts. Prison public transportation agencies, bus Commenters stated that since the bus purchasers seeking to avoid manufacturers, and the riding public. detainees are often in restraints, the use installation of passenger safety belts due APTA explained that the term ‘‘urban’’ of seat belts is impractical in most cases. to concerns about the guards’ safety in the proposed definition would not They noted that for reasons related to should consider buses other than over- exclude all buses used in fixed route the unique needs and purposes of the-road buses. If an over-the-road bus transit service with frequent stops, prison buses, prison buses are currently is a necessity, the bus manufacturer ‘‘fixed route’’ would not exclude transit excluded from emergency exit and other could apply for an exemption from the buses that are used for route-deviated requirements of FMVSS No. 217, ‘‘Bus requirements of this final rule under 49 services with frequent stops (i.e., service emergency exits and window retention CFR Part 555, presenting information that conforms to riders’ requests, and release.’’ that the applicant is unable to sell a bus whose overall level of safety is at least Agency Response not terminate until the Administrator grants or equal to that of a non-exempted denies the application for renewal. 49 CFR 555.8(e). 76 The agency agrees with MCI, Blue vehicle. 77 The public transit agencies also asked use- Bird, and Turtle Top that passenger related questions, such as whether passengers seats on buses designed for the transport 76 49 CFR 555.6(d). The number of exempted would be required to wear their seat belts, how of passengers under physical restraint vehicles sold in the U.S. in any 12-month period would standing passengers (standees) benefit from is limited to 2,500 vehicles, 49 CFR 555.6(d)(4). The seat belts, and whether standees would be should be excluded from the amended exemption is limited to a period of 2 years by 49 permitted. Since this final rule does not require CFR 555.8(b) but applications for renewal of the belts for transit buses, and because the NPRM did DSP definition in 49 CFR 571.3, and FMVSS No. exemption are automatically granted if filed within not broach these issues at all, NHTSA sees no need 222). 60 days before termination of the exemption and do to discuss these issues in this final rule.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 70438 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

although still operating with frequent fatalities per crash for transit buses, and use to signal to a vehicle operator that stops), and ‘‘frequent stops’’ may be thus a significantly lower risk than in they are requesting a stop. ‘‘Over-the- interpreted to exclude express service the buses covered by this final rule. road bus’’ means a bus characterized by (i.e., urban transit service with less We have not found a safety need an elevated passenger deck located over frequent stops, although still operated justifying a lap/shoulder seat belt a baggage compartment. on city streets). APTA suggested that the requirement for transit buses. To the IC Bus suggested that we define transit bus exclusion in the proposed extent commenters believe there is a motorcoach based solely on vehicle definition be replaced with the safety need, this issue was not explored attributes and features. We support the following: ‘‘. . . [except] a transit bus sufficiently in the NPRM. We discuss idea of using vehicle attributes and designed and procured for operation in the issue of seat belt requirements for features but the features IC Bus public transportation other than an the driver seat of transit buses in section presented were essentially those of an over-the-road-bus as defined by the U.S. XIV of this notice. over-the-road bus. We will not adopt an Department of Transportation.’’ Many commenters were troubled that approach that narrowly limits the Turtle Top was concerned that the the proposed definition was not applicability of this final rule to over- term ‘‘urban transit bus’’ is not defined sufficiently clear in distinguishing the-road buses. In fact, as discussed in the FMVSSs, and was concerned that ‘‘transit buses’’ from the buses that do below, our intent has been to make sure a given bus could have both over-the- need lap/shoulder seat belts. We agree that over-the-road buses used for transit road and urban transit applications. and have adjusted the proposed service do not get excluded from this IC Bus stated that ‘‘to properly definition as follows: rulemaking. We have not adopted the exclude ‘urban transit bus’ from • We made the regulatory text clearer ABA’s suggestion to refer to the ‘‘low- proposed motorcoach bus definition, it in describing a ‘‘transit bus’’ by referring floor’’ feature of urban transit buses in is our opinion that it may not be to a structural feature (a stop-request defining the buses. Among other things, possible to define a ‘motorcoach’ system) that buses must have to be a there is a lack of objectivity in the term, without including the vehicle’s ‘‘transit bus.’’ A ‘‘stop-request system’’ ‘‘low-floor.’’ intended use, or vocation.’’ IC Bus means a vehicle-integrated system for We disagree with Gillig and others followed this statement by presenting to passenger use to signal to a vehicle suggesting that buses sold for or used to the agency an option to define operator that a stop is requested. provide public transportation services, motorcoach based solely on vehicle • We expanded the description of a regardless of configuration, be excluded attributes and features. The features IC transit bus by recognizing that a transit from coverage of the rule. We have Bus presented were essentially those of bus could be sold for public decided not to use the ‘‘urban bus’’ an over-the-road bus. The American Bus transportation provided not only by, but definition in 40 CFR 86.091–02 because Association (ABA) suggested NHTSA also on behalf of, a State or local several of its terms are not specific refer to the ‘‘low-floor’’ feature of urban government, for example, by a enough for FMVSS purposes. Moreover, transit buses in defining the buses, but contractor. we are concerned that some attributes of did not define ‘‘low floor.’’ Gillig, a • We made clearer that over-the-road the definition would exclude buses that transit bus manufacturer, and most of buses do not qualify as ‘‘transit buses,’’ should be included in this rulemaking, the public transit agencies that even if the over-the-road bus has a stop- over-the-road buses. Gillig suggested commented, recommended that buses request system or is sold for public that we adopt the California Air sold for or used to provide public transportation provided by or on behalf Resources Board (CARB) clarification of transportation services, regardless of of a State or local government.78 ‘‘urban bus.’’ We have decided not to do configuration, be excluded from the This final rule adopts the following so, because CARB’s definition would ‘‘motorcoach’’ definition. Gillig definition of ‘‘transit bus’’ and exclude commuter buses (over-the-road suggested that we adopt the associated terms. buses), which we intended to include in Environmental Protection Agency’s ‘‘Transit bus’’ means a bus sold for the definition of ‘‘motorcoach.’’ (EPA) definition of ‘‘urban bus’’ in public transportation provided by, or on It was NHTSA’s intent in the NPRM 40 CFR 86.091–02. behalf of a State or local government, to require lap/shoulder seat belts on ‘‘over-the-road’’ buses operated by Agency Response that is equipped with a stop-request system and that is not an over-the-road transit agencies. Over-the-road buses This final rule excludes transit buses bus. ‘‘Stop-request system’’ means a used by transit agencies and over-the- from today’s lap/shoulder seat belt vehicle-integrated system for passenger road buses used by private companies requirements because fatality data for for intercity transport both carry large urban transit buses differ significantly 78 The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act excludes numbers of passengers over long from that of other buses with a GVWR a bus used in public transportation provided by, or distances, and at highway speeds. Given greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). We on behalf of, a public transportation agency from its the occurrence of a crash, the risk of meaning of ‘‘motorcoach.’’ However, we are believe this difference is due in part to applying this final rule to over-the-road buses used fatality is the same for both groups of the stop-and-go manner of transit bus for public transportation based on determinations buses. It is not uncommon to see operation. Updated FARS data from we have made pursuant to NHTSA’s Vehicle Safety commuter express buses traveling on 2000–2009 continue to show that for all Act authority, 49 U.S.C. 30111, which has existed the highway alongside privately- and continues to exist prior to and separate from bus body types with a GVWR greater the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act provisions. operated tour and charter buses of than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), transit buses The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act does not nearly identical construction. We have the fewest fatalities at 8.2 percent indicate an intent by Congress to limit NHTSA’s acknowledge that the public transit or 23 out of a total of 281. These same rulemaking authority under the Vehicle Safety Act agencies’ safety record for operating to issue regulations for vehicles not covered by the data show that there were 20 fatal Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act. We believe that commuter express service is better than crashes involving occupants of urban the Act provides a minimum ‘‘floor’’ for this the safety record shown by some private transit buses, resulting in fatalities of 11 regulation’s scope, and not a ‘‘ceiling’’ to its reach. sector operators. However, given the drivers and 12 were passengers. Thus, Thus, the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act calls overall similarity of the buses in out a regulation for ‘‘over-the-road buses’’ without fatal transit bus crashes involve about limiting our authority under the Vehicle Safety Act construction and use, we cannot one fatality, on average. In summary, to regulate other buses as appropriate, including distinguish, from a public safety there are many fewer total fatalities and over-the-road buses used in public transportation. standpoint, good reasons for requiring

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 70439

passenger lap/shoulder seat belts in stop-request system, it will have contract services for business or only privately-operated versions of the passenger lap/shoulder seat belts. government, and ‘‘charter’’ service, commuter express buses when the risk wondering if these services were f. School Buses of rollover in a crash, risk of fatal or excluded. Greyhound pointed out that serious injury in a rollover, and risk of NHTSA stated in the NPRM that the the clause was confusing and suggested fatal or serious injury in all crashes are initiation of rulemaking to require that NHTSA remove it and instead limit the same for both groups of buses.79 passenger lap/shoulder seat belts on the motorcoach definition to visible To address confusion about the transit motorcoaches was not meant to imply attributes and construction bus exclusion, in this final rule we have that seat belts are needed in school characteristics, while accommodating decided to adopt a more objective, buses with GVWRs greater than 4,536 kg the exclusions of transit buses and simple description of ‘‘transit bus.’’ As (10,000 lb) (‘‘large school buses’’) (75 FR school buses. suggested by APTA, we removed the at 50978). The preamble referred to an We agree with Greyhound on this terms ‘‘fixed route’’ and ‘‘frequent October 21, 2008 Federal Register matter. Rather than causing the stops’’ since those terms are not document 80 that had explained confusion associated with the NPRM’s sufficiently clear in meaning. In place of NHTSA’s decision against requiring seat use of the term ‘‘motorcoach,’’ this final these terms, we have incorporating a belts on large school buses. rule simply extends the FMVSS No. 208 reference to a structural feature which is Nevertheless, a number of commenters requirements, and the FMVSS No. 210 present for transit operation along a suggested that passenger seat belts be requirements which follow from that, to route that makes frequent stops, a ‘‘stop- mandated for these buses. all new over-the-road buses, and to new request system.’’ The terms are no On August 25, 2011, we again non-over-the-road buses with a GVWR longer needed since a bus with a ‘‘stop- addressed this issue in a separate greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), request system’’ will likely be making matter, denying petitions for rulemaking except for very few bus types. This frequent stops and thus operated in a to mandate passenger seat belts on large approach simplifies the regulatory text stop-and-go manner. school buses (76 FR 53102). and makes it easier for the public to We have removed the phrase ‘‘. . . The issue of seat belts in school buses understand the applicability of the operation as a common carrier . . .’’ has been thoroughly discussed in the amended requirements. This accords and added instead the phrase ‘‘public two Federal Register documents cited with plain language principles. transportation provided by, or on behalf above. This issue is outside the scope of of, a State or local government.’’ This is IX. Requiring Seat Belts at Passenger this rulemaking and will not be further Seating Positions similar to APTA’s suggestion, but adds discussed in today’s final rule. additional, important detail. We have The NPRM proposed to amend also added language that makes clear g. Agency Observations FMVSS No. 208 to require the that an ‘‘over-the-road bus’’ does not We reiterate the observation made installation of lap/shoulder seat belts at qualify to be a transit bus, even if it has earlier in this preamble that it appears all passenger seating positions on buses a stop-request system. We added text that one of the problems with the NPRM with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg that defines ‘‘over-the-road bus’’ as in regulatory text was that it proposed a (26,000 lb) (a class proposed in the section 3038(a)(3) of TEA–21. Section definition of ‘‘motorcoach’’ using a NPRM as ‘‘motorcoaches’’). NHTSA 3038(a)(3) of TEA–21 states that the traditional term (‘‘motorcoach’’) to issued the proposal to address the risk term ‘‘over-the-road bus’’ means a bus describe a nontraditional universe of of ejection on ‘‘motorcoaches,’’ characterized by an elevated passenger buses. As a result, some readers were particularly in rollover crashes, and to deck located over a baggage confused or perplexed that a bus they improve occupant crash protection in compartment. had never considered to be a all crashes, particularly frontals. Based Gillig stated that transit buses are motorcoach would be a motorcoach on the VRTC examination of the effect ‘‘used interchangeably in commuter and under the regulation. Buses can be that lap/shoulder seat belts had in a full- inter-city service with infrequent stops configured in all sorts of scale barrier crash of a motorcoach and and on fixed routes with frequent nonconventional ways to meet a host of in subsequent sled testing, NHTSA stops.’’ The commenter stated that our functions. After reading the comments, decided to propose requiring lap/ proposal had the effect of ‘‘requir[ing] we were concerned that each new shoulder seat belts at all forward-facing transit properties to know at the time nontraditional bus configuration could and rear-facing seats. The VRTC frontal they place an order for a bus what yield ambiguity on the part of the crash test program showed that lap/ specific service the bus will be put into builder and operator—‘‘Is this really a shoulder belts at forward-facing seating during its entire 12 year life, so that it motorcoach?’’—because to some, the positions were effective at preventing can be configured appropriately.’’ We traditional term will occasionally not critical head and neck injury values believe that the revised language ‘‘fit’’ some nontraditional bus design. from being exceeded, whereas dummies adopted today resolves the uncertainty We also observed that the statement: in lap-only belts in forward-facing seats to which Gillig refers. Transit procurers ‘‘Motorcoach includes buses sold for measured HIC and Nij values surpassing purchasing a new bus with a GVWR intercity, tour, and commuter bus critical thresholds. The NPRM proposed greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) will service,’’ seemed to confuse rather than that the performance of the lap/shoulder know this: (a) If the bus is an over-the- clarify because some commenters were belt anchorages be tested to FMVSS No. road bus, it will have passenger lap/ apparently reading it as inclusive rather 210, as is the case with all other shoulder seat belts; (b) if it is not an than illustrative. Many commenters vehicles where seat belts are required. On July 6, 2012, the Motorcoach over-the-road bus, and the bus lacks a asked about motorcoach services not Enhanced Safety Act was signed, mentioned in the clause, such as 79 directing NHTSA to ‘‘prescribe We also note that many commuter express ‘‘special operations’’ (e.g., casino buses are sold to private operators when the public regulations requiring safety belts to be services), airport express services, transit agencies turn over their fleets. An advantage installed in motorcoaches at each to having passenger seat belts on the buses is that when these commuter express buses are eventually 80 73 FR 62744, October 21, 2008. Response to designed seating position.’’ Under the turned to private service, the used buses will have petitions for reconsideration, 75 FR 66686, October Act, ‘‘safety belts’’ mean lap/shoulder passenger seat belts on them. 29, 2010. belts (see section 32702(12) of the Act)

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 70440 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

and ‘‘motorcoach’’ means ‘‘over-the- only in the first row or any forward seat would be alive today,’’ 84 while others road bus’’ (a bus characterized by an without ‘‘obvious shielding’’ and remain believe that a claim of enhanced elevated passenger deck located over a optional for all other passenger seating rollover protection due to seat belts is baggage compartment) but does not positions. The commenter suggested ‘‘significantly speculative.’’ Some include a bus used in public that passengers in other rows will have commenters suggested that the NPRM transportation provided by, or on behalf seat backs in front of them to shield represents ‘‘too much solution for not of, a public transportation agency, or a them and thus it is unreasonable to enough problem,’’ 85 and that it targets school bus (see section 32702(6) of the assume that these passengers will be an ‘‘insignificant problem’’ (‘‘twice as Act). ejected because there is no seat belt. many Americans are killed each year by fire ants [than on motorcoaches]’’ 86). Comments PRC also stated many passengers may not use lap/shoulder belts since ‘‘the Some did not think a seat belt Many commenters soundly supported motorcoach is a public transportation requirement was worthwhile because the proposal to require lap/shoulder tool, travelling at relatively slow speed, they doubted the seat belts would be belts for motorcoach passengers. These and most of the passengers travel on worn. included: NTSB, Consumers Union, shorter routes, going on and off We issued this final rule in Advocates for Highway Safety, Center frequently.’’ 81 accordance with the Vehicle Safety Act for Auto Safety, National Association of Bus manufacturers generally did not and the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Bus Crash Families/West Brook Bus overtly support or oppose the proposal, Act. We carefully assessed the safety Crash Families, groups representing but most expressed concern about one need for the standard. NHTSA pediatricians and child passenger safety or more aspects of it. MCI believed that prescribes motor vehicle safety advocates, and school bus the NPRM’s foundation for a claim of standards that protect the public against transportation organizations. Seat enhanced rollover protection is unreasonable risk of accidents occurring suppliers IMMI and American Seating, ‘‘significantly speculative and not based because of the design, construction, or and the Automotive Occupant on demonstrated fact,’’ and that NHTSA performance of a motor vehicle, and Restraints Council supported the should conduct more research on this. against unreasonable risk of death or proposal, as did 31 of approximately 42 Turtle Top asked that seat belts be a injury in an accident. In prescribing this private individuals who commented. safety option. Blue Bird indicated that it standard, we considered all relevant, Motorcoach transportation providers supported NHTSA’s efforts but asked available motor vehicle safety were divided in their reaction to the that NHTSA exclude buses that met information, and considered whether a proposed requirement for lap/shoulder Federal school bus roof crush and standard is reasonable, practicable, and seat belts for passengers. The operators occupant protection (lap belt) appropriate for the types of motor of the larger fleets in the industry were requirements. Several European bus vehicles for which it is prescribed. generally supportive of the proposal. As manufacturers (Van Hool, Setra) stated In issuing this final rule, NHTSA noted below, there were concerns that the FMVSS No. 210 seat belt considered the relevant, available motor expressed by providers about costs anchorage requirement will cause seat vehicle safety information, without associated with the upkeep and backs to be too rigid, and suggested we speculation or conjecture. After maintenance of seat belts and adopt European belt anchorage considering all relevant, available safety enforcement of belt use. requirements instead.82 information, we determined that the Many commenters did not support the standard is warranted. We have assessed proposal. Agency Response the benefits and costs of this final rule, The majority of smaller transportation In 1999, 2004, and 2008, the country both quantitative and qualitative, and providers opposed having seat belts for experienced a series of catastrophic have made a reasoned determination passenger seating positions. Most of heavy bus crashes.83 May 1999—bus that its benefits justify its costs. In these commenters cited the excellent crash outside of New Orleans, addition, the Motorcoach Enhanced overall safety record for their industry, Louisiana, 9 ejections, 22 fatalities and Safety Act directs that over-the-road increased cost, low belt use rate, and 16 serious injuries. October 2004—crash buses must have ‘‘safety belts’’ (lap/ difficulties in enforcing seat belt use. of a 47-passenger bus near Turrell, shoulder belts). About 30 submitted a form letter that Arkansas, 30 ejections, 14 passenger We have found an unreasonable risk stated that the costs associated with a fatalities and the driver. January 2008— of death or injury that will be addressed retrofit requirement would put many crash of a bus near Mexican Hat, Utah, by this final rule. Although fatal crashes companies out of business since they 50 ejected and 9 fatalities. August of the affected vehicles do not occur are already operating at or close to a 2008—crash of a bus carrying 54 frequently, when serious crashes do loss. occur, these can cause a significant Also opposed to the proposal were 10 passengers near Sherman, Texas, 17 fatalities. October 2008—crash of a bus number of fatal or serious injuries in a individuals who generally cited the low single event, most often due to rollover annual number of motorcoach fatalities, heading from Sacramento, 12 ejected, 10 fatalities, over 30 injured. and ejection, but also due to passengers possible low seat belt use rate, colliding with objects or structures perceived poor comfort, difficulty of These crashes, and others, involved buses of the very types we are covering within the bus. From 2000–2009 FARS enforcing use, and a belief that the cost data, 55 percent of the fatalities in fatal per life saved was high. Many suggested under today’s final rule. Some commenters believe that if the crashes of the affected vehicles were in that efforts should be placed on ‘‘more rollovers. The vast majority of fatalities meaningful’’ safety reforms than seat buses had seat belts, ‘‘it is likely . . . [friends and family members and others] in rollovers were ejections. Forty-two belts, such as driver training programs, percent of fatalities are in frontal limiting the driver’s operating hours crashes. While serious crashes resulting and/or distance traveled between 81 The last sentence seems to be describing transit breaks, and monitoring driver bus transportation. [Footnote added.] 82 Issues related to FMVSS No. 210 will be 84 National Association of Bus Crash Families/ performance. addressed in a later section of this preamble. West Brook Bus Crash Families, October 18, 2010. The People Republic of China (PRC) 83 These and other heavy bus crashes were 85 NHTSA–2010–0112–0009. suggested that seat belts be required summarized in the NPRM at 75 FR 50964–50965. 86 NHTSA–2010–0112–0001.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 70441

in occupant fatality do not occur Nearly half of the fatalities (45 percent) belts, the seats with lap/shoulder belts, frequently, when they do occur in the in the covered vehicles are in non- and the seats with lap only belts. We affected vehicles, passengers are rollover crashes, and more than half of tested the seats with different size exposed to heightened risks of rollover these are not ejected. In light vehicles, dummies and in frontal and oblique and ejection and harm from collision. lap/shoulder belt effectiveness for (15°) impact configurations and with There is a reasonable and practicable fatalities is estimated to be 29 percent in and without loading by unrestrained way to reduce the risk of fatality or frontal crashes, 42 percent in side occupants in the rear seat. The results injury in crashes of the covered crashes; for injuries of AIS 2–5 severity showed that lap/shoulder belts vehicles. The risk of ejection can be level, it is 34 percent in frontal crashes prevented critical head and neck injury reduced by seat belts, a simple, and 47 percent in side crashes. Id. In values from being exceeded in almost effective, and relatively inexpensive our seat belt test program conducted all configurations using the crash pulse countermeasure. Lap/shoulder seat belts pursuant to the 2007 ‘‘NHTSA’s from the bus barrier test. are estimated to be 77 percent Approach to Motorcoach Safety’’ plan, effective 87 in preventing fatal injuries in lap/shoulder belts prevented elevated In addition, data from full-vehicle rollover crashes and 82 percent in rollover tests demonstrate the efficacy of head and neck injury values and 1 preventing AIS 2–5 severity injuries, provided enhanced occupant protection lap/shoulder seat belts in even ⁄4-turn 88 primarily by preventing ejection. compared to lap belted and unbelted bus rollovers. The tests followed a Moreover, we estimate that even at a configurations. Hence, available safety protocol modeled after the Economic minimum passenger seat belt usage rate information indicates that lap/shoulder Commission for Europe Regulation No. 89 1 of only 4 to 5 percent, the rule will belts will reduce the risk of death and 66 (ECE R.66) full-vehicle ⁄4-turn remain cost effective. The availability, injury in non-rollover crashes as well. rollover test. The ECE R.66 test tips the cost, and effectiveness of this Motor vehicle safety information from bus using a platform that raises one side countermeasure render the risk of death the best available research programs of the bus at a steady rate of not more or injury in a serious crash of the demonstrates further a sound scientific than 5 degrees/second until the vehicle affected vehicles unreasonable. As a basis supporting this final rule. reaches its unstable equilibrium, result of this rule, when the covered Data from VRTC’s December 2007 commences a quarter-turn rollover, and buses are involved in the serious crash, full-scale vehicle crash test show that strikes a hard surface. (The rollover test the risk of death or injury to passengers lap/shoulder seat belts have a is illustrated below in Figure 5). will be significantly reduced. significant effect in a 48 kilometers per Lap/shoulder seat belts reduce the hour (30 miles per hour) frontal barrier 88 National Highway Traffic Safety risk of occupant fatality and injury crash test. All belted test dummies Administration, ‘‘ECE Regulation 66 Based Research Test of Motor Coach Roof Strength, 1992 when the occupants are not ejected. remained securely fastened in their MCI MC–12 Motor Coach, NHTSA No.: CN0801,’’ motorcoach seats, while the unbelted May 20, 2008; National Highway Traffic Safety 87 Estimated based on Kahane, ‘‘Fatality dummies were typically ejected from Administration, ‘‘ECE Regulation 66 Based Reduction by Safety Belts for Front-Seat Occupants their seats and ended up in the aisle or Research Test of Motor Coach Roof Strength, 1991 of Cars and Light Trucks,’’ December 2000, Prevost LeMirage Motor Coach, NHTSA No.: Washington, DC, National Highway Traffic Safety in the seats in front of them (75 FR at CM0801,’’ May 20, 2008; and National Highway Administration. We are applying the effectiveness 50967). The agency followed up the full- Traffic Safety Administration, ‘‘ECE Regulation 66 of lap/shoulder belts in rear outboard seating scale barrier test by conducting sled Based Research Test of Motorcoach Roof Strength, positions of passenger cars as a proxy measure for tests (laboratory crash simulations) 2000 MCI 102–EL3 Motor Coach, NHTSA No.: the effectiveness of lap/shoulder belts in MY0800,’’ October 1, 2009. motorcoaches. Real-world data are not available for using a representation of the crash pulse 89 Uniform Technical Prescriptions Concerning the effectiveness of lap/shoulder belts in from the barrier test. In the sled tests, The Approval of Large Passenger Vehicles With motorcoaches. we evaluated the bus seats without seat Regard to the Strength of Their Superstructure.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 70442 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

In three tests we conducted, fully- of the IARV, while the injury values for shoulder belts integral to the vehicle instrumented Hybrid III 50th percentile the unrestrained dummies reached seat are offered on many new adult male test dummies were levels up to 590 percent of the IARVs. motorcoaches. The lap/shoulder seat positioned in aisle seats opposite the Alarmingly too, the final resting belt/seating systems are readily impact side, with one dummy position of the unrestrained dummy in available from seat suppliers and can be unrestrained and the other restrained by all three tests was on the impact side installed by the vehicle manufacturer. a seat-integrated lap/shoulder belt. In all window, which has been the most Some seat suppliers offer to help three tests, the restrained dummies common ejection portal in real-world provide the engineering analyses bus remained secured to the seat and rollovers. manufacturers can use to certify produced injury values significantly In response to PRC, these rollover test compliance with Federal motor vehicle below FMVSS No. 208 Injury data and the data from the full-scale safety standards.91 Assessment Reference Values (IARVs) barrier crash test support our finding We will not agree to allow lap/ for the Hybrid III 50th percentile adult that shielding the motorcoach passenger shoulder seat belts to be installed at the male test dummy. In contrast, the between seat backs is not enough to manufacturer’s or purchaser’s unrestrained dummies fell head first prevent ejection from the area between discretion. The benefits of lap/shoulder across the occupant compartment and the seats or from the vehicle. Lap/ belts are realized in all crash modes and struck the bottom of the luggage shoulder seat belts are needed on these will have a significant impact on safety compartment and/or the side windows, vehicles. In response to MCI, we will in the deadliest of crashes, rollovers and which produced injury values well not postpone this final rule until further frontal impacts. When the agency has above the IARVs in two of the tests. research is done. The technical basis made a determination to issue an Injury values for the restrained supporting this rule is robust and FMVSS to meet a safety need, the dummies never exceeded 40 percent 90 known now. benefit of the FMVSS are applied to all The testing has also demonstrated that travelers equally and are not made 90 The restrained dummy that produced an injury installing lap/shoulder seat belts in optional. Moreover, in this case it would value of 40 percent of the IARV was positioned in be an unjust policy that provides no a seat that detached from the vehicle during the motorcoaches is practicable. Today, lap/ impact due to displacement of the side wall and choice to the persons who would be rolled across the occupant compartment. This seat equipment seat. Injury values for restrained was installed by the agency to gauge lap/shoulder dummies where the seat remained attached to the 91 http://www.cewhite.com/testing-lab [Last belt effectiveness and was not an original vehicle did not exceed 12 percent of the IARV. accessed February 28, 2012.]

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES ER25NO13.004 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 70443

protected by the lap/shoulder seat mandatory seat belt use laws on buses cost effective with just a usage rate of belts—the passengers—as to whether equipped with seat belts, but also only 4 to 5 percent. It is only if the belts the lap/shoulder belts will be provided suggested that enforcement will be a are available that passengers will have in the buses in which they ride. For problem since police officers cannot see the opportunity, the choice, to take the over-the-road buses, the Motorcoach inside a bus while it is traveling on a step to use them. Enhanced Safety Act requires these highway. American Bus Association Some transportation providers buses to have lap/shoulder belts. recommended that this rulemaking be expressed concerns about having to pay In 2007, the majority of the followed and supported by a strong more for buses with seat belts, and the motorcoach trips (65 percent) were DOT effort to encourage motorcoach depressing of business because of cost made by children and senior citizens.92 seat belt use, including incentives or being passed on to passengers. A few This final rule protects these vulnerable sanctions to states to enforce seat belt said that the resale value of its used populations, as it protects all persons. use rules and the DOT should support buses will be substantially reduced and Although fatal crashes of the covered such efforts in reauthorization. that, since sale of the used buses helps vehicles occur infrequently, the crashes Regarding requirements that drivers fund the purchase of new buses, some can affect the public’s confidence in the should instruct passengers on seat belt will not be able to purchase new safety of motorcoach transportation. use, it is correct that such requirements motorcoaches within a normal 12-year Then-NTSB Acting Chairman and board are outside of NHTSA’s regulatory cycle. member Mark V. Rosenker noted: authority.94 United Motorcoach We have weighed these matters in our ‘‘[M]otorcoach travel is also one of the Association suggested that FMCSA decision-making. The incremental cost safest modes of transportation, but when should revise their guidance for pre-trip of this final rule will be relatively small. accidents and fatalities do occur, the announcements and/or instructions to The agency estimates that the highest public’s perception of the safety of include reminders and directions for annualized cost due to this rule, motorcoach travel can be badly passengers regarding the use of seat including fuel cost, is $7.0 million. damaged, and once they perceive belts. DOT and FMCSA are aware of and According to the 2008 Motorcoach something as being unsafe it is very are considering these comments Census,96 in 2007 there were 751 hard to change their minds.’’ 93 Mr. concerning the drivers’ role in million trips taken on motorcoaches in Rosenker observed: ‘‘[W]hen tragedies instructing passengers to use their seat the U.S. and Canada. If the increase in occur they attract a huge amount of belts. DOT, FMCSA and NHTSA are price of a motorcoach were distributed media attention, and as a result, the continuing work on the Departmental among these trips, it would account to potential exists for the public to lose plan on motorcoach safety and are a one cent increase in the price of a confidence in our transportation considering the next steps that could be ticket. systems.’’ In its comments on the taken to increase passenger use of the As far as the claimed decrease in the NPRM, the United Motorcoach seat belts. resale price of motorcoaches, secondary Association stated: ‘‘Maintaining the We recognize that seat belt use rates and tertiary effects of safety regulations confidence of consumers is of critical could be low at first, possibly because are highly speculative and are not importance to the motorcoach the belts may seem strange and typically attributed to the cost of a rule. industry.’’ unfamiliar in the bus. However, we also Even if we were to assess these effects, Today’s final rule will help sustain believe passengers’ attitudes about using the commenters did not provide public confidence in the safety of the seat belts can change, just as public information enabling us to assess or covered vehicles. Today’s final rule is a opinion changed on using seat belts in substantiate these claims. first step toward a time when news of passenger vehicles and on restraining We note that the commenters depict a serious crash of a subject bus is not children in child safety seats. In 1994 a scenario in which any change to the associated with a catastrophic number passenger vehicle seat belt use rate was FMVSSs that requires a new or of fatal and serious injuries. As 58 percent. The 2010 data show the improved safety feature will have the consumers become familiar with lap/ highest ever passenger vehicle seat belt effect of reducing the resale value of the shoulder seat belts on the covered buses use rate at 84 percent.95 Mandatory seat used vehicles that do not have the safety and more aware of the protection they belt use laws and child safety seat laws feature. We note further that this provide, we expect not only use rates to no doubt had a role in changing scenario would apply to all vehicles, not increase, but public confidence in the attitudes, but we believe that attitudes just motorcoaches. A person selling a safety of the affected buses to be also changed when people became more used car that does not have, for bolstered as well. aware of the safety benefits provided by example, side impact air bags, competes A number of private transportation the safety equipment. We believe that, against a person selling a used car that providers asked who will enforce a seat as more and more covered buses are does. It would be unreasonable for belt use requirement and what type of manufactured with lap/shoulder seat NHTSA not to adopt an FMVSS that violations will be cited to the carrier if belts, the public’s familiarity with and requires a new safety device or upgrades passengers are found not wearing their awareness of the safety benefits of the to an existing safety feature because the seat belts. Arrow Coach Lines suggested lap/shoulder belts on these buses will effect of the amendment would lower that the states should consider adopting grow, and with that, seat belt use rates the demand for some used vehicles. We will too. note also that the demand for vehicles 92 In 2007, the majority of the motorcoach trips Even today, we believe that lap/ that have the safety feature (e.g., (65 percent) were made by children and senior passenger lap/shoulder seat belts on citizens. ‘‘Motorcoach Census 2008, A shoulder seat belts in covered buses are Benchmarking Study of the Size and Activity of the buses) has the positive effect of possibly Motorcoach Industry in the United States and 94 Similarly, a few commenters asked about the expediting the transition to lap/shoulder Canada in 2007.’’ Paul Bourquin, Economist and use of seat belts at wheelchair positions. This final seat belt-equipped buses in the fleet. Industry Analyst, December 18, 2008. rule does not require the use of seat belts by any Arrow Coach Lines commented that 93 Remarks of Mark V. Rosenker, Acting Chairman passenger. the costs associated with maintenance NTSB, before the Greater New Jersey Motorcoach 95 DOT HS 811 378. Traffic Safety Facts Research Association, June 3, 2009, http://www.ntsb.gov/ Note: Seat Belt Use in 2010—Overall Results, and upkeep of passenger seat belts in news/speeches/rosenker/mvr090603.html [last September 2010. www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/ accessed February 3, 2012] 811378.pdf. 96 Id.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 70444 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

the covered buses were not discussed in existing safety feature because of compliance date included in the the NPRM, and stated that seat belts will assertions about the effect of the NHTSA rule. be a ‘‘maintenance nightmare.’’ Trans- amendment on liability and insurance In summary, for the above reasons, Bridge Lines stated that it has had seat costs associated with operating used NHTSA has deemed unreasonable the belts cut, tied into knots, and vehicles that do not meet the new or present occupant fatality risk in buses intentionally broken in their seat belt- upgraded standard. with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg equipped buses, which has added (26,000 lb), given the risk of fatality and Other DOT Initiatives additional expenses for their company serious injury in rollover and frontal to inspect, maintain, and repair the seat Some motorcoach transportation crashes, and the proven protection belts. providers suggested that NHTSA direct afforded by lap/shoulder seat belts, an In response, we first want to be clear regulations towards areas other than available and relatively inexpensive that there is no requirement in the final seat belts, such as improving vehicle fire countermeasure. NHTSA has issued rule that applies to the operators, such resistance, reducing driver inattention today’s final rule to reduce that risk, and as a maintenance requirement. Second, and detecting fatigue, and adding to fulfill the statutory mandate of we do not believe that the costs of passive safety elements such as section 32703(a) of the Motorcoach maintaining the belts, if any, will be increased roof strength, improved Enhanced Safety Act of 2012. impactful. The commenters did not emergency exits, and seat padding. provide any data on this cost. The This regulation mandating the X. Type of Belt System on Forward- agency does not have reason to believe installation of lap/shoulder belts on Facing Seats that this work will need to be done more over-the-road buses is required by the The NPRM proposed to require lap/ than incidentally or that it will amount Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act. At the shoulder belts for forward-facing to a real cost, attributable to the cost of same time, many of the alternatives to passenger seating positions, and not lap the rule. Belt maintenance work is not a lap/shoulder seat belt requirement belts. generally recognized as a necessity or as suggested by various motorcoach subject to a schedule (unlike safety operators, such as improving fire Comments systems such as tires, where it is resistance, increasing structural 1. Van Hool and Setra requested that generally recognized that the average integrity, and reducing driver fatigue lap or lap/shoulder belts that meet the tire lasts 45,000 miles). Further, we and inattention, are being explored by European regulations be allowed as an expect that the cost of maintaining the DOT as outlined in the Motorcoach alternative to the proposed belts, if any, to be very small in Safety Action Plan, and in furtherance requirements. comparison to the cost of upgrading the of provisions in the Motorcoach 2. Blue Bird said that it manufactures buses with seat belts. In response to a Enhanced Safety Act regarding research non-school buses with a GVWR greater commenter, the assertion that non-seat and rulemaking. However, these actions than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). The buses belt related safety items may suffer in will be complementary to, not a meet the Federal school bus safety some bus garages due to the rule replacement for, this action on seat standard for roof crush (FMVSS No. because the time required to maintain belts. Motorcoach crashes are not 220, ‘‘School bus rollover protection’’) belts may come at the expense of exclusive to a particular type of and have seats that meet the Federal checking other safety items is enterprise or driver. DOT is taking all school bus standard for passenger crash speculative and we cannot give reasonable efforts to improve the protection (FMVSS No. 222, ‘‘School credence to it without some kind of crashworthiness and crashavoidance bus passenger seating and crash substantiation of this serious claim. characteristics of the vehicles; we have protection’’). Blue Bird requested that Three private transportation providers determined that providing passengers we allow buses that meet FMVSS No. expressed concern over the impact on lap/shoulder seat belts will amount to 220 and that have passenger seats liability and insurance costs for their an unprecedented enhancement of meeting FMVSS No. 222 to have lap- non-seat belt equipped motorcoaches if motorcoach safety. only belts instead of lap/shoulder belts. passenger seat belts are installed in new With regard to other DOT initiatives, 3. Prevost, a coach manufacturer,97 motorcoaches. Vandalia Bus Lines asked FMCSA notes that, although the requested that lap-only belts be allowed how it will market the current fleets amendments to FMVSS Nos. 208 and at any seat where the occupant is not at without seat belts, and how will 210 are not applicable to new buses risk of striking its head. insurance companies handle the built for sale and use in Canada, FMCSA operators who do not install seat belts is developing a rulemaking to cross- Agency Response because of retrofit costs. reference the new FMVSS requirements, The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act On the issue of liability and private the effect of which would be to require directs NHTSA to ‘‘prescribe regulations insurance costs to operators of existing motor carriers operating in the U.S. to requiring safety belts to be installed in non-seat belt equipped motorcoaches, have seat belts on the buses. FMCSA motorcoaches at each designed seating the commenters did not provide any explains that it has traditionally held all position.’’ ‘‘Safety belts’’ mean lap/ estimate of the potential increase in motor carriers operating in the U.S. to shoulder belts (see section 32702(12) of operating costs. The assertions about the same safety requirements via 49 CFR the Act). Consistent with the these effects are highly speculative, and Part 393, ‘‘Parts and Accessories Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, this have not been substantiated or Necessary for Safe Operation,’’ and that final rule requires lap/shoulder belts at quantified by the commenters. Further, the FMCSA rulemaking would apply to each designated seating position in the assertions are at most related to the Canada-domiciled bus operators over-the-road buses, regardless of the cost of doing business and not to the traveling into the U.S. Thus, FMCSA direction the seat faces. cost of the rule. We also believe that, to states, in the event FMCSA adopts a rule For buses other than over-the-road the extent commenters are arguing to require carriers to maintain the seat buses, this final rule requires lap/ against adoption of the NPRM, it would belts, those requirements may be shoulder belts at each passenger be unreasonable for NHTSA not to applied to Canada- and Mexico- adopt an FMVSS that establishes new domiciled carriers operating buses 97 Prevost is a division of Volvo Group Canada safety requirements or upgrades an manufactured on or after the Inc.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 70445

designated seating position, except side- 2. Blue Bird requested that the final seat belts on large school buses (FMVSS facing seats may be equipped with a lap rule allow the option of lap-only belts No. 222). belt instead of a lap/shoulder belt. We at forward-facing passenger seating The last row was proposed to be respond to the comments as follows. positions on buses that meet FMVSS excluded from the requirement because 1. We decline to allow the option of No. 220 and FMVSS No. 222. Our the location and style of the last row lap-only belts at forward-facing reasons to decline to allow the option of seats in motorcoaches make it possible passenger seating positions on the lap-only belts at forward-facing to place belt anchorages behind or to the buses, even lap belts that meet European passenger seating positions are side of the seat, where the belt webbing regulations (ECE R.14 and ECE R.80 are explained above. Further, if the would not impede safe travel in and out discussed in section XVI of this passenger seats on the bus did not meet of the seat.98 preamble) and even if the seats meet FMVSS No. 222’s seat spacing We proposed excluding the driver’s some of the requirements of FMVSS No. requirements, then lap belts alone may seating position from the requirement 222. not provide a sufficient level of because the driver’s compartment is Our decision is based on the results occupant protection on the buses. This usually separated from the passenger of NHTSA’s test program conducted as is because the compartmentalization compartment by a bulkhead or partition part of the agency’s 2007 ‘‘NHTSA’s protection offered by FMVSS No. 222 is and passengers are less likely to be Approach to Motorcoach Safety’’ plan. not simply predicated on the physical entangled in the driver’s belt system These tests found that lap/shoulder characteristics of the seat, but also the during egress. belts in forward-facing seats prevented limited seat spacing. This limited Comments elevated head and neck injury values spacing serves to control the occupant and provided enhanced occupant velocity such that impacting the forward All persons commenting on this issue protection compared to lap belts. seat back is less injurious. were generally supportive of the In the VRTC full-scale over-the-road 3. We decline Prevost’s suggestion to requirement. bus crash, the lap/shoulder-belted allow lap-only belts at any seat where C.E. White stated that the driver lap/ dummies exhibited the lowest injury the occupant is not at risk of striking its shoulder belt should be integrated into measures and improved kinematics, head. Considering that the highest the seat frame and it should include an with low head and neck injury measures accelerations in motorcoach crashes are adjustable shoulder height mechanism. and little movement outside the area typically produced during frontal or rear American Seating recommended that between seats, compared to the lap- impacts, and these accelerations are seat integrated anchorages not be made belted dummies and unbelted dummies. predominantly in the longitudinal a requirement for side-facing seats. In the VRTC sled tests of lap/ direction, lap/shoulder belts will American Seating argued that side- shoulder-belted dummies— provide the best protection for non-side facing seats should be excluded for the • Average HIC and Nij values were facing occupants in all forward-facing same reason as the last row of seats low for all dummy sizes and below seats, even for seats that are in a ‘‘clear’’ since non-integrated seat belts at these those seen in unbelted and lap-belted area (no chance of head impact). positions would not impede occupant sled tests. This was consistent with the NHTSA crash and sled testing of egress. lap/shoulder belt results from the full motorcoaches and motorcoach seats Response scale crash test. clearly showed the superior protection • Lap/shoulder belts retained the offered by lap/shoulder belt as We do not agree that the driver dummies in their seating positions and compared to lap belts for forward-facing position seat belts should be integral to were able to mitigate head contact with occupants. Lap/shoulder belts are the seat. As stated in the NPRM, the the seat in front. superior to lap belts in a frontal crash reason for requiring passenger seats to • When lap/shoulder-belted dummies because they provide more surface area have integrated lap/shoulder seat belts were subject to loading (of their seats) for an occupant’s body to react with is to ‘‘ensure that seat belts for inboard by an aft unbelted dummy, there was during a crash when compared to lap- seat positions, in particular, are not additional forward excursion of the lap/ only belts, and the forces are spread mounted such that the belt webbing shoulder-belted dummies, but the over the pelvis and torso (with lap/ could impede safe passage through the resulting average head injury measures shoulder belts) rather than the pelvis bus interior during emergency egress.’’ were still relatively low in most cases, alone (as with lap-only belts). We do not find there to be a similar need for the driver position. The driver even in cases when the head contacted XI. Integrated Anchorages the seat in front. seating position was originally excluded • Lap/shoulder-belted dummies were We proposed that the lap/shoulder in the NPRM from such a requirement better restrained in the oblique sled seat belt anchorages, both torso and lap, because the driver compartment is tests, conducted at a 15-degree angle, be required to be integrated into the seat usually separated from the passenger than lap-belted dummies. They had structure for passenger seats, except for compartment by a bulkhead or partition. lower injury measures and were the belt anchorages in the last row of the The driver’s shoulder belt anchorage retained in their seats. coach (if there is no wheelchair position can be attached to the seat structure, In contrast to the lap/shoulder-belted or side emergency door behind these side wall, or bulkhead without dummies, the results for lap only seats) and in the driver seating position. increasing risk of entanglement of the dummies showed— We proposed integral lap/shoulder belts driver or passengers during egress. • HIC and Nij measures exceeded the on the buses to ensure that seat belts for Though there may be a comfort IARVs for virtually all the dummies inboard seat positions, in particular, are advantage for integrating seat belt tested (there was a 50th percentile male not mounted such that the belt webbing dummy which measured a HIC of 696 could impede safe passage through the 98 However, we proposed that if the seat plan has (99 percent of the IARV limit)). bus interior during emergency egress. a wheelchair position located behind the rearmost • The poor performance of the lap This provision is consistent with a 2010 passenger seat, or a side emergency door rearward amendment adopted regarding of it, the rearmost passenger seat must have its seat belt restraint in the sled tests was belt assembly anchorages attached to the seat consistent with the lap belt results from passenger crash protection on small structure to reduce the risk of tripping, the full scale motorcoach crash test. school buses and optionally provided entanglement, or injury.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 70446 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

anchorages into the driver seat, there is We do not believe there is a safety need simultaneously at a single point and by no clear safety benefit in requiring them to require the final-stage manufacturer a pushbutton action. to be integrated. to replace the right front passenger seat Comments In reference to C.E. White’s request (which might have non-integral lap/ that the shoulder height be adjustable, shoulder belts) with a seat that has Seven commenters responded to this we note that all the fit and adjustment integral lap/shoulder seat belts. This is aspect of the NPRM, generally requirements of S7.1 of FMVSS No. 208 because the right front passenger seat is supporting requirements for adjustment are being required for the driver typically located away from an area that and fit. There were some questions position of affected buses. Regarding passengers will be traversing to egress raised about the lockability AORC’s request that the lap/shoulder the vehicle, and because this provision requirements, but as explained below, it belt move with any suspension seat, we involves only this one passenger seat on seemed to some extent that these were note that we believe this issue is already the bus. based on a misunderstanding of sufficiently addressed for all buses by Such a provision provides flexibility lockable seat belts. the regulatory text of FMVSS No. 208. to final-stage manufacturers using Agency Response This section has a requirement that the chassis cabs. The manufacturer will be We note that IMMI stated that it is automatic locking retractor used at a able to use the seating systems that were driver seating position of a suspension aware of concerns in the industry about provided by the chassis cab lockability requirements being satisfied system must be attached to the seat manufacturer without having to replace structure that moves as the suspension by an automatic locking retractor (ALR), the right front passenger seat with a seat which the commenter associated with system functions. In addition, the lap that has a different belt system.99 belt portion of a seat belt equipped with possible increased harm to passengers. an automatic locking retractor must XII. Seat Belt Adjustment, Fit, The commenter did not elaborate what allow at least 19 mm (3⁄4 inch), but less Lockability, and Other Requirements it meant by ‘‘harm to passengers,’’ and we know of no reason why lockability than 76 mm (3 inches) of webbing NHTSA proposed that the lap/ movement before retracting webbing to would lead to harm on motorcoaches. shoulder belts installed for passengers Seat belts in passenger cars and other the next locking position. We see no and drivers include provisions for seat need for any changes to this section for light duty vehicles have had to meet belt adjustment and fit as specified in lockability requirements since the the affected vehicles. S7.1 of FMVSS No. 208. Specifying belt The agency agrees with American 1990s. adjustment and fit ensure that the lap Seating’s view that seat-integrated The agency disagrees with Setra’s and shoulder belt portions of the seat anchorages need not be made a concern that passenger seats that use a belt assembly are able to accommodate requirement for side-facing seats. We locking retractor for the lap portion note that side-facing seats were passengers whose dimensions range ‘‘will restrict passenger freedom to move excluded from the requirement for from those of a small child to a large during long trips and would be quite integrated anchorages based on the adult male. Through references in disagreeable.’’ This final rule requires regulatory text presented in the NPRM. FMVSS No. 208, NHTSA proposed that that all passenger seats in affected We agree to adopt this text in the final the upper torso restraint must adjust vehicles have seat belt assemblies that rule, thereby excluding any passenger either by means of an emergency- are equipped with an emergency locking seat that does not have another seat, a locking retractor that conforms to retractor (ELR).100 When an ELR and wheelchair position, or a side § 571.209, or by a manual adjusting lockability are required, vehicle emergency exit door behind it, for the device that conforms to § 571.209. manufacturers commonly use a reasons provided in the NPRM. In addition, we proposed that the seat switchable seat belt retractor (ELR/ALR) In addition, NHTSA is excluding any belt at each designated seating position, that can easily be converted from the right front outboard seating position that besides the driver position, meet the ELR mode to the ALR mode to meet is not rearward of the driver’s seat from FMVSS No. 208 lockability both requirements.101 For a lap/ the requirement that the lap/shoulder requirements. The lap belt portion must shoulder (Type 2) belt system, the lap seat belt system must be integrated into be lockable so that the seat belt portion of the seat belt can also be made the seat structure. (The lap/shoulder assembly can be used to tightly secure lockable by using a continuous-loop seat belts are still required for that position, a child restraint system without the use belt with the switchable retractor but they do not need to be integrated of any device that must be attached by providing tension to the lap belt portion into the seat structure.) The agency has the consumer to the seat belt webbing, through the shoulder belt portion.102 decided on this provision because under retractor, or any other part of the current FMVSS No. 208, the seat belt vehicle. The lap belt must be lockable 100 An ELR is a seat belt retractor that locks only without any inverting, twisting or other in response to the rapid deceleration of a vehicle assemblies of the right front passenger or rapid spooling out of the seat belt webbing from designated seating position and the deformation of the belt webbing. the retractor, and increases the comfort of the seat driver’s designated seating position are The NPRM also proposed that each belt assembly compared to an automatic locking subject to the same seat belt seat belt assembly must have a latch retractor (ALR). An ALR is a seat belt retractor that locks when the continuous motion of spooling the requirements. Currently, there are final- mechanism with all the latch belt out is stopped. From that point, the seat belt stage manufacturers, some of which are mechanism components accessible to a cannot be pulled out any further without first small businesses, which manufacture seated occupant, and that the latch letting the seat belt fully retract into the retractor body-on-frame buses by combining an mechanism be capable of releasing both housing. incomplete vehicle that has a driver seat 101 A switchable retractor (ELR/ALR) can be the upper torso restraint and the lap belt converted from an ELR to an ALR without the use and a right front passenger seat (a of any tools by slowly pulling all of the webbing chassis cab) with a bus body. We wish 99 In furtherance of this flexibility, this final rule out of the retractor, which engages the ALR mode, to address the situation where a final- will also subject the seat belt assembly of the right and letting the retractor wind the webbing back up. stage manufacturer obtains an front passenger designated seating position to the In ALR mode, the seat belt is lockable for use with requirements applying to the seat belt assembly of child restraints. incomplete vehicle in which the driver the driver’s seating position. We conclude there is 102 A continuous-loop lap/shoulder belt is a three- seat and the right front passenger seat no safety downside to this approach since it only point belt that uses one continuous piece of have non-integral lap/shoulder belts. involves a single passenger seat. webbing that slides through a latch plate. It is

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 70447

Such seat belt systems, which are ELR state for a subsequent adult side-facing seats on buses with a GVWR commonly used in current light passenger. of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less. The passenger vehicles, can meet the We disagree with IMMI that the agency proposed to permit lap belts in passenger seat ELR and lockability adjustable upper shoulder belt anchor side-facing seats because we were requirements of this rule without point requirement should be identical to unaware of any demonstrable increase significantly restricting the occupant’s the range for larger occupants in FMVSS in associated risk. We also noted that a freedom of motion. No. 210 for school bus seats, i.e., 280 study commissioned by the European IMMI suggested that we permit bus mm to 520 mm. We do not agree that Commission regarding side-facing seats manufacturers to install child restraint the extended range of seat belt on minibuses and motorcoaches found anchorage systems (FMVSS No. 225, adjustment required for school buses is that due to different seat belt designs, ‘‘LATCH’’ systems) at some passenger needed for the vehicles affected by this crash modes and a lack of real world seats in lieu of meeting lockability final rule. In travel on the affected data, it cannot be determined whether a requirements. SafetyBeltSafe and Safe vehicles, a booster seat can be more lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt would be Ride News suggested that LATCH be readily used, if needed, to obtain proper the most effective.106 required at some passenger seating shoulder belt fit than on school buses, Comments locations in the buses. We are not since an adult would likely be traveling adopting these suggestions. Child with the child on the commercial bus to Turtle Top asked why require either 103 restraint systems are required to be provide and supervise use of the booster type of seat belt for side-facing seats. capable of attachment to the vehicle seat seat.104 IMMI and American Seating using the seat belt system and using the After reading Setra’s comment, we recommended that forward-facing child restraint anchorage systems. reviewed proposed S7.1.6 (FMVSS No. seating be mandated. They believed that Motorists are familiar with the belt 208) and found it was oversimplified in mixing forward-facing seating with rear- system to attach child restraints to the the NPRM. We have corrected the facing or side-facing seating can result vehicle seats. Since the public has language in the final rule to more in unbelted passengers colliding with gained a strong familiarity using seat closely reflect S7.1.1 of current FMVSS belted passengers during a crash. belts with child restraints, we are No. 208, from which it was derived. American Seating claimed that shoulder adopting the lockability requirement for Specifically, the fit requirements have belts may cause serious neck injuries all passenger seating positions on the been extended down to the 50th when applied to side-facing passenger covered buses. percentile 6-year-old child and the seat seating positions. These and other We also disagree with SafetyBeltSafe back position has been corrected to comments are addressed below. and Safe Ride News that the final rule indicate the nominal design position. should require LATCH at some While reviewing Setra’s comment on Agency Response passenger seating locations in the buses S4.4.3.1(c), we realized that current The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act covered by this rule. This issue was not S7.1.3 of FMVSS No. 208 was directs NHTSA to ‘‘prescribe regulations proposed in the NPRM. Note also that unintentionally left out of the proposed requiring safety belts to be installed in bus manufacturers are not prevented amendatory text for the passenger motorcoaches at each designed seating from offering LATCH to purchasers of seating positions. S7.1.3 requires that position.’’ The term ‘‘safety belts’’ their vehicles if they choose to do so. the intersection of the upper torso belt means lap/shoulder belts (see section Setra objected to the idea that the and lap belt in any lap/shoulder belt vehicle owner’s manual must include 32702(12) of the Act) and ‘‘motorcoach’’ assembly, when adjusted in accordance means ‘‘over-the-road bus’’ (with certain information about using a device such with the manufacturer’s instructions, as a lockability feature, believing it not vehicles excepted). Thus, the must be at least 6 inches from the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act to be practical toward providing bus vertical centerline of a 50th percentile passengers the prescribed information. requires over-the-road buses to have male occupant when measured along lap/shoulder belts at each designated The agency disagrees with Setra’s belief the centerline of the lap belt. This is an that instructions in the owner’s manual seating position, which includes side- important feature of proper belt fit that facing seats. on how the seat belt assembly can be is applicable to most current seating made to accommodate a child restraint 105 1. In response to Turtle Top, positions. This section has been mandating seat belts at side-facing seats serve little or no purpose. Though the added to the requirements adopted owner’s manual (or other form of is consistent with the Motorcoach today for the seating positions on the Enhanced Safety Act. In addition, such written instruction) might not be affected vehicles. directly available to the bus passengers, a mandate is consistent with NHTSA’s the instructions will be available to the XIII. Passenger Seats That Are Not determination that seat belts at side- vehicle operator. Instructions regarding Forward-Facing facing locations will provide a clear benefit in rollovers, especially in the operation of safety-related vehicle For side-facing seating positions, the preventing ejection. Seat belts are systems at both the driver and the NPRM provided manufacturers with the required for side-seating by FMVSS No. passenger seating positions, including option of installing either a lap or a lap/ 208 in buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg those required by FMVSS No. 208, shoulder belt. This option was (10,000 lb) or less for that reason. The should be available to the bus operator consistent with FMVSS No. 208 Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act to assist passengers as needed. Such (S4.4.5.6), which allows lap belts for information could pertain to using the requires seat belts on side-facing seats seat belt lockability function for the 104 IMMI, SafetyBeltSafe and Safe Ride News’s only in over-the-road buses. Because installation of child restraints, and comments about potential problems with requiring seat belt systems will be effective in importantly, disengaging the feature manually locking belts equipped with switchable heavy buses generally, we are not going when the belt has to be returned to its retractors on large school buses is outside the scope to forgo requiring seat belts at side- of this rulemaking. facing seats in non-over-the-road buses. 105 Passenger seats of large school buses connected at one end to the vehicle at the anchor voluntarily equipped with seat belts do not need to point and the other to a retractor system. meet this requirement because of the unique seat 106 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive/ 103 FMVSS No. 213, ‘‘Child restraint systems.’’ geometry associated with these seats. projects/safety_consid_long_stg.pdf.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 70448 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

As to the specific type of seat belt, the belt loading against the neck.109 The seats, as shown by the proposed final rule will require lap or lap/ literature review in this same report also regulatory text that included language shoulder belts (at the manufacturer’s stated that neck loading by shoulder for rear-facing seats. We note for option) at side-facing seats on all belts in frontal crashes can be avoided clarification purposes that this final rule affected buses, except over-the-road by locating the shoulder belt anchorage requires lap/shoulder belts at all buses. For over-the-road buses the final rearward of the occupant neck. We passenger seating positions other than rule will require lap/shoulder belts in recognize that this could limit the side-facing seats, not just forward-facing side-facing seats, consistent with the restraint of an occupant’s upper torso, positions. MAP–21 Congressional mandate, as given that the shoulder belt may slip off 4. BroendumSeats requested that the opposed to allowing the option for lap the shoulder.110 regulation include ‘‘sleeper seats,’’ or lap/shoulder belts. Our understanding is that there would which are seats that can be reconfigured There is not sufficient information be few, if any, side-facing seats on over- into a couchette by the passengers to that substantiates concerns about lap/ the-road buses, so the real-world allow them to lie down while the shoulder belts on side-facing seats to a implications of this issue might be motorcoach is moving. BroendumSeats degree that would support prohibiting narrow. Given that there are unknowns suggested that this type of seat should such belts. Yet, NHTSA acknowledges about shoulder belt loading of an meet the proposed regulations when there have been concerns about the occupant’s neck on a side-facing seat, configured as an ordinary coach seat shoulder belt on side-facing seats, and in view of the small number of side- and also be required to restrain the which we have weighed in past facing seats on the buses in question, occupant when configured as a couchette and tested using the same decisions not to require lap/shoulder manufacturers of over-the-road buses forces as used for the sitting position. belts on side-facing seats for any vehicle seeking to install lap belts on side-facing seats may petition NHTSA for a In response, we cannot consider the type of any weight. suggestion to apply seat belt In the 2004 Anton’s Law final rule we temporary exemption from the requirement to install lap/shoulder belt requirements to ‘‘sleeper seats’’ when specifically declined to require lap/ configured as couchettes at this time. shoulder belts on side-facing seats of at side-facing seats, under 49 CFR Part 555. The basis for the petition is that the Such seats need to meet the light vehicles because we believed ‘‘the requirements of the final rule when addition of a shoulder belt at this seat applicant is unable to sell a bus whose overall level of safety is at least equal to configured as ordinary coach seats. The position is of limited value, given the 111 couchette configuration was not paucity of data related to side facing that of a non-exempted vehicle. The agency would be receptive to the contemplated during development of seats.’’ 107 However, we declined to argument that, for side-facing seats, lap the NPRM, nor does the agency have prohibit lap/shoulder belts ‘‘because we belts provide an equivalent level of any technical data or market volume [were] unaware of any demonstrable safety to lap/shoulder belts. data to assess the safety need involved increase in associated risk.’’ The 2. The issue of mandating only or how NHTSA should address it. agency’s view on this matter has not forward-facing seats was not a part of changed. There is not enough XIV. Driver’s Seat the NPRM. In the NPRM, we indicated information showing the effect, positive In the NPRM, the agency explained our awareness of other seating or negative, of the shoulder belt on side- that FMVSS No. 208 currently allows an directions when we proposed to permit facing seats. option of a lap or lap/shoulder belt for either a lap belt or lap/shoulder belt for However, although we have no direct the driver seating position in buses with side-facing seats. The commenters a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 evidence that shoulder belts may cause suggesting that affected vehicles be serious neck injuries when applied to lb). The NPRM proposed to amend restricted to forward-facing seats did not FMVSS No. 208 to require lap/shoulder side-facing seats, we are aware of present data showing a safety need for simulation data that are indicative of belts for the driver seating position in prohibiting seats other than forward- (the vehicles the NPRM proposed to potential carotid artery injury when the facing seats. While we recognize there is 108 define as) motorcoaches (generally neck is loaded by the shoulder belt. potential for occupant-to-occupant In addition, as we noted in 2004, the buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 contact when seating configurations are kg (26,000 lb) except transit and school Australian Design Rule ADR 5/04, intermixed, this final rule mitigates ‘‘Anchorages for Seatbelts’’ has buses) and in ‘‘large’’ (GVWR over 4,536 such potential contact by specifying that kg (10,000 lb)) school buses. (‘‘Small’’ specifically prohibited shoulder belts some type of seat belt must be provided for side-facing seats since 1975. school buses (GVWR less than or equal at all passenger seating positions. to 4,536 kg (10,000 lb)) are already We believe there are design 3. The NPRM preamble did not required to be equipped with lap/ considerations that could possibly mention rear-facing seats even though shoulder belts for the driver’s seating mitigate a risk of neck injury. In the we meant to apply the proposed lap/ position.) 2004 Anton’s Law final rule we noted shoulder belt requirements to those The agency proposed not to require that a study funded by the European lap/shoulder belts for drivers of transit 109 Commission (EC) regarding side-facing This report may be viewed at http:// or other buses. We stated that ‘‘[t]hese seats on minibuses and motorcoaches ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/files/ _ _ _ _ buses are driven in different found that the addition of a panel projects/safety consid long stg en.pdf. 110 Note that our final rule does not prohibit environments than motorcoaches,’’ and directly in front of a side-facing seat manufacturers from installing a forward panel or a that ‘‘Motorcoaches are often driven on would help restrain a belted occupant in rearward anchorage location. highways and other high-speed roads, 111 a frontal crash in a manner that would 49 CFR part 555 limits the number of so the risk of injury is greater for drivers prevent either spool-out from the belt or exempted vehicles sold in the U.S. in any 12-month period to 2,500 vehicles. The exemption is limited of these [motorcoach] vehicles’’ as to a period of 2 years by 49 CFR 555.8(b) but compared to other buses. The NPRM did 107 59 FR 70907. applications for renewal of the exemption are not provide any estimate of the potential 108 Editors: Fildes, B., Diggs, K., ‘‘Occupant automatically granted if filed within 60 days before Protection in Far Side Crashes,’’ Monash University termination of the exemption and do not terminate costs and benefits of a lap/shoulder belt Accident Research Center, Report No. 294, April until the Administrator grants or denies the requirement but requested comment on 2010, pg. 57. application for renewal. 49 CFR 555.8(e). the issue.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 70449

Comments 26,000 lb) are at slightly less risk of not know enough about the use of seat All 16 commenters on this issue fatality than the drivers of motorcoaches belt use signage and reminders on supported the proposal. above the 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) covered buses and does not have NTSB stated that it is pleased with the threshold. On an annual basis, there are information on their cost and proposal to require lap/shoulder belts 0.7 driver fatalities in the buses between effectiveness at promoting passengers to for the driver position in motorcoaches 4,536 kg and 11,793 kg (10,000 lb and use seat belts. In its comment, Trans- and large school buses and that such a 26,000 lb) as compared to 4.1 in the Bridge Lines said that it found that the requirement addresses NTSB Safety motorcoaches above the 11,793 kg majority of its passengers do not use Recommendation H–90–75. (26,000 lb). These data present that belts in spite of having signage asking The National Association of State there is less of a safety need to require passengers to fasten their seat belts and lap/shoulder belts for the driver Directors of Pupil Transportation having the driver instructing them to do positions of buses below the 11,793 kg Services (NASDPTS) expressed strong so. (26,000 lb) threshold than for buses support for the lap/shoulder belt It is unclear how auditory seat belt above the 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) requirement for the driver position in reminders for the passengers, as threshold. motorcoaches and in large school buses. suggested by some commenters, could Second, regarding the driver’s be implemented without a sensor to NASDPTS said that in response to the position on transit buses, 2000–2009 NPRM, it conducted an informal survey determine the occupancy of the seat and FARS data show that for transit buses switches in the belt buckles to of the manufacturers of large school with a GVWR of 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) buses and found that currently all new determine their use. Such a requirement or less, transit bus drivers had zero would be relatively expensive, and it large school buses are being fatalities during this 10 year period. For manufactured with a lap/shoulder belt does not seem like a prudent buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 investment. Trans-Bridge Lines at the driver position. It stated that most kg (26,000 lb), the analysis showed that states already require lap/shoulder belts commented that its drivers must focus the number of annual driver fatalities on the safe operation of the bus and at the driver position of school buses for the category of vehicle in FARS and that the School Transportation cannot simultaneously enforce seat belt termed transit bus body type is 1.1, as fastening rules. Specifications and Procedures of the compared to 4.1 for non-transit and non- UMA believed that FMCSA should National Congress on School school buses. Thus, the target revise their guidance for pre-trip Transportation has recommended that population for transit bus drivers is the states adopt this requirement since about one-quarter of that for drivers of announcements and/or instructions to 1990. The National School buses covered by this final rule. include reminders and directions for Transportation Association also To further learn about this issue, we passengers regarding the use of seat supported the lap/shoulder belt also conducted a cost/benefit analysis belts. We have informed FMCSA of requirement for the driver position of for requiring a lap/shoulder belt at the UMA’s comment. large school buses. driver position of buses with a GVWR XVI. Strength Requirements SafetyBeltSafe, Safe Ride News, greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). This Advocates, and two seat manufacturers analysis found that the cost per NHTSA proposed that lap/shoulder expressed support for the lap/shoulder equivalent life saved for drivers in the belts on the covered buses be required belt requirement for the driver position covered buses (GVWR greater than to meet the anchorage strength of motorcoaches and large school buses, 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)) ranged from $0.01 requirements of FMVSS No. 210. but recommended that it include all to $0.04 million, drivers in mid-size Because the agency proposed a buses, including urban transit buses. buses (GVWR from 4,536 to 11,793 requirement that the passenger lap/ shoulder belts must be integrated into Agency Response (10,000 to 26,000 lb)) ranged from $0.04 to $3.1 million and drivers in transit the seat structure, the agency’s view was The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act buses (GVWR greater than 4,536 kg or that a seat belt anchorage strength requires over-the-road buses to have 10,000 lb) ranged from $0.04 to $0.8 requirement not only specifies the lap/shoulder belts at each designated million. strength of the seat belt attachment to seating position, which includes the The issue of requiring lap/shoulder the vehicle seat, it also performs the driver position. belts at the driver position of large vital function of ensuring the In satisfaction of the Act, and in transit buses was not discussed in a attachment of the seat to the bus. ‘‘A accordance with the NPRM, this final meaningful way in the NPRM. Thus, the seat belt anchorage strength requirement rule requires a lap/shoulder belt for the transit bus industry, including provides the foundation upon which the driver position in over-the-road buses, manufacturers, purchasers, and entire occupant protection system is and in other buses as discussed in the operators of transit buses, did not built. If the anchorage fails, the belted NPRM. provide in-depth comment on this issue occupant could be propelled beyond the In response to commenters requesting in response to the NPRM, nor have we confines of the occupant seat space, and that the requirement be expanded to been able to benefit from reading injury or ejection could occur.’’ NPRM, include the driver position of all buses, comments on the issue. In the absence 75 FR at 50973. we are not agreeing to this suggestion of this, this final rule will not extend the In FMVSS No. 210, lap/shoulder belt without providing more opportunity to lap/shoulder belt requirement beyond anchorages and attachment hardware the public to comment on the issue. driver positions of the buses covered in are required to withstand a 13,345 N After the comments were received, we the NPRM. (3,000 lb) force applied to the lap reanalyzed accident data for the driver’s portion and a 13,345 N (3,000 lb) force position for these other buses. First, XV. Seat Belt Signage and Other simultaneously applied to the torso looking at the data for drivers of buses Reminders portion of the belt assembly, for 10 above the 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) We have decided against requiring seconds.112 Anchorages, attachment threshold and below that threshold, we passenger seat belt use signage or found that drivers of buses between auditory reminders on covered buses at 112 An exception for Type 2 lap belts that have 4,536 kg and 11,793 kg (10,000 lb and this time. At this time, the agency does detachable torso belts is not relevant here.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 70450 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

hardware, and attachment bolts for seats anchorage performance in terms of the loads imparted on the seat belt with multiple designated seating loading of the seat back from anchorages. positions are tested simultaneously. The unrestrained occupants in the rearward Of the five sled tests, the highest total seat belt anchorage comprises any row. load experienced by the seat anchorages component involved in transferring seat The dynamic test option of ECE R.80 in the forward direction was 46,570 N belts loads to the vehicle structure. See loads the seat back with an (10,469 lb). This load resulted from a S3, FMVSS No. 210. Since the seat belts unrestrained 115 50th percentile male test of a 10 g seat with two 50th will be attached to the vehicle seat on dummy in a 30–32 km/h (18.6–19.9 percentile male test dummies restrained the covered buses, the seat belt mph) delta V, 6.5–8.5 average g pulse. with lap/shoulder belts in the middle anchorage includes the seat frame and Performance value limits on the injury row and with two unrestrained 50th seat pedestal. measures of the dummy are HIC = 500, percentile male dummies in the rear In developing a performance standard chest acceleration = 30 g, femur force = (aft) row. Applying a static load of for lap/shoulder belt anchorages, the 10,000 N (2,248 lb) and 8,000 N (1,798 48,569 N (10,918 lb) (or approximately agency considered several alternatives, lb) for not more than 20 milliseconds.116 24,285 N (5,460 lb) per seating position) and assessed the suitability of The static test option assesses seat back to the seat belt anchorages, using the alternatives using seat belt anchorage performance through a static force- loading devices and technique specified test data obtained in the motorcoach deflection test that applies 5,000 N in FMVSS No. 210, reproduces the load crash test and sled test program. NHTSA (1,124 lb) to the seat over a 200 measured at the seat anchorages in the tentatively determined that the test data millisecond time period. sled test.119 best supported applying FMVSS No. The agency proposed to adopt FMVSS FMVSS No. 210 appeared to best 210 to the passenger seat belt No. 210 after analyzing the seat belt account for the loads imparted on the anchorages on the covered buses, but we anchorage test data obtained in the seat belt anchorages. The total load on requested comments on alternatives to VRTC motorcoach crash test and sled the seat belt anchorages of 48,569 N FMVSS No. 210, particularly ECE R.14 test program.117 (10,918 lb) (approximately 24,285 N and ECE R.80. We studied five sled tests from the (5,460 lb) per seating position) required ECE Regulation No. 14, ‘‘Vehicles sled test program to determine the loads to generate the same peak total load with Regard to Safety-Belt Anchorages, measured at the seat belt anchorages.118 experienced in the sled test is only ISOFIX Anchorages Systems and These five were selected because they slightly lower than the total forces ISOFIX Top Tether Anchorages,’’ represented demanding yet potentially required by FMVSS No. 210 of 53,380 applies to M2 and M3 vehicles 113 and common scenarios for the loads we N (12,000 lb) (or 26,690 N (6,000 lb) per specifies a static test method to evaluate believe will be imparted to seat belt seating position). That is, the highest seat belt and seat anchorage strength. anchorages during a motorcoach crash. total peak dynamic loading recorded by The ECE R.14 load does not include the We identified the loads recorded in the the seat anchorage of the tests (48,569 load that unbelted occupants aft of the sled tests at the seat anchorage points in N) was about 91 percent of that applied seat being evaluated (we call this the the second row target seat, the loads on in FMVSS No. 210 (26,690 N (6,000 lb) ‘‘target seat’’) may impose on the target the lap/shoulder belts in the target seat per seat, or 53,380 N (12,000 lb) for a seat. For M3 vehicles, ECE R.14 applies in which test dummies were restrained, two-person bench seat). These data a load of 4,500 N to the shoulder belt and the loads to the seat back of the indicated that the FMVSS No. 210 load and 4,500 N to the lap belt (total of target seat from the unrestrained would account for seat belt loads 9,000 N). In addition, for M3 vehicles it dummies in the third (aft) row. We then generated by a restrained occupant, seat also specifies an additional inertial seat compared those loads to the loads that inertia loads, and loading from unbelted load of 6.6g × the weight of the seat. For seat belt and seat anchorages are occupants in the rear. M2 seats, it specifies an addition load of required to withstand under FMVSS No. ECE R.14 and ECE R.80 both 10g × the weight of the seat.114 210, ECE R.14 and ECE R.80. In that determine seat belt and seat anchorage ECE Regulation No. 80, ‘‘Seats of way, we could determine which strength by separately considering the Large Passenger Vehicles and of These performance test best accounted for the loading from the belted occupant in the Vehicles with Regard to the Strength of seat and the loading due to unrestrained the Seats and Their Anchorages,’’ 115 We note that ECE R.80 also requires testing occupants in the rear row. We believed applies to M2 and M3 vehicles. The ECE with a restrained dummy in the rear ‘‘auxiliary’’ that the loads specified in these seat. However, this auxiliary seat need not be the regulations are not sufficiently high to R.80 procedures evaluate the seat back’s same as the forward seat that is the focus of the test. strength, energy absorption capability If the test with the belted dummy in the rear is sustain the combined loads from the and impact protection for occupants in conducted with the manikin restrained by a lap/ restrained occupant in the seat and rear the rear seat aft of the target seat and the shoulder belt and the injury criteria are not occupant loading. In the test of the 7 g exceeded, the auxiliary seat is considered to have seat with restrained 50th percentile target seat’s anchorage strength. The seat met the requirements relating to the static test loads back performance is assessed with and movement of the upper anchorage of ECE R.14. male dummies in the target seat and either a dynamic or a static test option. 116 These injury criteria do not match those in unrestrained 50th percentile male The ECE R.80 load does not include the FMVSS No. 208 for the 50th percentile male test dummies in the rear, we estimated that dummy, except for the upper limit on femur force. the total peak load on the anchorages seat belt loads from the restrained The chest acceleration limit in FMVSS No. 208 is occupant in the target seat and evaluates 60 gs. FMVSS No. 208 specifies a HIC15 limit of from the lap/shoulder belts alone for 700. The HIC limit in ECE R.80 does not appear to one motorcoach seating position was 113 ECE Regulations define the M2 vehicle have a time limit. category as vehicles having more than eight seating 117 NHTSA found that the over-the-road bus in 119 This relationship was determined by testing a positions and mass not exceeding 5 metric tons the 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier crash test seat to failure using the loading device specified in (11,023 lb). The M3 vehicle category consists of experienced only a 13g peak deceleration (crash FMVSS No. 210 and measuring the load applied vehicles having more than eight seating positions pulse). Data from our frontal sled test program through the seat belt anchorages and the load and mass exceeding 5 metric tons (11,023 lb). enabled us to analyze the magnitude of the forces experienced at the seat anchorages (in the x- 114 Seats designed to meet ECE R.14 for M3 that are exerted on the seat anchorages in a 13g direction). This method was referred to as ‘‘Method vehicles are referred to in this final rule document crash. B’’ in the NPRM and in research report DOT HS 811 as ‘‘7 g’’ seats and seats designed for M2 vehicles 118 For a description of the five sled tests, see 75 335, NHTSA’s Motorcoach Safety Research Crash, are referred to as ‘‘10 g’’ seats. FR 50973, col. 2. Sled, and Static Tests, dated May 2010.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 70451

11,400 N (2,563 lb) and that from rear Comments FMVSS No. 210 anchorage load occupant loading was 8,150 N (1,832 requirement. lb). The contribution of anchorage loads There were 16 comments on the Five bus manufacturers (Setra, in this sled test from the seat belt proposal to apply FMVSS No. 210 to all Prevost, IC Bus, MCI, and Van Hool) and loading alone was greater than the 9,000 seating positions in the affected ABC Companies, a distributor of Van N (2,023 lb) applied by ECE R.14 and vehicles. Many commenters supported Hool’s buses, commented on the the loading from rear occupant loading applying FMVSS No. 210, while several proposal to apply the FMVSS No. 210 was greater than the 5,000 N (1,124 lb) others supported the ECE regulations. anchorage load requirements to all applied by ECE R.80. We believed that Two commenters suggested alternative seating positions in covered buses. a seat manufactured to meet FMVSS No. requirements. Many commenters These commenters were divided in their 210 would better be able to withstand recommended that NHTSA adopt views. this tri-loading on the seat in a severe requirements regulating seat back Setra, a European bus manufacturer, yet not uncommon bus crash, than a impact and/or energy absorption. preferred the ECE regulations, stating seat that was not manufactured to Generally, the seat manufacturers that the ECE regulations have been account for the rearward loading. commenting on this issue (C.E. White, successfully used in Europe. Setra In the NPRM, the agency explained Freedman, IMMI, and American stated that VRTC’s testing might not represent realistic situations, and that that it has tentatively determined that Seating) supported applying FMVSS No. seats meeting FMVSS No. 210 may lead there were no adverse consequences 210 as proposed. C.E. White stated that to higher injuries than a seat meeting associated with applying FMVSS No. ‘‘not only the forward forces applied to the ECE ‘‘impact requirements.’’ 210 to the seat belt anchorages of the the lap/shoulder belts, representative of the restrain[ed] occupants in the test Prevost requested that NHTSA affected vehicles rather than ECE R.14 consider the M2 requirements of ECE (75 FR at 50974). There did not appear seat, [should] be taken into consideration but also the forces applied R.14, which it stated is based on a to be adverse consequences to meeting ‘‘closer and more realistic deceleration FMVSS No. 210 in terms of weight, by the knee/femur and head/upper torso of the unrestrained occupants in the seat pulse’’ than the proposed FMVSS No. comfort, or cost, because data from our 210 requirements. Prevost stated that testing program indicated that the behind the test seat [should] be taken into consideration.’’ Freedman agreed the load from an unbelted occupant Amaya 7 g seats we acquired to evaluate behind the seat as well as the weight of in our testing program appeared to have with the agency’s conclusion that FMVSS No. 210 should be extended to the seat should be included in the forces been already made to meet the more applied to the seat, but ‘‘the stringent requirements of FMVSS No. all seating positions in the affected vehicles and stated that the U.S. bus deceleration pulse must be diligently 210. In April 2009, VRTC tested existing specified since it has a very significant Amaya lap/shoulder belt seat designs to industry is already familiar with FMVSS No. 210 requirements and will therefore multiplying effect.’’ Prevost also evaluate FMVSS No. 210 performance. recommended that the requirements be The agency sought to understand the be able to move forward into the testing process very quickly. reduced for seats where there is no extent to which changes will be needed possibility of an unbelted passenger to existing 7 g and 10 g seat and seat IMMI expressed its support of the being seated behind it. anchorage designs in order to meet the agency’s proposal to extend the FMVSS IC Bus agreed with the agency’s performance requirements in FMVSS No. 210 requirements to all seating conclusion that FMVSS No. 210 should No. 210. Two static tests were positions. It believed that FMVSS No. be extended to all seating positions in performed on the seats using a test 210 is a better choice than either ECE covered buses. IC Bus noted that when fixture and the FMVSS No. 210 test R.14 or ECE R.80 since it is a more it builds a commercial bus that specifies method.120 Both the 7 g and 10 g seats realistic representation of the types of seat belts, it is built to meet the were able to meet the FMVSS No. 210 crash forces that may be experienced in applicable requirements of FMVSS No. performance requirements, which real-world crashes, and reflects the total 210. NHTSA believed showed not only the forces that may be experienced by the MCI disagreed with the proposal to practicability of the proposed FMVSS seat anchorage from both restrained and apply FMVSS No. 210 to all seating No. 210 requirements with current unrestrained occupants. IMMI said that positions, believing that NHTSA has not designs, but also that meeting FMVSS compliance with FMVSS No. 210 is tested a sufficiently broad spectrum of No. 210 was not likely to adversely already achievable and is currently seating configurations. The commenter affect the weight or comfort of current available in motorcoach seating. IMMI suggested that the agency duplicate the ‘‘7 g’’ seats. stated that, at the time of submission of same or similar test conditions with Although we preferred FMVSS No. its comments to the NPRM, at least three emphasis on protecting women and manufacturers of covered buses offer 210 to ECE R.14 and ECE R.80, the ® children. The commenter submitted NPRM asked for information that could IMMI’s Premier FMVSS No. 210 confidential test data from sled tests it help the agency make a fuller compliant seats in their vehicles. IMMI conducted, and recommended a form of incremental assessment of each also stated that it helped these static testing on a bus frame using a alternative’s costs and benefits. manufacturers develop the necessary unique loading profile that combined floor and wall structure to meet the aspects of ECE R.14 (10 g; M2 vehicles) 120 An additional test was conducted on a 10 g performance standard. and FMVSS No. 210. seat because an initial FMVSS No. 210 test was IMMI also stated that it performed Van Hool, a European bus conducted on a 10 g seat using the same seat sled tests of its own seats and found that manufacturer, supported adopting ECE mounting rails used during the 7 g seat test. During this 10 g seat test, the seat failed to meet the FMVSS the data produced were consistent with R.14 and ECE R.80. Van Hool stated that No. 210 loads. However, we determined that this the agency’s findings. In addition, IMMI a ‘‘true European seat’’ cannot fulfill the test should be deemed invalid because the seat rails said the results of analytical simulations FMVSS No. 210 requirements as were reused. It was unknown to what extent the of severe case loading were also similar proposed in the NPRM because the rails were damaged during the previous test, thus affecting the results of the subsequent test. The rails to the agency’s data. (These data are loads are three times that required by were replaced on the test fixture and a second test discussed below.) AORC agreed with ECE R.14 and the strength of the seat is using a 10 g rated seat was performed successfully. the agency’s proposal to apply the limited by the energy-absorbing

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 70452 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

capabilities required by ECE R.80 for ECE R.80. ABA stated that the agency’s ‘‘buck’’ representing the interior of a unbelted passengers striking the seat proposed performance requirements motorcoach. In the tests, three rows of from behind. In its submission, Van accurately represent the agency’s results seats were mounted on the test buck. Hool questioned whether the Amaya of its motorcoach crash and sled testing The first row (front row) was seats that were used in the NHTSA and subjecting passenger seating to unoccupied, the second was occupied VRTC tests, which according to Amaya FMVSS No. 210 reasonably matches the with Hybrid III 50th percentile adult met the ECE R.14 requirements for M3 forces and loads in NHTSA’s test male test dummies that were restrained and M2 vehicles, were also approved to results. However, ABA also suggested with lap/shoulder belts, and the third ECE R.80 since this was not mentioned that in light of what the commenter row was occupied with two in the NPRM. Van Hool also asked why believed would be the panoply of new unrestrained 50th percentile adult male the NPRM did not consider a proposal regulations that may be adopted, the Hybrid III test dummies. Coach USA for adding a 10 g standard for large considerable costs involved, the stated that the restrained dummies in buses into FVMSS No. 207, ‘‘Seating relatively small volume of new covered the second row remained restrained and systems.’’ 121 buses sold each year and the global the seat remained attached to the ABC Companies supported an nature of the industry, compliance replicated bus, and the commenter said, approach that allows compliance with options permitting harmonization will provided protection for the belted either the U.S. standards or preexisting enhance flexibility, reduce costs and occupants. European standards, to facilitate promote the overall turnover of the fleet Subsequently, Coach USA conducted harmonization of standards. towards newer vehicles. an FMVSS No. 210 test on a new Van Transportation providers Greyhound, Coach USA also supported the Hool seat, and the seat failed to meet the Coach USA, UMA and American Bus approach of allowing manufacturers to standard’s strength requirements. Coach Association (ABA) were divided in their comply with either FMVSS No. 210 or USA concluded that FMVSS No. 210 is support of the proposed application of ECE R.14 and ECE R.80. The commenter ‘‘not a necessary requirement for safety. FMVSS No. 210 anchorage load stated that its parent company, . . . [A] motor coach seat that is able to requirements. Stagecoach Group, headquartered in comply with ECE R.80 dynamic test or Greyhound strongly supported the Scotland, operates approximately 780 its dynamic equivalent such as FMVSS agency’s proposal to apply the FMVSS motorcoaches in Europe that are [No.] 208 would assure more protection No. 210 requirements to the passenger equipped with seat belts that meet the than a seat that is able to meet FMVSS seat anchorages. Greyhound stated that EU standards, and the belts ‘‘have not [No.] 210 requirements.’’ the 10 percent strength margin that the proven to pose a safety issue over a Agency Response FMVSS No. 210 loads provided is period of several years.’’ The commenter prudent since ‘‘higher speeds and larger believed that ECE R.14 ‘‘is sufficient to In accordance with the Vehicle Safety passengers than those [reflected in the accomplish NHTSA’s primary goal in Act and the Motorcoach Enhanced VRTC tests] will sometimes be involved this rulemaking, namely, ejection Safety Act, after considering all in real world crashes.’’ Greyhound prevention in rollovers.’’ Coach USA relevant, available safety information, stated that it sees no basis for allowing stated that NHTSA did not suggest that we have determined that the FMVSS the European standards as an alternative seat belts designed to meet FMVSS No. No. 210 requirements are reasonable, to FMVSS No. 210. It commented that 210 are necessary to achieve this level practicable, and appropriate for the seat FMVSS No. 210 is ‘‘clearly the more of effectiveness in rollover crashes. The belt anchorages on buses affected by this appropriate standard’’ when compared commenter believed that frontal crashes final rule (buses with a GVWR greater to ECE R.14 and ECE R.80 because resulting in forces on the seat back than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)). Our reasons FMVSS No. 210 accounts for the load of exceeding those of ECE R.14 are ‘‘rare.’’ for adopting the FMVSS No. 210 both the belted passenger in the seat and Coach USA believed that FMVSS No. requirements, set forth in the NPRM (75 an unrestrained passenger in the seat 210 will provide little, if any, benefit in FR at 50973–50975), were supported behind, whereas the European standards frontal crashes beyond the benefits and bolstered by diverse commenters. do not. Greyhound stated that it has produced by ECE R.14. The information provided by all the been installing IMMI Safeguard Premier Coach USA commented that a commenters enhanced our knowledge of seats, which meet FMVSS No. 210 and combination of ECE R.14 and ECE R.80 the subject matter. The requirements we other FMVSSs, in all of its new buses is likely to provide some safety benefits have adopted take into account the since 2008. compared to FMVSS No. 210 by impact to seating capacity of changes to UMA supported the FMVSS No. 210 protecting unbelted passengers. It stated size and weight of motorcoaches and the requirements. UMA stated that it that, to the extent that FMVSS No. 210 ability to comply with State and Federal reviewed the data provided by NHTSA provides some benefit relative to the size and weight requirements, as in the NPRM and concluded that seat European standard in severe frontal required by section 32703(e), belt assembly anchorages that meet crashes, this benefit is offset in other ‘‘Application of Regulations,’’ of the FMVSS No. 210 will perform in a areas and, as a result, the two ECE Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, and manner that offers occupants the highest standards would appear to provide an are based on the best available science, known protection in ‘‘real-life’’ crash approximately comparable level of as mandated by section 32703(e) of the and rollover occurrences. safety when all relevant factors are Act. ABA favored allowing motorcoach taken into account. manufacturers to certify their vehicles to Coach USA submitted a separate Safety Need either the FMVSS requirements report to the agency which detailed a There is a safety need to apply proposed in the NPRM or, at the sled test study that it conducted on Van FMVSS No. 210 to the passenger seat manufacturer’s option, to ECE R.14 and Hool motorcoach seats, which they belt anchorages of the affected buses. stated comply with ECE R.14 (for M3 NHTSA has decided not to accept the 121 By this we believe Van Hool meant applying vehicles) and ECE R.80. Coach USA European requirements because ECE half the forces specified by FMVSS No. 210 to the seat belt anchorages and an inertial load to the seat, conducted sled testing and FMVSS No. R.14 and ECE R.80 do not consider the assuming a 10 g deceleration instead of the 20 g 210 static testing on Van Hool totality of loads resulting from (a) belted specified in FMVSS No. 207. motorcoach seats installed on a test occupants, (b) unbelted occupants aft of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 70453

the belted occupant, and (c) the inertia conclusion that the FMVSS No. 210 that only 0.16 fatalities from high speed load of the seat, i.e., the ‘‘tri-loading’’ requirements are reasonable and frontal crashes into rigid roadside from the three in a motorcoach crash. appropriate for the seats on the affected objects would be prevented annually by We believe FMVSS No. 210 is needed to buses. the rule, assuming a 15 percent seat belt ensure the belt anchorages can protect Other safety information from IMMI use rate. It stated that, even if seat belts the belted occupant. The static load also supports the validity of the are used in motorcoaches at the same requirements specified in ECE R.14 (for agency’s data. In its comment, IMMI rate they are used in passenger vehicles M2 and M3 vehicles) and ECE R.80 are said that it performed two analytical (83 percent), the expected number of far below that needed to generate the simulations, one with two unrestrained fatalities prevented per year for this peak seat anchorage loads that NHTSA 50th percentile males seated behind two kind of crash is still less than one. It also measured in its sled tests, which means restrained 50th percentile males and argued that these estimates do not take a seat that minimally meets the ECE another with two unrestrained 95th into account that some of the crashes in required static loads for M3 vehicles percentile males seated behind two which the most harmful event was may separate from its floor anchorages restrained 50th percentile males, which listed as ‘‘Roadside’’ were not the type in a crash of the severity represented by resulted in total x-direction component of crash simulated by NHTSA the 48 km/h (30 mph) frontal barrier forces of 56,196 N (12,633 lb) and (involving direct frontal impact into a impact performed by NHTSA. 57,451 N (12,916 lb), respectively. The rigid object at 48 km/h (30 mph)). Thus, peak total loads in both of IMMI’s Coach USA suggested NHTSA In its comment supporting the simulations are also slightly above the application of FMVSS No. 210, IMMI overestimated the estimated number of loads which may be experienced in an fatalities the rule will prevent annually. stated that it performed tests on its own FMVSS No. 210 test, the largest being 8 seats after the NPRM and found that the percent [57,451 N/53,177 N] above the In response, accident data show that sled test data were consistent with the largest x-direction component expected it is reasonable to base a standard on agency’s data provided in the NPRM. in an FMVSS No. 210 test. In addition, data from a 48 km/h (30 mph) barrier IMMI stated that its test data supported the IMMI simulations indicated that test, i.e., that it is reasonable to assume the agency’s view that FMVSS No. 210 sustained loads of 40,000 N (8,992 lb) to that the test is representative of a is a more realistic representation of the 50,000 N (11,240) for approximately 100 realistic, severe crash condition. As crash forces that may be experienced in milliseconds following the peak loads discussed earlier in this preamble, real-world crashes than those of ECE are possible in real-world crashes, FARS data show that frontal impacts R.14 and ECE R.80. The commenter which are only slightly below the loads represent a substantial amount (41.6 reported that in over 20 sled tests using applied in an FMVSS No. 210 test. percent [87/209]) of the fatalities in 50th and 95th percentile test dummies, buses affected by this final rule. IMMI found an average total x-direction Reasonable and Appropriate Moreover, the covered buses can travel (fore-aft) component force of 51,983 N As noted above, Coach USA on high speed roads where the risk of (11,686 lb) for its 2-occupant seat, supported the approach of allowing a high speed impact is foreseeable. The which it stated was ‘‘near the FMVSS manufacturers to comply with either NTSB has investigated a number of high [No.] 210 specified requirement of FMVSS No. 210 or ECE R.14 and ECE speed frontal crashes that likely 26,688 N per position or 53,376 N per R.80. Coach USA states that FMVSS No. underwent a velocity change (delta-V) 2-occupant seat.’’ 122 The close 210 will provide little, if any, benefit in comparable to or exceeding the crash similarity between IMMI’s sled tests and frontal crashes beyond the benefits test performed by NHTSA, as illustrated NHTSA’s sled tests reinforces the produced by ECE R.14. Coach USA said in Table 6.123

TABLE 6—EXAMPLES OF FRONTAL MOTORCOACH CRASHES INVESTIGATED BY THE NTSB INVOLVING IMPACT VELOCITIES WELL IN EXCESS OF THE NHTSA 48 KM/H (30 MPH) BARRIER CRASH TEST

Injury severity † Total Approximate Incident occupants Fatal Serious Minor None impact velocity

Osseo 2005 ...... 45 5 (inc. driver) 5 ...... 30 5 102–126 km/h. (64–78 mph). Tallulah 2003 ...... 15 8 ...... 7 (inc. driv- 0 0 97–105 km/h. er) ‡. (60–65 mph). Loraine 2002 ...... 38 3 ...... 6 (inc. driver) 24 5 77–89 km/h. (48–55 mph). New Orleans 1999 ...... 44 22 ...... 16 ...... 6 0 93 km/h. (58 mph). Burnt Cabins 1998 ...... 23 7 (inc. driver) 1 ...... 15 0 97–105 km/h. (60 to 65 mph). † Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 830.2 defines fatal injury as ‘‘any injury which results in death within 30 days of the accident’’ and serious injury as ‘‘any injury which: (1) Requires hospitalization for more than 48 hours, commencing within 7 days from the date the injury was received; (2) results in a fracture of any bone (except simple fractures of fingers, toes, or nose); (3) causes severe hemorrhages, nerve, or tendon damage; (4) involves any internal organ; or (5) involves second- or third-degree burns, or any burn affecting more than 5 percent of the body surface.’’

122 NHTSA notes that the FMVSS No. 210 load is the average total loads that IMMI recorded in its km/h (30 mph) NHTSA crash test. However, these required to be applied at an initial angle of 5 to 15 sled tests were within the load range that may be impact speeds ranged from double to 21⁄2 times the degrees above the horizontal resulting in an x- experienced in an FMVSS No. 210 test; their barrier crash speed. Depending on the object struck, direction component force that is lower than 53,380 maximum loads were only slightly above those of this suggests a crash severity (as represented by a N; therefore, it is more accurate to compare IMMI’s FMVSS No. 210. [Footnote not in quoted text.] velocity change (delta-V)) similar to or greater than forces to the x-direction component of the applied 123 We note that the investigation of these crashes the barrier impact. FMVSS No. 210 load, which is from 51,561 N to provided crash speed, which is not directly 53,177 N for a 2-occupant seat. This indicates that comparable to the barrier impact speed in the 48

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 70454 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

‡ One of the seriously injured passengers died due to accident injuries 35 days after the accident. Only fatalities resulting within 30 days of the accident are included as fatal injuries in the NTSB reports.

Frontal crashes of the subject buses energy that was measured in the 48 km/ R.80 and our basis for concluding that can be just as devastating as rollovers, h (30 mph) frontal barrier test. It is FMVSS No. 210 is appropriate for the as shown by the 1999 New Orleans important that the seat-to-floor vehicles covered by this final rule. We crash that took the lives of 22 people on attachments have the ability to note here that it is correct that fatalities the bus.124 Our updated field data show withstand the forces resulting from tri- in the affected vehicles are relatively that frontal impacts represent a loading of the bus seat (the total load on ‘‘rare’’ in comparison to the injuries and substantial amount (41.6 percent [87/ the subject seat from restrained deaths in light vehicle crashes. Even 209]) of the fatalities. Therefore, while occupants in the seat, unrestrained with this rarity, we have assessed the our primary focus in this rulemaking occupants rearward of the seat, and the benefits and costs of this rule and have was on ejection mitigation in rollovers, inertia of the seat itself) and that the found the rule to be cost effective at an our initiative, consistent with NHTSA lap/shoulder belt system will not fail to assumed lap/shoulder belt use of 4 to 5 and the Department’s focus on restrain the occupant when subjected to percent. increasing overall safety in these the load from the restrained occupant Prevost requested that NHTSA vehicles, was also focused on frontal 125 and the unrestrained occupant aft of the consider the M2 requirements of ECE and other planar crashes. We believe it seat. The static load requirements of R.14, which it believed is based on a would be a short-sighted public policy ECE R.14 for M2 and M3 vehicles are ‘‘closer and more realistic deceleration to define the requisite level of both well below the level needed to pulse’’ than the proposed FMVSS No. performance of the seat belt anchorages produce the anchorage loads measured 210 requirements. Prevost believed that considering only rollovers when the in the agency’s sled tests. Even if the the load from an unbelted occupant affected buses are involved in other ECE R.14 static loads are applied behind the seat as well as the weight of severe crashes as well. Requiring simultaneously with the ECE R.80 static the seat should be included in the forces anchorage strength that addresses a loads, which is not required by the ECE applied to the seat, but did not believe safety need for frontal crashes will not regulations, the total load still falls that there was a correlation between the degrade the performance of these below that measured by the agency.126 peak load obtained with a 13 g sled test restraints in rollovers. Requiring The FMVSS No. 210 loads also have and the loads required in FMVSS No. anchorage strength that addresses only a margin of safety that ensure the 210. rollovers could degrade the performance integrity of the seat and lap/shoulder Prevost did not explain in its of the belts in severe frontal crashes. belt anchorages at higher speeds than comment why it suggested there is not NHTSA’s frontal passenger crash that replicated by the VRTC test and a correlation between the peak loads protection requirements are developed with occupants of larger mass than the obtained in the VRTC testing and the to address foreseeable crashes of test dummies used in the agency’s tests. loads required in FMVSS No. 210. In different severities, up to and including In its comment in support of the contrast, the best available data show severe crashes. FMVSS No. 208 proposal, transportation provider there is a correlation. The agency’s sled specifies a 56 km/h (35 mph) rigid Greyhound believed that the 10 percent tests, which used a pulse modeled after barrier belted test for passenger-carrying strength margin that the FMVSS No. 210 the crash pulse from an actual crash of vehicles with GVWRs of 3,856 kg (8,500 loads provided is prudent since ‘‘higher an over-the-road bus, demonstrated that lb) or less. FMVSS No. 208 and FMVSS speeds and larger passengers than those the total loads at the seat-to-floor No. 210 ensure, to the degree [reflected in the VRTC tests] will attachment for motorcoach seats with practicable, that at least a minimum sometimes be involved in real world integrated lap/shoulder belts reached level of crash protection will be crashes.’’ The operator has first-hand levels that are very close to those provided to the occupants of passenger- knowledge of the operating conditions generated by the current FMVSS No. carrying vehicles in the event the and the wide range in the weights of 210 requirements. vehicles crash at the higher speeds at passengers using the affected vehicles. Further, the best available data do not which they are driven. This final rule Coach USA estimated that requiring support a finding that the ECE R.14 for extends this principle to buses with a motorcoach passenger seats to meet M2 buses uses a ‘‘closer and more GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 FMVSS No. 210 will only reduce realistic deceleration pulse.’’ The ECE lb). fatalities in frontal crashes by 0.16 per R.80 pulse bears very little resemblance The operation of the affected buses at year assuming seat belt usage of 15 to an actual crash pulse of the affected high speeds can be observed on percent and that it would still be less vehicles due to the lower energy, faster roadways every day, and crash data files than one fatality per year if seat belt ramp-up, shorter duration, and show the repeated involvement of the usage is the same as in passenger potentially higher peak of the ECE affected buses in high speed crashes. vehicles (83 percent). It stated that the pulse, compared to the 13 g pulse success of the ECE R.14/ECE R.80 over The risk of injury in a high speed crash obtained from the actual crash of an the past decade in Europe suggests that is high. NHTSA has determined it is over-the-road bus. The unrepresentative the European standards are effective in important to ensure that the seat and ECE R.80 crash pulse may yield dummy the overwhelming majority of crashes. lap/shoulder seat belt system on the injury values that are not realistic. For these reasons, Coach USA stated affected buses will withstand the crash When the agency subjected the same that FMVSS No. 210 will provide little, seat and dummy configurations to both 124 In March 2012, a frontal crash of a tour bus if any, benefit in ‘‘rare’’ frontal crashes the ECE R.80 pulse and the pulse on a highway near Sierre, Switzerland, took the in terms of reducing fatalities relative to obtained by VRTC from an actual lives of 28 people, 22 of whom were children. ECE R.14. http://apnews.excite.com/article/20120314/ We have previously explained our motorcoach crash, differences in the D9TG77QO0.html. injury values, especially with respect to 125 This was shown by our proposal to require reasons not to accept ECE R.14 and ECE lap/shoulder belts for occupants and not just lap the head, and to a lesser extent the belts alone, based on the data from the VRTC frontal 126 Seat back impact and energy absorption are femurs, were observed. The injury crash testing of the motorcoach. discussed later below. values were generally higher with the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 70455

ECE pulse, and lap/shoulder belted that the Amaya seats tested by NHTSA seat belt anchorages to ‘‘withstand’’ the dummies exceeded the HIC IARV in in our research program were seats loads applied to them; there is no limit several tests.127 The higher injury values made in Mexico for the American on or specification for how the seat back were likely a result of the faster ramp- market and were not true European may displace except in the absolute, up of the ECE pulse, which created a seats. gross sense: The seat back (with higher closing velocity between the In response, all information available integrated shoulder belt anchorages) dummy and the seat back ahead of it in to NHTSA indicate that European seats cannot fail to withstand the applied spite of the dummies carrying less total can meet FMVSS No. 210 and ECE R.14 forces, e.g., the seat cannot break apart, energy as compared to the VRTC pulse. and ECE R.80. The available information or the seat’s pedestal cannot pull from We are unable to agree to Prevost’s show that the Amaya seats tested at the floor of the bus. Meeting FMVSS No. suggestion that the strength VRTC, which passed FMVSS No. 210, 210 does not entail designing the seat requirements be adjusted (reduced) for were designed to meet both ECE R.14 back to be a ‘‘stone wall,’’ as Van Hool seats where there are no other seats and ECE R.80. Our knowledge of the worded it. The seat back has to be strong behind it (and therefore no unbelted seats meeting ECE R.14 and ECE R.80 is enough to withstand the FMVSS No. passengers seated behind it). We are based on information provided by 210 forces, but there is no impediment aware that some operators of covered Amaya. in the standard that prevents a buses have changed the passenger Van Hool was not clear in what it manufacturer from designing the seat seating configuration from that set by meant by its claim that a ‘‘true European back to withstand the requisite loads of the factory or have removed and seat’’ cannot meet FMVSS No. 210. It is FMVSS No. 210 while deflecting in a reinstalled seats. If ‘‘weaker’’ seats are true that the static load requirements for controlled manner to absorb forces moved after the factory installation to a ECE R.14 and ECE R.80 are far below applied from the rear.128 position that had a passenger seat that required to generate the peak seat The ability of the seat back to absorb behind it, the weaker seat would not anchorage loads that NHTSA measured the loading from the rear seat passenger provide the performance required by in its sled tests. Thus, if Van Hool meant is an aspect of performance not FMVSS No. 210. Furthermore, this final that a seat that minimally meets the ECE regulated by FMVSS No. 210. rule provides some of the flexibility required static loads for M3 vehicles Manufacturers have the ability, the Prevost seeks. Under this final rule, would not meet FMVSS No. 210, that leeway, and, we maintain, the seats with no other seats behind them may be correct. However, such a seat responsibility to design energy- are not required to have the lap/ may separate from its floor anchorages absorbing seat backs to account for the shoulder belt anchorages attached to the in a crash, especially in a severe frontal loading from an occupant aft of the seat, seat structure. For these seats, the lap/ crash at seats where tri-loading occurs, if they believe energy absorption is an shoulder belt anchorages can be which NHTSA deems unacceptable. appropriate aspect of performance to attached directly to the vehicle If Van Hool meant that a seat that address. This final rule provides the structure. meets ECE R.14 and R.80 is technically opportunity and flexibility to European bus manufacturer Van Hool unable to meet FMVSS No. 210, we do manufacturers to develop innovative supported adopting ECE R.14 and ECE not agree. The technical information seat back designs. R.80. Van Hool stated that a ‘‘true from our research program shows that Van Hool asked why the NPRM did European seat’’ cannot fulfill the meeting FMVSS No. 210 and ECE R.14 not consider a proposal for adding a 10 FMVSS No. 210 requirements because and R.80 are not mutually exclusive. It g standard for large buses into FVMSS the loads are three times that required is technically possible for a No. 207,129 as it claims was done in ECE by ECE R.14, and because the strength manufacturer to design a seat that R.14. The commenter provided the table of the seat is limited by the energy- withstands the loads required by below (shown as Table 7) of how such absorbing capabilities required by ECE FMVSS No. 210 and that deflects upon a standard could have been proposed R.80 for unbelted passengers striking the forces applied from the rear. This is and how it would compare to FMVSS seat from behind. Van Hool believed because FMVSS No. 210 requires the No. 210.

TABLE 7—VAN HOOL’S EXAMPLE OF AN ALTERNATIVE ‘‘10 G’’ STANDARD

Alternative standard at 10 g FMVSS No. 210 as by NPRM (for a single seat of 22.5 kg)

Upper anchorages ...... 13,345 N (3,000 lb) ...... 6,818 N (1,533 lb). Lower anchorages ...... 13,345 N (3,000 lb) ...... 6,818 N (1,533 lb). Seat Mass inertia ...... 0 ...... 2,250 N (506 lb). Unbelted passenger ...... 0 ...... 6,800 N (1,529 lb). Total forces ...... 26,690 N (6,000 lb) ...... 22,686 N (5,101 lb). Total moments ...... 16,014 Nm (11,811 lb-ft) ...... 13,954 Nm (10,292 lb).

In response, we did not develop such determined the appropriate loads by in a dynamic sled test using the VRTC a standard. This is because NHTSA first measuring the seat anchorage loads pulse, and then applying static loads to

127 See tables A.2 and A.6, test types 1 though 5, be adopted. NHTSA has not decided whether ECE No. 222’s seat deflection requirements. This is 7G seats subjected to the VRTC and EU pulses in R.80 best addresses seat deformation characteristics. discussed in a later section of today’s preamble. research report DOT HS 811 335, NHTSA’s Several seat manufacturers have suggested that the 129 By this we believe Van Hool meant applying Motorcoach Safety Research Crash, Sled, and Static seat deflection requirements of FMVSS No. 222, half the forces specified by FMVSS No. 210 to the Tests, dated May 2010. ‘‘School bus passenger seating and crash seat belt anchorages and a inertial load to the seat 128 Moreover, even if ECE R.80 cannot be met by protection,’’ should be applied to seats on the buses a seat meeting FMVSS No. 210, that issue is not covered by this final rule, and have reported that assuming a 10 g deceleration instead of the 20 g determinative as to whether FMVSS No. 210 should their seats meet both FMVSS No. 210 and FMVSS specified in FMVSS No. 207.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 70456 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

another seat, using various methods, addition, we believe that the injury a seat pitch of 800 mm (31.5 inches). until the loads measure in the sled test values MCI recorded were generally The first row (front row) was could be recreated.130 The example ‘‘10 higher than the values recorded by the unoccupied, the second was occupied g’’ loads Van Hool presented still appear agency in the VRTC sled tests, with Hybrid III 50th percentile adult to be below the force levels necessary to especially for the smaller unrestrained male test dummies that were restrained generate the same peak seat anchorage occupants, due to the greater seat pitch with lap/shoulder belts, and the third loads that were measured in the VRTC (seat spacing) used in the MCI tests. row was occupied with two sled test. On the other hand, the FMVSS This is explored further in the section unrestrained 50th percentile adult male No. 210 loading is only 15 percent below, on seat back energy absorption. Hybrid III test dummies. Coach USA [16,014 N/13,954 N] greater than the Coach USA submitted a separate used an acceleration pulse that the loading that Van Hool suggested. As report to the agency which detailed a commenter described as ‘‘slightly more such, the FMVSS No. 210 loading study that it conducted on Van Hool severe’’ than the pulse used in the provides a slight factor of safety over the motorcoach seats, which they stated NHTSA test, with a delta-V just over 40 Van Hool approach. We note that the comply with ECE R.14 (for M3 vehicles) km/h (25 mph) and a peak deceleration Van Hool approach is a function of seat and ECE R.80. It stated that the objective of 9.7 g, as compared to a delta-V of 40 mass. If a greater seat mass were of its study was ‘‘to evaluate the km/h (25 mph) and a peak deceleration assumed, the difference between the protective capability of the Van Hool of 9.5 g in the NHTSA tests. FMVSS No. 210 loading and the Van motor coach seats in the severe crash Coach USA described the results of its Hool approach would decrease further. environment employed by NHTSA and sled test as follows: MCI disagreed with the proposal to to determine if the seat systems (which apply FMVSS No. 210 to all seating were certified to the European The restrained dummies in the second row remained restrained, but contacted the back positions, believing that NHTSA has not standards) can meet the requirements of of the first row of seats. The second row of tested a sufficiently broad spectrum of FMVSS 210.’’ seats sustained some damage from the forces seat configurations. The commenter In its study, Coach USA conducted resulting from the belted dummies pulling suggested that the agency duplicate the sled testing and FMVSS No. 210 static and the unbelted dummies impacting the same or similar test conditions with testing on Van Hool motorcoach seats seats from the rear. The seat backs were emphasis on protecting women and that were installed on a test ‘‘buck’’ that severely distorted, and a small section of the children. The commenter submitted Coach USA said was fabricated to floor rail was pulled upward pulling free confidential test data from sled tests it closely represent the interior of a from two of the mounting screws. But the conducted using a representative motorcoach. The test buck used the seat remained attached to the ‘‘bus’’ providing protection for the belted motorcoach frame (test buck) and a same aluminum seat mounting tracks occupants. variety of dummy, seat, restraint, seat and hardware as those used in a spacing (pitch) and acceleration pulse motorcoach, with the exception of the Coach USA also noted that the second combinations, and recommended a form seat mounting track to floor fasteners, row slid forward about 5 inches (127 of static testing on a bus frame using a which were high-strength steel screws mm) in the side-wall mounting track, unique loading profile that combined and washers as opposed to the rivets but it claimed this did not create any aspects of ECE R.14 (10 g; M2 vehicles), used in the actual motorcoach. The test apparent deviation from expected ECE R.80, and FMVSS No. 210. configurations were essentially identical results, based on a comparison of the We do not agree that MCI’s suggested to those used in NHTSA’s motorcoach left side restrained dummy injury traces test is preferable to FMVSS No. 210. The seat sled and static tests described in the with corresponding traces from the tests that MCI used to draw its NPRM. The tests were performed at NHTSA tests. It reported the injury conclusions appear to have used the Transportation Research Center (TRC) measures shown in Table 8 and ECE R.80 or a similar pulse, which does Inc., located in East Liberty, Ohio, explained that these values are well not sufficiently represent a real-world which is the same facility that below the thresholds for frontal crash pulse of the affected vehicles (for performed NHTSA’s testing. passenger protection in FMVSS No. 208 the reasons previously stated in this In its sled tests, Coach USA mounted for the 50th percentile adult male section in response to Prevost). In three rows of seats on the test buck at dummy.

TABLE 8—COACH USA’S VAN HOOL SEAT STUDY SECOND ROW DUMMY INJURY MEASURES, AS REPORTED BY COACH USA

Femur Load Seat position HIC15 Chest g Chest Defl. Nij (average. of right and left)

Inj. Ref. Values ...... 700 60 g 63 mm 1.0 10,000 N Left Seat ...... 331 22 g 7.4 mm 0.52 1,930 N (47%) (37%) (12%) (52%) (19%) Right Seat ...... 464 20 g 5.5 mm 0.50 3,647 N (66%) (33%) (4%) (50%) (36%)

Coach USA noted that the injury comparable to those measured in the Hool seat structure had no evidence of values measured for the belted dummies NHTSA sled tests for the Amaya 7 g being compromised in any way as a in its test of the Van Hool seats are very seats. In addition, it stated that the Van result of the test. From these data, Coach

130 This process was described in the NPRM (75 dated May 2010. The method described as ‘‘Method in the VRTC sled tests when a total load equal to FR at 50958) and explained in detail in research B’’ in the research report, which used the loading 91 percent of that required by FMVSS No. 210 was report DOT HS 811 335, ‘‘NHTSA’s Motorcoach devices and technique specified in FMVSS No. 210, applied through the loading device. Safety Research Crash, Sled, and Static Tests,’’ reproduced the anchorage loads that were measured

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 70457

USA concluded that ‘‘it can be expected meet FMVSS No. 210). Coach USA withstand the FMVSS No. 210 loads, that real world injuries in motorcoaches reports that, although the second row was ‘‘precisely’’ a FMVSS No. 210 test equipped with Van Hool Seats when seat remained attached to the ‘‘bus,’’ the (i.e., mounted the same as in a bus). involved in similar crash environments row sustained ‘‘damage from the forces Our answer is that an FMVSS No. 210 would be low.’’ resulting from the belted dummies compliance test is performed in-vehicle, Following the sled test, Coach USA pulling and the unbelted dummies as required by FMVSS No. 210, whereas conducted an FMVSS No. 210 test on a impacting the seats from the rear. The the test performed for the research new Van Hool seat using the same test seat backs [of the second row seat] were program was a simulated in-vehicle test. buck and new mounting tracks. It severely distorted, and a small section The test is simulated for research performed the test following the same of the floor rail was pulled upward purposes to obtain as much data as protocol that was used in NHTSA’s pulling free from two of the mounting possible while conserving research FMVSS No. 210 tests of motorcoach screws.’’ NHTSA believes that this monies and resources. However, the seats reported in the NPRM.131 Coach damage, particularly at the floor rail, agency’s research test was carefully USA reported that the Van Hool seat may be is an indication that the designed to be indicative of the actual and seat belt anchorages withstood a anchorage system was near failure. If the seat and anchorage performance. total load of approximately 35,584 N seats were occupied by people heavier Coach USA questioned whether the (8,000 lb) applied through the seat belts than 50th percentile adult males, or the Amaya 7 g seat was mounted to the test before ‘‘severe structur[al] failure began seat pitch (spacing) were different, or if fixture without a pedestal, based on to occur.’’ The test was terminated at a the pulse of the crash were different, the Figure 62 in the NHTSA research report total applied load of 37,808 N (8,500 lb), loads carried by any one seat could be that was docketed with the NPRM. which is short of the FMVSS No. 210 increased, with possible seat anchorage Our response is yes, the seat was requirement of 53,380 N (12,000 lb) for failure. We believe that the seat would mounted on its pedestal and was also a seat with two seating positions and have withstood the sled test forces attached to a fixture simulating the side lap/shoulder belts. The report indicated better had it been designed to meet wall of the bus. The photograph of the that the seat pulled completely free from FMVSS No. 210. The results did not seat from which Coach USA made this the rear bracket mount to the side-wall show a lack of a safety need for FMVSS observation was a lateral view from the track and the left side tubing structure No. 210. right which obscured the left side of the seat was fractured in several Second, we cannot conclude that the pedestal. The setup for these tests, locations. Van Hool seats minimally met the which used actual motorcoach seat From these tests, Coach USA requirements of the ECE regulations. mounting rails and hardware at the seat concluded overall that ‘‘a seat that is The Coach USA FMVSS No. 210 test of attachment points instead of load cells, able to comply with the dynamic the Van Hool seat found that the seat can be viewed in Figure 59 of report requirements in FMVSS [No.] 208 and anchorages are much stronger than DOT HS 811 335, NHTSA’s Motorcoach would be able to offer adequate the minimum necessary to meet the Safety Research Crash, Sled, and Static protection to the occupants in motor static load requirements of ECE R.14 for Tests, May 2010. coaches [sic] and FMVSS [No.] 210 M3 or M2 vehicles. The seat withstood Several commenters requested NHTSA to allow alternative compliance compliance is not a necessary a load 100 percent greater than that for with the ECE regulations. While NHTSA requirement for safety. Therefore, a M3 vehicles and 33 percent greater than has the authority to consider alternative motorcoach seat that is able to comply that for M2 vehicles. Yet, the seat compliance with other existing with ECE R.80 dynamic test or its anchorage was substantially damaged in standards such as ECE regulations, dynamic equivalent such as FMVSS the sled test, suggesting that anchorages alternative compliance is appropriate [No.] 208 would assure more protection of seats that minimally met the static under the Vehicle Safety Act when such than a seat that is able to meet FMVSS load requirements of ECE R.14 for M2 or a framework meets the safety need [No.] 210 requirements.’’ It stated that it M3 vehicles may perform even more addressed by the rulemaking. is questionable whether any benefits poorly in the sled test. Alternative compliance can be provided will be derived by requiring FMVSS No. Third, we note that the data in in such a case because the safety 210 since its comparison of the Amaya Appendix B of the Coach USA report indicated that both unrestrained 50th objectives of the rulemaking will be and Van Hool seat tests ‘‘clearly show achieved no matter if a manufacturer that the occupant protection percentile male dummies in the third row had HIC15 values exceeding the selects one alternative or another. performance of both seats in the sled NHTSA does not have information in test are equivalent,’’ even though the IARV for FMVSS No. 208 of 700. One unrestrained dummy had a HIC15 of 731, this situation that supports a finding Amaya 7 g seat meets the strength that allowing the alternative of requirements of FMVSS No. 210 tests while the other had a HIC15 of 1,139. The second row seat that the dummies certification to both ECE regulations while the Van Hool seat does not. would meet the safety needs of this In response, we have carefully impacted reportedly met ECE R.80. The rulemaking. NHTSA conducted a reviewed Coach USA’s submission, but results bring into question whether ECE preliminary comparison of the proposed cannot agree with the commenter’s R.80 is able to provide head protection FMVSS No. 210 standard with ECE interpretation of the test results. to unbelted occupants in severe frontal Although the injury values recorded crashes (protection for unbelted R.14/ECE R.80, included on page 106 of in the sled test for the restrained test occupants has been one of the key the accompanying FRIA, which shows dummies in the second row were within points voiced by several commenters that the separately applied ECE the IARVs for FMVSS No. 208, we are that support adopting the European regulations provide for lower seat concerned about the reported damage to regulations). anchorage strength than FMVSS No. the seat anchorage tracks of the second Based on these observations, we do 210. Specifically, NHTSA’s analysis and row seat (this seat reportedly did not not agree that the data support a finding sled and static testing indicate that ECE that FMVSS No. 210 is unnecessary. R.14/ECE R.80 do not provide the level 131 See research report DOT HS 811 335, Coach USA questioned in its report of seat belt anchorage strength needed to ‘‘NHTSA’s Motorcoach Safety Research Crash, Sled, whether the NHTSA static test of the address the foreseeable frontal crash and Static Tests,’’ May 2010. Amaya 7 g seat, which was found to scenario represented by a 48 km/h (30

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 70458 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

mph) barrier impact, whereas the compliant seats in their vehicles at the Conversely, bus manufacturer Prevost FMVSS No. 210 requirement does. time of its submission of comments. stated that introduction of lap/shoulder NHTSA was unable to obtain any Greyhound stated that it has been belts will increase the weight of an information (either publically available, purchasing IMMI Safeguard Premier affected bus by at least 454 kg (1,000 lb). through public comments or directly seats, which meet FMVSS No. 210 and It commented that the more stringent from the European Union) on how the other FMVSSs, in all of its new the standard is, the heavier the vehicle ECE R.14 and R.80 regulations were motorcoaches since January 2008. IC is, and manufacturers cannot afford established or the rationales underlying Bus noted that when it builds a adding weight if it is not justified. them. Given the lack of underlying commercial bus that specifies seat belts, Prevost stated that cargo capacity is analytical and scientific information it is built to meet the applicable affected by added weight, and each 79 available to NHTSA, the agency is requirements of FMVSS No. 210. This kg (175 lb) added could potentially unable to conclude that the safety needs information on the development and reduce the passenger capacity by one. of this rulemaking would be met by introduction into the motorcoach fleet Bus manufacturer Van Hool stated allowing alternative compliance with of seats with anchorages that meet that requiring buses to meet FMVSS No. the ECE standards. NHTSA is not able FMVSS No. 210 clearly demonstrates 210 specifications will result in to allow alternative compliance with the that the requirement to extend the increased vehicle and seat weight, ECE standards in this rulemaking in FMVSS No. 210 requirements to all increased vehicle and seat price, particular given Congress’s direction in seating positions in motorcoaches is increased seat size, decreased passenger the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act to practicable. comfort, and reduced passenger service. base the regulation ‘‘on the best Van Hool believed that integration of available science’’ (MAP–21, section Implications of FMVSS No. 210 on Seat the FMVSS No. 210 requirements into 32703(e)(1)(C)). Weight, Cost, and Comfort its vehicle platforms will force Van Hool We note, however, that despite having NHTSA has developed this final rule to initiate new and different production found that FMVSS No. 210 is more taking into account the impact to seating infrastructure and methods, thus effective with respect to seat anchorage capacity of changes to size and weight increasing manufacturing cost, in strength than certification to both ECE of subject buses and the ability to addition to the added structural material R.14 and ECE R.80, NHTSA keeps an comply with State and Federal size and that would need to be used in the open mind about new developments in weight requirements, in satisfaction of process. The commenter stated that motor vehicle safety. In the future, the section 32703(e) of the Motorcoach these factors would raise the price of agency would be willing to consider Enhanced Safety Act. We requested vehicles, and the additional structural data and other sound information, comments on the benefits and costs of material would result in additional beyond that which has already been adopting ECE R.14 over FMVSS No. 210 deadweight of the coach as a whole, considered by the agency, from persons and whether motorcoach seats will need even without seats. wishing to demonstrate that the ECE to be made significantly heavier, stiffer, On the other hand, transportation regulations are not less protective than or less comfortable in order to meet the provider Greyhound stated that its real- FMVSS No. 210. In addition, NHTSA is strength requirements of FMVSS No. life experience has demonstrated that currently planning to research 210. We stated in the NPRM that the there are no adverse consequences to motorcoach seat back performance, and agency did not believe there would be meeting FMVSS No. 210 related to depending on the results and evidence, adverse consequences associated with weight, comfort, or cost. Greyhound may consider adopting some form of applying FMVSS No. 210 to seat belt made the following statement seat back energy absorptions in the anchorages on the affected vehicles, concerning the Safeguard Premier seat future. At that time, we will take into based on data from our test program. manufactured by IMMI, which consideration ECE R.80 and any other Greyhound said it has been ordering in relevant information. Comments its new motorcoaches since 2008: Practicable Eight comments specifically These seats and their seat belt assemblies The agency has concluded that discussed the effects that the more and anchorages comply with FMVSS meeting FMVSS No. 210 is practicable, stringent strength requirements of standards 208, 209, 210, 213, 225, and 302. and meeting FMVSS No. 210 with a seat FMVSS No. 210 (compared to ECE R.14) The SafeGuard Premier also complies with the forward and rearward seat back energy that has deformation capability is also will have on seat weight, comfort, and cost. Commenters were divided in their curves defined in FMVSS [No.] 222. The practicable. In its comment, seat installation of these seats has not caused manufacturer C.E. White stated that it views of the effect that meeting FMVSS Greyhound to reduce the number of has proven that a light weight single No. 210 would have on bus weight, passengers it can accommodate. The seats are frame seat structure can be comfort, and cost. quite comfortable, do not weigh appreciably manufactured to meet the FMVSS No. Seat manufacturer C.E. White more than seats equipped with belts meeting 210,132 and the commenter provided commented that it has manufactured a the European standard, and are competitively confidential test data for one of its seat lightweight single frame seat structure priced. models which supported its claim. Seat that meets the criteria of FMVSS No. Transportation provider Coach USA manufacturer IMMI also stated that it 210, with energy absorption capability, commented that FMVSS No. 210 will offers a seat with lap/shoulder seat belts and provided confidential data result in passenger seats that are larger/ that meets the requirements of FMVSS supporting its claim. bulkier, more rigid/stiffer, less No. 210.133 IMMI stated that at least In response to the agency’s question comfortable, and more expensive than three motorcoach manufacturers offer on whether adopting FMVSS No. 210 those that meet the European standards IMMI’s Premier® FMVSS No. 210 over ECE R.14 will increase cost and and that FMVSS No. 210 will increase weight, seat manufacturer IMMI said the overall weight of the affected 132 C.E. White also stated that the bus seat can that its own review determined that vehicles. It also stated the larger FMVSS meet the seat back deflection and quasi-static requirements of FMVSS No. 222. adopting ECE R.14 would result in only No. 210 compliant seats will require 133 IMMI stated that the seat also meets FMVSS minor material reductions, resulting in carriers to remove four seats (one row) No. 222. minimal savings per seat assembly. from their buses, reducing seating

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 70459

capacity and increasing the cost of legislative renewal in the upcoming less and were not significantly more operations. Coach USA claims transportation reauthorization and if the expensive (excluding the cost of seat decreased seat comfort along with the exemption is not continued, belts) to produce than the original increased seat cost and decreased motorcoaches will be required to meet products.’’ 139 capacity, which will be passed on as the general weight limitation, which is Prevost, Van Hool, and Coach USA cost to the customer, may increase the currently a maximum of 9,072 kg estimated that lap/shoulder belt- number of individuals that choose ‘‘the (20,000 lb) per axle. Coach USA stated equipped seats meeting FMVSS No. 210 more dangerous option’’ of travel by that even if the exemption is renewed, weigh much more than seats meeting passenger car over motorcoach travel. manufacturers are likely to struggle to ECE R.14 and ECE R.80. According to In a supplemental comment, Coach comply with the new NHTSA Prevost, the installation of lap/shoulder USA provided estimates of the cost and regulations that will add weight, such as belts increases the weight of the affected weight penalties of compliance with roof crush and window glazing vehicles by at least 454 kg (1,000 lb) and FMVSS No. 210 as compared to standards, while remaining under the each 79 kg (175 lb) could reduce the compliance with ECE R.14/ECE R.80. It statutory weight limit. Coach USA passenger capacity by one. Van Hool compared seats offered by IMMI, which believed that the European seat belt estimated that a two-occupant seat with Coach USA said were the only FMVSS standard will not increase the weight of FMVSS No. 210 anchorages will weigh No. 210 compliant seats on the market motorcoaches to the same degree as about 15 kg (33 lb) more than its ECE at the time of its analysis, to Van Hool FMVSS No. 210. R.14/ECE R.80 seats, which the commenter said is a 420 kg (926 lb) seats meeting the European Agency Response regulations.134 Coach USA determined increase for a 56-passenger bus. In its that the total weight of the IMMI seats The information available to the estimate, Van Hool approximated the required to outfit a single deck agency on cost and weight varied weight of an EU-approved lap/shoulder motorcoach is 1,615 kg (3,560 lb) at a greatly. Commenters opposed to the belt equipped seat at 36 kg (79 lb) and total cost of $37,800, whereas the total adoption of FMVSS No. 210 (Prevost, an FMVSS No. 210 compliant seat at 51 weight of the Van Hool seats required to Van Hool, Coach USA, and Chicago kg (112 lb). Coach USA estimated that outfit the same bus is 1,196 kg (2,637 lb) Sightseeing) 136 137 suggested that a standard two-occupant Van Hool EU- at a cost of $29,830. The commenter motorcoach passenger seats with approved seat at 40 kg (88 lb), a Van stated that, for a double-decker bus, the anchorages that meet FMVSS No. 210 Hool slider seat version at 54 kg (119 IMMI seats have a total weight of 2,263 will be heavier than their European lb), an IMMI seat with FMVSS No. 210 kg (4,988 lb) at a cost of $53,716, counterparts, whereas commenters anchorages at 54 kg (119 lb), and an whereas the Van Hool seats have a total Greyhound (a transportation provider IMMI slider seat version at 73 kg (161 weight of 1,676 kg (3,695 lb) at a cost already purchasing and operating buses lb). It stated that the IMMI seats resulted of $42,390. Coach USA noted that these with lap/shoulder belts and FMVSS No. in a 419 kg (923 lb) increase in weight estimates do not include costs 210 compliant seats), IMMI and C.E. over the Van Hool seats for a single deck associated with reinforcement of the bus White (seat suppliers already motorcoach and a 586 kg (1,293 lb) floor for FMVSS No. 210, which NHTSA manufacturing and selling FMVSS No. increase for a double-deck motorcoach. Only Coach USA identified the estimated at $3,000 per bus in the PRIA. 210 compliant seats in the U.S. for the manufacturer of the FMVSS No. 210 It also added that the cost penalties did affected buses, with lap/shoulder belts) seat that it used in its weight estimate— not include the reduced fuel efficiency stated that in their experience, the seats IMMI—and, according to the data it of transporting ‘‘heavier’’ FMVSS No. do not weigh appreciably more. used in its vehicle weight estimate, the 210 compliant seats, which it estimated The relevant, best available two-occupant IMMI seat is 14 kg (31 lb) as an increase in lifetime fuel cost of information on this issue is persuasive heavier that the ECE-approved Van Hool $4,584 to $6,217 for a single deck in support of a finding that seats 138 seat. Yet, IMMI had stated in its motorcoach and $6,422 to $8,710 for a meeting FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210 comment that there would be only double-decker motorcoach.135 will not weigh appreciably more than limited-to-minor material reductions, Coach USA was concerned about the seats meeting the ECE regulations. We resulting in minimal cost and weight cumulative impact of possible found the information provided by savings per seat assembly if the regulations resulting from NHTSA’s Greyhound, IMMI, and C.E. White anchorage requirements were reduced to Motorcoach Safety Plan on the weight of compelling due to its empirical basis ECE R.14 loads. (IMMI did not quantify motorcoaches. It stated that Federal law and the commenters’ first-hand these savings.) imposes weight limits on commercial experience with the subject seats. In addition, we also evaluated Australia’s To understand better Coach USA’s vehicles on public highways, and while comment, we looked closer at the IMMI motorcoaches are currently exempt from experience with lap/shoulder belt requirement for motorcoaches, and seat used by Coach USA in its estimate the general weight limitation, they are and realized that the particular IMMI still subject to a limit of 10,866 kg learned that bus seats with integral lap/ shoulder belts have been developed to seat had design features that added (24,000 lb) per axle. It stated that many weight to the seat, such as IMMI’s motorcoaches are already close to this meet Australian Design Rule 68 SafeGuard SmartFrame TM technology. upper limit. Coach USA noted that the (requiring lap/shoulder seat belts with a Because the features are not needed for motorcoach weight exemption is up for 20 g crash force capability) that were ‘‘more than twice as strong, weighed the seat to meet FMVSS No. 210 and all other applicable FMVSSs, we 134 Coach USA’s submission estimated that a standard IMMI two occupant seat weighs 54 kg (119 136 Prevost, Van Hool, and Coach USA are or are determined the seat was not lb), an IMMI slider seat weighs 73 kg (161 lb), a Van affiliated with European bus manufacturers or Hool standard two occupant seat weighs 40 kg (88 operators. 139 ‘‘Three Point Seat Belts On Coaches—The lb), and a Van Hool slider seat weighs 54 kg (119 137 Bus driver David Kollisch estimated that First Decade In Australia,’’ Griffiths et al., Abstract lb). heavier load-rated seat belts proposed in the NPRM ID 05–0017, 19th International Technical 135 Coach USA extrapolated these costs from data will add 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) to a motorcoach, but Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, provided in NHTSA, Preliminary Regulatory Impact provided no basis for this estimate. June 2005, http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/ Analysis, FMVSS No. 208 Motorcoach Seat Belts 138 As well as meeting FMVSS No. 222’s seat esv19/05-0017-O.pdf (cited also in footnote 39, (August 2010). deflection requirements. August 18, 2010 NPRM).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 70460 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

representative of a typical seat with requirements of ADR 68, Australian Van Hool, Coach USA, and ABA FMVSS No. 210 compliant anchorages. motorcoach seat suppliers have reported submitted comments that discussed the We concluded that a more typical seat that ADR 68 seats with integrated lap/ cost implications of requiring passenger advertised as having anchorages that shoulder belts weigh approximately 25 seats on the affected buses to meet meet the FMVSS No. 210 requirements kg (55 lb) to 30 kg (66 lb) for a two- FMVSS No. 210 as compared to ECE is the Amaya-Astron Torino G and A– occupant seat.143 Styleride (http:// R.14/ECE R.80. Coach USA provided an 210 model coach seats, which are www.styleride.com.au) and McConnell analysis comparing the total cost to available through Freedman. These seats Seats Australia (http:// outfit its single and double-decker weigh 39 kg (86 lb) and 40 kg (88 lb), www.mcconnellseats.com.au) currently motorcoaches with IMMI seats that meet respectively,140 as opposed to the manufacture seats in this weight range FMVSS No. 210, as compared to Van weight of the IMMI seat as reported by that meet ADR 68 requirements. These Hool seats that meet ECE R.14/ECE R.80 Coach USA (weighing 54 kg (119 lb)). ADR 68 compliant seats are lighter than requirements. Coach USA estimated that The information from the seat the current lap/shoulder belt equipped the additional cost to fully outfit a manufacturers was compelling, since IMMI and Van Hool seats, yet meet vehicle with IMMI seats, as opposed to they are now selling the seats at issue. anchorage strength requirements that Van Hool seats, to be $10,970 for a Seat manufacturer C.E. White exceed that required by FMVSS No. 210. single deck bus and $13,768 145 for a commented that it has been proven that In view of the above information, double-decker bus (including the a lightweight single frame seat structure NHTSA concludes that the concerns estimated cost of $3,000 for can be manufactured that meets the expressed about increased seat weight reinforcement of the bus floor). This criteria of FMVSS No. 210, with energy are without merit. Lap/shoulder belt- estimate for the single deck bus is absorption capability, and provided equipped seats that meet the slightly less than, but reasonably in line confidential data supporting its claim. requirements of FMVSS No. 210 are with, the estimate of $12,900 in the IMMI stated that its own review available in the U.S. that are equivalent PRIA. However, it is significantly higher determined that the reduction of the in weight to the European seats, and than our estimate in the FRIA of $2,110 anchorage requirements to those of ECE will continue to be available after this to add lap/shoulder belts for the R.14 will result in minor material final rule. passenger seats in a 54 passenger bus, reductions, resulting in minimal savings which is based on the cost tear-down per seat assembly. Other Concerns study. We found the information provided However, Coach USA also estimated Some commenters expressed concerns by Greyhound of striking importance, the related increase in lifetime fuel costs that the weight increases to the bus seats since the commenter has first-hand due to what the commenter believed resulting from meeting FMVSS No. 210 experience operating buses with FMVSS would be the extra weight of the IMMI would potentially reduce fuel economy, No. 210 compliant, lap/shoulder- seats to be $4,584 and $6,217, at 3 reduce passenger-carrying capacity, and equipped passenger seats. Greyhound percent and 7 percent discount rates, affect axle weight limits. After stated that it has installed IMMI seats respectively.146 This is a significant considering all available information, that meet the FMVSS No. 210 increase over that estimated in the PRIA we have determined these concerns to requirements in its newer buses, and and FRIA. We believe that the 54 kg be unfounded. In view of the light found in its real-life experience there (119 lb) IMMI seats Coach USA used in weight of ADR 68 seats, and the has been no adverse consequences its estimate may represent seats at the information from C.E. White, IMMI and related to weight, comfort, or cost. higher end of the weight spectrum for Freedman, we believe that the average The Australian motorcoach industry FMVSS No. 210 seats. As explained weight increase of the affected buses had similar concerns regarding above, ADR 68 seats that can withstand resulting from this rule will be in line increased seat weight with the anchorage loads in excess of FMVSS No. with the estimates made in the agency’s introduction of Australian Design Rule 210 loads weigh as little as 25 kg (55 lb) cost tear-down study.144 The agency’s 68 (ADR 68) in 1994.141 The ADR 68 to 30 kg (66 lb) for a two-occupant seat. cost tear-down study attempts to dynamic test requirements use a 20 g Seat suppliers C.E. White and IMMI estimate only the weight of the lap/ acceleration pulse, which is 1.5 times affirm the practicability of shoulder belt addition. It estimated that greater than the pulse used in the manufacturing lightweight seats meeting the weight of a domestic bus seat added NHTSA sled tests, and the ADR 68 static FMVSS No. 210. test total loads are also significantly was 2.7 kg (5.98 lb) per 2-person seat, We conclude that the data indicate greater than those required by FMVSS resulting in a 54 passenger bus weight that seats meeting FMVSS No. 210 will No. 210.142 In spite of the more stringent increase of 73.0 kg (161 lb). Any further result in little, if any, increase in total increase in vehicle weight, or reduction vehicle weight, depending on how 140 Weight data was provided by Freedman. in passenger capacity, will result from efficiently the vehicle seat and/or 141 Griffiths et al., ‘‘Three Point Seat Belts on the manufacturer’s or purchaser’s attachment points are strengthened. Coaches—The First Decade in Australia,’’ supra. selection (or design) of seat models and Considering the weight of 40 kg (88 lb) 142 ADR 68 has both dynamic and static test features. options. For the dynamic option, ADR 68 requires of current Van Hool seats (according to a crash pulse with a 49 km/h (30.4 mph) delta-V Coach USA’s submission), the data and a peak deceleration of 20 g for at least 20 No. 210. The ADR 68 static loading is a indicate there may even be a total combination of belt pull forces, push forces on the milliseconds. In comparison, the NHTSA weight decrease if the weight can be motorcoach crash test had the same delta-V, and a seat back and inertial loading based on the seat 13 g deceleration. Based on the 1.5 greater mass. A comparison can be made between the x- deceleration in the ADR 68 crash pulse, we estimate direction (fore-aft) loading created by FMVSS No. 145 There may be an error in Coach USA’s double- peak belt anchorage loading would be 1.5 times 210 and ADR 68, assuming a specific seat mass (30 deck estimate because it reported a total seat cost greater than that measured in the NHTSA test. kg (66 lb)) and belt pull angle (20 degrees above for the IMMI and Van Hool of $53,716 and $42,390 Recall that the agency research determined that horizontal). This analysis indicates the ADR 68 respectively, which results in a difference of FMVSS No. 210 static loading was about 1.1 times static load option generates approximately 1.3 times $11,326. the peak loading from sled testing performed with the loading of FMVSS No. 210 in the x-direction. 146 Coach USA’s estimate was based on a weight the motorcoach crash pulse. Thus, the static load 143 Id. increase of 419 kg (923 lb) and was extrapolated generated by the ADR 68 dynamic options is 144 See NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA–2011–0066– from the values of $1,812 and $1,336 estimated in approximately 1.4 (1.5/1.1) times that of FMVSS 004. the PRIA for a weight increase of 122 kg (269 lb).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 70461

reduced to the 25 kg (55 lb) to 30 kg (66 testing indicated that ECE R.14/ECE option is unacceptable to NHTSA, since lb) weight of ADR 68 seats. R.80 regulations do not provide the it would permit part or all of the We do not believe that requiring level of seat belt anchorage strength covered bus fleet being equipped with passenger seats on the affected buses to required for the foreseeable frontal crash seat belt anchorages that cannot be equipped with anchorages that meet scenario represented by a 48 km/h (30 withstand the forces generated in FMVSS No. 210 will necessarily reduce mph) barrier impact. The static load foreseeable frontal crashes. requirements for ECE R.14 and ECE R.80 seat comfort (because of increased Seat Back Impact and Energy are far below that required to generate stiffness) as suggested by Van Hool and Absorption Coach USA. Seat comfort is more the peak seat anchorage loads that dependent on seat cushion design NHTSA measured in its sled tests, In the NPRM, NHTSA requested elements such as cushion material, which means a seat that minimally comment on the energy-absorbing thickness, shape, and cover, rather than meets the ECE required static loads for capability of current seat backs to on the underlying frame. If the ability of M3 vehicles may separate from its floor provide impact protection to occupants. a seat to meet FMVSS No. 210 anchorages in a crash, especially in a Unbelted occupants in the NHTSA sled requirements equated to reduced severe frontal crash at seats where tri- tests, primarily 5th percentile female comfort, then this problem would have loading occurs. dummies, had HIC and Nij values in arisen in newer passenger vehicles that We have also compared ECE R.14 and excess of IARVs when they struck the have seats with fully integrated seat ECR R.80 to FMVSS No. 210 to see if the seat back in front of them. Additionally, belts, especially with the front seats of ECE regulations offer less costs than in some sled tests the belted dummies most convertibles and some rear seats of FMVSS No. 210. The information from interacted with the forward seat back multipurpose passenger vehicles. the seat manufacturers indicate that when unbelted dummies in the rear seat Importantly, Greyhound, which has meeting ECE R.14 and R.80 would not struck their seat back, resulting in been operating buses with IMMI lap/ necessarily result in cost or weight elevated HIC and Nij values to the shoulder belt equipped passenger seats savings. Seat supplier IMMI stated that belted dummies. We asked for that meet FMVSS No. 210 since 2008, its own review determined that meeting information on whether there may be stated ‘‘The installation of these seats ECE R.14 would result in minor material some potential for seat backs to become has not caused Greyhound to reduce the reductions, resulting in minimal savings stiffer to accommodate the additional number of passengers it can per seat assembly. U.S. seat suppliers loads from seat belts. We requested accommodate. The seats are quite C.E. White and IMMI and possibly information on specifications on force- comfortable, do not weigh appreciably others already have established their deflection characteristics and/or impact more than seats equipped with belts structural concepts and production to deceleration characteristics for seat meeting the European standard, and are meet FMVSS No. 210. backs, such as the absorption test in ECE competitively priced.’’ After considering When Australia decided to mandate R.80 and the impactor test in ADR 68. the above information we conclude that lap/shoulder belts for passenger seats in Comments the data indicate that seats meeting motorcoaches, Australia determined that the then-existing ECE regulation Eleven commenters addressed the FMVSS No. 210 will not reduce seat issue of seat back stiffness, with many comfort or unduly affect costs. (ECE R.80) was not sufficient to ensure seats would not fail in the type of suggesting that NHTSA consider adding Harmonization catastrophic coach crashes the country impact and/or energy absorption requirements such as those in ECE R.80, Commenting in support of the ECE sought to address.148 Australia had been FMVSS No. 201, ‘‘Occupant protection regulations, European manufacturer Van in the process of considering adopting ECE R.80, but decided that a regulation in interior impact,’’ or FMVSS No. 222. Hool stated that implementation of Several commenters believed that ECE based on ECR R.80 would not have been FMVSS No 210 will require vehicle R.14 and ECE R.80 should be adopted effective in those crashes. Id. Australia manufacturers to rethink their structural instead of FMVSS No. 210, based in developed and adopted ADR 68 to concept and production, which will large part on the fact that ECE R.80 has increase manufacturing cost and the address the safety need it identified. We have thoroughly assessed the ECE seat back energy absorption price of motorcoaches, which will requirements while FMVSS No. 210 ultimately be passed on to customers, regulations at issue to compare the benefits achievable under ECE R.14 and does not. This issue was addressed whereas, Van Hool stated, earlier in this preamble and, to avoid harmonization with the European ECE R.80 and FMVSS No. 210, in accordance with guiding principles for redundancy, we will not repeat here our standards would avoid such costs. reasons for adopting FMVSS No. 210 Coach USA and American Bus harmonization. There is a large disparity between the anchorage load rather than the ECE regulations. We Association (ABA) submitted similar reiterate, however, that the ability of the comments and added that requirements of ECE R.14 and R.80 and FMVSS No. 210. While a seat meeting seat back to absorb the loading and harmonization would enhance provide protection for the rear seat flexibility and promote turnover of the FMVSS No. 210 could be readily designed to also meet ECE R.14 and ECE passenger is an aspect of performance fleet to newer motorcoaches. not regulated by FMVSS No. 210. NHTSA has compared ECE R.14 and R.80, seats just meeting the strength requirements for even M2 vehicles Manufacturers have the ability to meet ECR R.80 to FMVSS No. 210 to see if the FMVSS No. 210 and to design energy- ECE regulations offer greater benefits would not be capable of complying with FMVSS No. 210. Thus, a compliance absorbing seat backs to account for the than FMVSS No. 210. We have not loading from an occupant aft of the seat, found ECE R.14 and ECE R.80 to be 148 Griffiths et al., ‘‘Three Point Seat Belts on if they believe energy absorption is an sufficient to protect against foreseeable appropriate aspect of performance to 147 Coaches—The First Decade in Australia,’’ supra. crash risks. Our sled and static The authors state that in 1989, a coach crash address. resulted in 19 fatalities and a second crash resulted In this section of the preamble, we 147 Coach USA asserted that all of the frontal in 35 fatalities. Both crashes were head-on crashes benefits we estimated resulting from meeting (the first with a heavy truck, the second with explore whether there is a need for FMVSS No. 210 would be insignificant, a claim we another coach) on a highway with a speed limit of NHTSA to regulate in this area. In the have refuted. 100 km/h (62.1 mph). Id. comments, there was no consensus that

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 70462 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

ECE R.80’s energy absorption compartment, which resulted in HIC that requiring motorcoach passenger requirements were the preferred values over 600.149 seats to meet the requirements of approach. Many comments were Based on its studies, IMMI FMVSS No. 210 will result in stiffer seat submitted on this issue. Several recommended that NHTSA adopt seat backs that may be more injurious to commenters suggested that FMVSS No. back energy absorption requirements for occupants seated behind them, 222’s seat deflection requirements were seats on the affected buses. It suggested particularly unbelted occupants. superior to those of ECE R.80. Some that a static test similar to the forward Commenters recommended that NHTSA commenters expressed support for and rearward force/deflection tests adopt some form of energy absorption specified in FMVSS No. 222 could be FMVSS No. 201’s requirements. requirement for the seat back. Five of used to assess energy absorption of the the commenters (CE White, Freedman, Seat supplier C.E. White believed that seat back. In addition, IMMI suggested IMMI, American Seating, and NHTSA should regulate seat back that the following requirements be Greyhound) recommended that seat energy absorption characteristics, and established for motorcoach passenger back energy absorption requirements recommended that NHTSA adopt the seats: from existing FMVSSs be extended to school bus compartmentalization • A minimum seat back height of 150 motorcoach passenger seats. One requirements of FMVSS No. 222. C.E. mm above the shoulder belt anchor commenter (MCI) recommended an White commented that ‘‘without a point to reduce the potential for alternate static load test which it limitation on the deflection of the upper ‘‘rideover’’ by taller occupants. suggested would prevent stiffening of • torso anchorage point of the test seat A minimum shoulder belt anchor the seat backs. Five of the commenters you stand the chance of jeopardizing the point height of 520 mm above the (Setra, Van Hool, Coach USA, ABA and protection of compartmentalization for seating reference point, which is equal ABC) recommended adoption of the the unrestrained occupants to the rear of to that required for school bus seats. European regulations, partly because • Criteria to provide occupant impact the test seat due to override of the seat ECE R.80 has seat back energy protection with the interior of buses, back or diminish the torso restraint absorption requirements. including the seat back surface and As explained earlier in this document, effectiveness for the restrained items such as tray tables, video screens, seat stiffening as it relates to impacts occupants of the test seat.’’ coat hooks, and grab handles. from belted and unbelted occupants into Seat supplier Freedman stated that • Criteria for seat spacing, seat the seat back in front of them is not an some energy absorption capability orientation, use of tables, and all other inevitable consequence of meeting should be built into seat backs for arrangements that could factor into FMVSS No. 210. FMVSS No. 210 does passenger protection and recommended proper energy absorption of a seat back not impose displacement limits on the that FMVSS No. 201 be used as a for an unrestrained occupant. seat belt anchorages; therefore, the reference for any energy absorption Bus manufacturers MCI, Setra, and anchorages (and seat back, in this case) standards for seats in motorcoaches. Van Hool provided comments regarding must simply be strong enough to impact and energy absorption withstand the required loads and can Seat supplier IMMI stated that requirements for the passenger seats. deform in the process. IMMI indicated consideration must be made for injury MCI was concerned about the energy- in its comment that it found in some reduction of unrestrained passengers absorbing capability of seat backs tests of European seats that the seats met and, to that end, a requirement for meeting FMVSS No. 210 and FMVSS No. 210, but had ‘‘unacceptably motorcoach seats to provide energy- recommended a form of static testing on low’’ seat back energy absorption when absorbing capabilities as a passive form a bus frame using a unique loading subjected to the FMVSS No. 222 of occupant protection should be profile that combined aspects of ECE forward load deflection static test. IMMI adopted by NHTSA. IMMI expressed R.14 (10 g; M2 vehicles) and FMVSS No. also noted that in sled tests the seat concern that as seat backs are developed 210. Setra stated that the ECE ‘‘impact backs of these seats folded forwarded to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. requirements’’ were needed to guard and directed test dummies out of the 210, severe stiffening of the seat backs against ‘‘personal injury.’’ 150 Van Hool compartment. Both these behaviors are will occur which it stated may increase said that energy absorption indicative of seat backs that are not stiff the injury potential for unrestrained requirements for an unbelted passenger enough, rather than too stiff with occupants. IMMI stated that existing should be addressed and that the static respect to their ability to provide non-belted motorcoach seat backs offer test of ECE R.80 is similar to the compartmentalization for unbelted minimal injury mitigating energy- compartmentalization requirement in occupants. absorbing capability and that the seat FMVSS No. 222 for school buses. The commenters varied significantly Greyhound stated that NHTSA should in their views as to the appropriateness backs fold over and direct occupants up specify seat back energy absorption of various approaches for the covered into the overhead racks. IMMI also standards. Greyhound stated that it is buses. stated that it studied some European installing the IMMI seat on all of its new Some commenters supported FMVSS seats meeting ECE R.14 and ECE R.80, equipment in large part because of the No. 222’s school bus requirements. both at the M2 (10 g) and M3 (7 g) seat’s unique energy-absorbing FMVSS No. 222 is a complex, levels, and found them to have capability. multifaceted standard that requires very anchorages that withstood the loads strict seating requirements in order for specified in FMVSS No. 210, but have Agency Response compartmentalization to function seat backs with ‘‘unacceptably low seat In general, all of the commenters who properly. Applying the concepts of the back energy absorption when subjected responded on this issue were concerned standard to the buses covered under to the [FMVSS No. 222] load deflection today’s final rule could result in school test.’’ IMMI stated that in sled tests it 149 Although not specifically reported by IMMI, bus style seats and barriers, with very we assume this is a HIC15 value, with a limit of 700, tight seat spacing, which may or may conducted, it found that these ECE seats since IMMI referenced FMVSS No. 208. folded forward and directed the 150 ECE R.80 is conducted with the occupant both not be appropriate for the covered unrestrained dummies out of the seat belted and unbelted and it specifies a HlC of 500 buses. We are unable to adopt FMVSS for an occupant hitting the seat in front. No. 222-type compartmentalization

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 70463

requirements for the passenger seats in UMA also supported a 3-year lead time lap/shoulder belts that meet a lesser the affected buses at this time, without with early compliance permitted. strength requirement. For the latter fully considering the safety need for the Commenters supporting a shorter lead manufacturers, some may require requirements, in addition to related time included some seat suppliers and strengthening or redesign of motorcoach benefits, costs, practicality, and a number of consumer groups. IMMI floor and side wall seat anchorage technical challenges. In addition, such a said it believes that the lead time could systems to meet the adopted requirement could not be adopted be reduced to 2 years because the requirements, in addition to purchasing without providing the public an technology to comply with the proposed or designing seats that can withstand opportunity to comment on this issue. requirements has been commercially the required loads. The 3-year lead time We cannot agree at this time that the available for several years. American will give these manufacturers time to seat back energy absorption Seating supported reducing the lead plan the implementation of the new requirements of ECE R.80 are most time to 2 years, suggesting that 3 major standard more efficiently and effectively appropriate. The seats advertised as ECE motorcoach manufacturers can now than a shorter lead time. (Under 49 CFR R.80 compliant that were tested by the supply vehicles in the U.S. that meet the 571.8(b), manufacturers of vehicles built agency in support of the NPRM, NPRM’s proposed requirements. in two or more stages (multi-stage particularly in the full vehicle barrier Many consumer groups supported a manufacturers) are provided an impact, did not demonstrate ‘‘energy shorter lead time. The American additional year of lead time for absorption’’ or ‘‘compartmentalization’’ Association of Classified School manufacturer certification of characteristics. IMMI’s tests of European Employees (AACSE) commented that compliance. This additional year seats also showed a lack of most motorcoaches today are already provides multi-stage manufacturers, compartmentalization and energy built with seat belt anchorages at all many of which are small businesses, seating positions. The National absorption. Coach USA’s tests of Van added flexibility and time to make the Association of Bus Crash Families/West Hool ECE-approved seats resulted in necessary assessments to acquire a basis Brook Bus Crash Families suggested an HIC values for the unrestrained for certifying their vehicles’ 15 18-month lead time, stating that occupants that were above the IARV set compliance.) manufacturers are already aware of the in FMVSS No. 208. A 3-year lead time is important for changes needed to comply with the reducing the chances of manufacturers NHTSA will undertake further testing proposed lap/shoulder belt rule. making mistakes that could lead to of seat backs on affected vehicles to Advocates also supported an 18-month future non-compliances. Corrective further evaluate the energy absorbing lead time, suggesting that only those action for potential non-compliances is capability of current seats. Section manufacturers that have not previously likely to be much more costly than 32705 of the Motorcoach Enhanced produced motorcoaches with seat belt designing and manufacturing the buses Safety Act directs the Secretary to anchorages or integrated anchorages correctly to start. research and test enhanced occupant should need more than 18 months to An important part of this efficient impact protection technologies for implement the requirements of the final implementation is related to vehicle motorcoach interiors to reduce serious rule. The National Association of Bus weight. As was discussed earlier, injuries for all passengers of Crash Families wanted NHTSA to commenters expressed concern over motorcoaches and to research and test implement a lead time of not longer possible weight increases if seats had to enhanced compartmentalization safety than 1 year. Four private individuals meet FMVSS No. 210. As we explained countermeasures for motorcoaches, supported a lead time shorter than 3 earlier in response to those comments, including enhanced seating designs. years. we do not believe that seats with The Act states that not later than two Agency Response anchorages that meet FMVSS No. 210 years after the completion of such need to be much heavier or bulkier than research and testing, the Secretary shall Section 32703(e) of the Motorcoach current seats. Indeed, seats now offered issue final motor vehicle safety Enhanced Safety Act states that any by Australian seat suppliers that meet standards if the Secretary determines regulation prescribed in accordance ADR 68 weigh less than the original that such standards meet the with subsection (a) (which is the seats. Australian government officials requirements and considerations of provision regarding safety belts) shall, have noted that early prototype seats section 30111(a) and (b) of the Vehicle with regard to new motorcoaches, did get heavier in response to ADR 68, Safety Act. ‘‘apply to all motorcoaches as manufacturers simply beefed up XVII. Lead Time manufactured more than 3 years after (strengthened) existing seats with steel the date on which the regulation is bracing. However, when seat designers The NPRM proposed a 3-year lead published as a final rule.’’ decided to redesign seats from scratch, time for new bus manufacturers to meet Consistent with the Motorcoach the new designs were ‘‘more than twice the new lap/shoulder seat belt Enhanced Safety Act and the effective as strong, weighed less and were not requirements. We believed that 3 years date proposed in the NPRM, this final significantly more expensive (excluding were necessary since some design, rule specifies a 3-year lead time for the cost of seat belts) to produce than testing, and development will be needed manufacturers of new buses to meet the the original product.’’ 151 Allowing a 3- to certify compliance to the new lap/shoulder belt requirements. In our year lead time will give sufficient time requirements. We proposed to permit judgment, we believe that 3 years is to seat and vehicle designers, who wish optional early compliance with the appropriate to provide sufficient time to to do so, to develop modern seat designs requirements. bus manufacturers to design and test that meet FMVSS No. 210 and that their anchorage systems to the Comments provide energy-absorption features, requirements of this final rule. Although while minimizing any weight increase. Coach USA supported the proposed 3- some manufacturers are already offering Seat suppliers American Seating and year lead time. It concurred that the lead seat systems that comply with FMVSS IMMI recommended that the lead time time period would allow companies to No. 210, other manufacturers have not do the planning and testing involved incorporated seats with lap/shoulder 151 Griffiths et al., ‘‘Three Point Seat Belts On and would ease the financial burden. belts or have incorporated seats with Coaches—The First Decade In Australia,’’ supra.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 70464 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

be shortened to 2 years. We note that seating positions. We did not include a authority to impose retroactive, vehicle- these seat manufacturers are affiliated retrofit proposal as part of the NPRM, based performance standards. The with each other and offer the same but we wanted to know more about the commenters suggested that the agency’s Premier® branded seat, which is technical and economic feasibility of a authority only extended to requiring the advertised as capable of meeting FMVSS retrofit requirement. Our understanding retrofit of ‘‘equipment’’ items, such as No. 210 requirements, in addition to at the time of the NPRM was that retro-reflective tape and rear impact other FMVSSs. Thus, their suggestion significant strengthening of the (underride) guards, and does not extend may be more representative of time motorcoach structure would be needed to standards requiring substantial necessary for vehicle manufacturers to to accommodate the additional loading vehicle restructuring and a case-by-case modify the vehicle structure to accept a from the seat belts, particularly for the determination with regard to the actions seat such as theirs. However, as stated older buses. It was not apparent that necessary to reach compliance. above, we believe the 3 years of lead establishing requirements similar to or • Coach USA believed that a retrofit time will offer both seat and vehicle based on the proposed requirements requirement could push motorcoaches manufacturers the opportunity to would be cost effective, or feasible from over the statutory weight limits for implement the standard more an engineering perspective. operation on highways. efficiently, particular in regard to Commenters were sharply divided in • Twenty-nine operators submitted weight. their opinion of the merits of a retrofit identical letters commenting that any Various consumer advocates and requirement. In general, motorcoach retrofit requirement would either put commenters from the general public manufacturers and operators strongly their company out of business or requested an even shorter lead time than opposed a retrofit requirement as being severely restrict their operations. 2 years. Many of the comments were economically and technically untenable. Operators commented that they do not based on the current availability of bus Seat suppliers did not support a retrofit have the technical capacity to test seats with seat belts. Some argued that requirement. Consumer advocates and vehicles to ensure that they would the 3-year lead time will result in individual members of the public comply with any new performance unnecessary fatalities. NHTSA is keenly strongly supported a retrofit requirements and have no way to ensure aware of the potential loss of life requirement. or certify that their vehicles, once inherent in any single crash of the The following points were made by equipped with seat belts, would meet covered buses, which is why the agency various commenters. the government standards. has made this and other rulemaking • Peter Pan commented that On the Merits of Retrofitting Buses actions initiated pursuant to the retrofitting motorcoaches that are less ‘‘NHTSA’s Approach to Motorcoach • UMA, which represents motorcoach than 5 years old is expensive and Safety’’ plan a high priority. Although owners/operators and industry unnecessary and there is no way for the we believe that many bus manufacturers suppliers, stated that the motorcoach operator to certify that retrofitted will comply with this final rule before industry is ‘‘capital intensive, vehicles would meet the government the 3-year deadline, it is important to competitive and generally a marginally standard. It stated that, if the agency give other manufacturers the time to do profitable business, at best.’’ UMA decides to require retrofits, the retrofit the job correctly. In addition, to the stated that any retrofit requirement or requirement should be implemented in extent that many operators of the retrofit standard would likely divert a similar manner as the Americans with affected buses now offer vehicles with financial resources from other safety- Disabilities Act (ADA), where operators lap/shoulder seat belts, we believe that related efforts, such as training and were given 12 years (the average fleet early compliance with the final rule will maintenance. It stated that these efforts turnover rate) to equip their fleet with result in an increasing availability of are at the core of the current motorcoach lifts. buses with lap/shoulder seat belts industry safety record, and any • Greyhound also suggested the before the 3-year date. diversion of resources could have the approach of DOT setting a date by Advocates suggested in its comments undesirable effect of increasing, rather which all motorcoaches on the road that the final rule could provide a than decreasing, motorcoach accidents must have lap/shoulder belts, e.g., a staggered compliance schedule, with the and the related injuries and fatalities. date representing the average over-the- agency identifying motorcoaches that • UMA commented that a retrofit road bus fleet turnover rate, which the are not currently compliant with the requirement would either drive commenter said was 12 years. final rule and allowing 3 years to certify companies out of business or drive up • Star Shuttle and Charter compliance, while the other costs of what the commenter called an commented that a retrofit requirement manufacturers would only get 18 already safe mode of transportation, would put them out of business and months to certify. We believe such an adversely affecting customers who reduce the value of their existing fleet. approach is not viable. The agency’s require economical transportation, such It requested that the agency establish a limited compliance testing budget as students and the elderly. multi-year grant program, whereby should not be used simply to identify • ABA, representing bus operators, operators could obtain funding for vehicles that either get 18 months to suppliers, and manufacturers, did not retrofitting or acquisition of new seat certify (if found to be compliant, which support a retrofit requirement for seat belt-equipped coaches. in and of itself would be difficult to belts on motorcoaches. ABA did not • Monterey-Salinas Transit verify short of testing a vehicle) or 3 believe that a retrofit requirement is commented that there could be service years to certify (if found to not comply) economically or technically feasible for reductions with retrofitting based on to the new standard. This would be an the reasons stated in the NPRM. ABA cost to retrofit and out-of-service time inefficient use of agency resources with believed that owners of existing vehicles needed to retrofit the motorcoach. little, if any, potential safety benefit. should not be forced into renewed • Plymouth & Brockton expressed construction to meet performance concern that in many cases the cost to XVIII. On Retrofitting Used Buses requirements that differ from those to retrofit buses would exceed the resale In the NPRM, we asked for comments which they were originally built. value of the buses involved. It urged on the issue of retrofitting existing • ABA and Coach USA stated that NHTSA to require seat belts in new (used) buses with seat belts at passenger NHTSA does not have the statutory buses, but let the natural process of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 70465

vehicle attrition allow companies to operators with older buses that may not • ABA believed that retrofitting used fully comply with the regulation over be able to sustain the loads of seats with motorcoaches with seat belts and time. lap/shoulder belts. ensuring that, as installed, the structural • Prestige Bus Charters commented • ABA suggested the idea of a integrity of the vehicle will be sufficient that while it supported requirements for voluntary retrofit program for vehicles to withstand specified forces or loads new coaches to be equipped with seat that were originally built to be seat belt- will require detailed knowledge of the belts, it would be very difficult to absorb ready to the European standards (or to original vehicle design, as well as the cost to retrofit its buses. the FMVSS), but that were sold without analysis of the vehicle’s in-use • Seat belt supplier IMMI commented seat belts. condition and technical expertise on that NHTSA should not require retrofit • IMMI said that later model buses how to upgrade the vehicle structure. of lap/shoulder belts, but rather could be retrofitted with lap/shoulder Regarding manufacturer-provided establish technical/performance belts within 3 years of the retrofit kits, ABA stated that because the standards/requirements when a retrofit implementation date of the final rule. manufacturer does not know the use, • is determined to be necessary or Advocates supported a retrofit maintenance or wear history of the desirable to fulfill a market-driven need. provision for motorcoaches vehicle, the manufacturer would not be It added that retrofitted motorcoaches manufactured more than 5 years prior to able to assure that the bus will be should be made capable of meeting the the implementation date. It said NHTSA capable of meeting a particular same performance standards as newly should work with motorcoach carriers, performance requirement once a belt manufactured motorcoaches. IMMI and especially manufacturers, to retrofit kit is applied. concurred with the many practical determine which existing vehicles issues identified by the agency in the require retrofit before evaluating Regarding the Cost of Retrofitting NPRM and that each individual bus whether it is feasible to retrofit such • Setra estimated that the cost of a would need to be evaluated before a vehicles with lap/shoulder belts. It retrofit requirement for its buses would retrofit could be accomplished believed that some makes of be on the order of $85,000 per bus. It adequately. motorcoaches could be retrofitted with specified that retrofitting an existing • The National Association of Bus seat belts at a reasonable cost, or at least motorcoach would involve: removing Crash Families/West Brook Bus Crash at the lower end of the cost range cited existing seats; removing the flooring; Families supported a mandatory in the NPRM. • removing the engine in order to gain retrofitting requirement. It commented SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A and Safe Ride access to the bus structure at the rear; that without one it could take up to 20 News Publications would like a welding in a new frame structure to years or more before all motorcoach mandatory retrofit program for accommodate FMVSS No. 210 seat belt models are equipped with lap/shoulder motorcoaches less than10 years old. • requirements; reinstalling the engine, seat belts. While acknowledging that for National Association of Bus Crash reinstalling removed parts, installing older motorcoaches, design and cost Families/West Brook Bus Crash (compliant) seats; and verifying burdens may necessitate the installation Families urged NHTSA to require the compliance critical elements to meet the of lap belts rather than lap/shoulder retrofitting of all existing buses with FMVSSs. lap/shoulder belts not more than 3 years belts, the group said it would be ‘‘unfair • Coach USA described NHTSA’s after January 1, 2011. It said it would and unwise’’ to have a dual system of estimate of $40,000 per vehicle as ‘‘a support an interim rule allowing buses motorcoach transportation available to significant underestimate.’’ Coach USA manufactured before 2000 that do not the public—one offering the protection estimated that for a single deck meet the structural requirements for lap/ of seat belts and the other not doing so. motorcoach, the cost will be shoulder belts to have lap belts only. On the Merits of Retrofitting Lap Belts approximately $35,000 per motorcoach Instead of Lap/Shoulder Belts Regarding Structural Issues to modify the motorcoach structure to meet FMVSS No. 210 seat anchorage • IMMI was opposed to an approach • Coach USA commented that requirements, and another $20,000 per that would specify used motorcoaches retrofitting may not be possible in some motorcoach to replace the seats to be retrofitted with lap only seat belts, older vehicles. The structure of older (approximately $18,000 to purchase the rather than lap/shoulder belts, given the vehicles may not be able to support the necessary modifications and, without seats and $2,000 to install them). agency’s research findings that • demonstrate that lap/shoulder belts standards to ensure that the seats and Some commenters said that the provide the best protection. the structure of the motorcoach can estimated costs should also include the • Greyhound did not support a lap withstand the forces imposed in a crash, cost to the company of taking the bus belt only retrofit specification, referring could result in additional safety risks. out of service while the vehicle is also to poor performance of lap belt only • UMA believed that the structural undergoing retrofitting. Coach USA systems in NHTSA testing. modifications needed for each vehicle estimated that a motorcoach will need • National Association of Bus Crash will depend on factors such as the to be taken out of service for 30 to 45 Families/West Brook Bus Crash original manufacturer and age of the days to perform the necessary Families indicated that motorcoaches vehicle. Arrow Coach Lines stated that modifications, a cost that Coach USA manufactured before 2000 that are not retrofitting used motorcoaches with seat estimates to be approximately $20,000 structurally robust enough for lap/ belts would be difficult since buses in per motorcoach. shoulder retrofitting could be outfitted the fleet will have different levels of • UMA commented that the cost to with just lap belts. deterioration. retrofit a vehicle could easily range • Some bus manufacturers and between $30,000 and $60,000. It noted On the Merits of Retrofitting Only a operators supported a voluntary retrofit that about 90 percent of motorcoach Portion of the Fleet program. Some suggested that NHTSA companies are small businesses that • Greyhound said that limiting should establish retrofitting guidelines typically can maintain only small retrofitting to buses manufactured or provide financial support for capital reserves to cover such exigencies within 5 years of the effective date operators to voluntarily retrofit their as highway breakdowns or business might avoid unduly impacting smaller buses. income gaps.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 70466 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

• UMA stated that consumer demand buses, retrofitting with seat belts might accelerate the installation of seat belts in for late model equipment on not be structurally possible. the entire motorcoach fleet by requiring motorcoaches creates a significant In the FRIA, NHTSA presents an retrofitting. However, comments from decline in asset value after just a few analysis of the cost effectiveness of a those in favor of retrofitting did not years use. A retrofit requirement ‘‘could retrofit requirement, based on the age of present information offsetting the likely quell the demand for new the bus to be retrofitted. Two economic and technical challenges of a motorcoaches if the possibility exists for assumptions about costs are included in retrofit requirement. burdensome recapitalization of existing the analysis. The low cost estimate We did not obtain helpful information equipment looms.’’ assumes that the most recent buses can from the comments as to how they • UMA stated that most motorcoaches be retrofitted with new seats with lap/ foresaw the enforcement of a retrofit in the U.S. are sold direct, or by similar shoulder belts and no new structure. program. It is one thing to visually means, by the manufacturers of Thus, there is little weight gain and fuel inspect the buses to see if there are seat motorcoaches, and that subsequently, costs are only included for the weight of belts at passenger seating positions, it is existing motorcoaches are routinely the belts themselves. This is the lowest another to assess the seat belt system to acquired by the manufacturers through cost assumption resulting in an see if the seat belts and anchorages trades. The commenter stated that it is estimated installation cost of $14,659. would hold in a crash and withstand the likely the manufacturers will evaluate As would be expected, retrofitting loading from the passengers. A seat belt traded motorcoaches, particularly later becomes less cost effective as a bus gets requirement that does not have a way to models, for retrofit eligibility and older, because costs remain the same in assess whether belt systems will possible retrofit, to increase the value our example (but may actually increase adequately restrain passengers is of and likelihood of a sale. UMA stated: in real life), but benefits decrease as diminished value. ‘‘The absence of a retrofit requirement there is less remaining life for the bus. Given the low benefits of a retrofit and/or retrofit standard will likely spur Compared to the guideline of $6.3 requirement and high costs associated the largest number of compliant seatbelt million per life saved, even with the with it, and given the agencies’ limited [sic] equipped in the shortest amount of lowest cost estimate for a retrofit resources, we have decided against time.’’ ($14,659/bus and no fuel cost), seat belt developing and implementing a retrofit usage has to be 39 to 53 percent for a program. We believe that Departmental Other Issues one-year-old bus to break even and it and industry resources should be • UMA noted that a retrofit increases by about 4 percentage points applied to achieve more benefits in requirement could create a cottage per year to get to 54 to 64 percent by age other program areas. industry of unqualified seat belt five. Under a higher installation cost A few commenters expressed the view installers, particularly for motorcoaches assumption ($40,000, with fuel costs that NHTSA lacks the authority to not used for public transportation and only for the weight of the belts and not require retrofitting of seat belts. A owned by institutions such as colleges, for added structure), the breakeven discussion of this issue does not need to churches, and the like. point in belt usage is 76 to 81 percent be undertaken at this time since the • ABA noted that the vast majority of for a one-year-old bus and quickly agencies are not pursuing a retrofit motorcoach operators (approximately 80 becomes higher than seat belt usage in program for seat belts, but it is a matter percent) are small businesses with less light vehicles. Retrofitting a five year- on which we disagree with the than 10 employees operating fewer than old or newer buses would result in a commenters, and a topic for discussion 7 motorcoaches. ABA stated that the breakeven point in belt usage from 82 at the appropriate time. We note here only way to ensure consistency in the percent to greater than 83 percent, i.e., that section 32703(e)(2) of the evaluation and upgrading of in-use most of the range exceeds the belt usage Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, motorcoaches to a retroactive rate for passenger vehicles. So, if one ‘‘Retrofit Assessment for Existing manufacturing standard is to establish were to estimate the costs of retrofit at Motorcoaches,’’ states that ‘‘The Federal specifications and a Federal $40,000 per bus, retrofit is not a cost Secretary may assess the feasibility, inspection and evaluation program. effective option for buses one to five- benefits, and costs with respect to the ABA stated that without Federal grants years-old. If one were to estimate the application of any requirement for motorcoach operators to perform costs of retrofit at the lowest possible established under subsection (a) or such retrofits, many operators would price, seat belt use would need to (b)(2) to motorcoaches manufactured not be able to finance such vehicle exceed 54 to 64 percent to make it before the date on which the upgrades. worthwhile to retrofit a five-year-old requirement applies to new motorcoaches under paragraph (1).’’ Agency Response bus. Many commenters emphasized that the cost of retrofitting will impact many Subsection (a) of section 32703 is the For a number of reasons, NHTSA and small businesses that do not have large provision in the Act that directs the FMCSA have decided not to issue a rule profit margins. We agree with the point establishment of this final rule for safety on retrofitting seat belt systems on buses that public policymakers need to belts on motorcoaches. subsequent to initial manufacture. consider that retrofitting costs could Regarding a retrofit requirement that Information from bus manufacturers divert financial resources from other would apply only to a subset of used indicates that establishing requirements safety-related efforts, such as driver buses, such as more recently- to equip buses with seat belts in all training and bus maintenance.152 manufactured buses, there are still many passenger seating positions subsequent We understand that many consumer challenges with a retrofit requirement to initial manufacture would not be cost groups and individuals want to for the subset of vehicles. effective or reasonably feasible from an Environmental factors and how the engineering perspective. Significant 152 Even with lap belts, significant strengthening buses were used would affect the ability strengthening of the bus structure would of the motorcoach structure may be needed in order of the bus to support the belt loads. be needed, if achievable, to to accommodate the additional seat belt loading, NHTSA does not have the resources to particularly for those buses that have been in accommodate the additional seat belt service longer. While the distribution of the loading assist in the development of a practical loading, particularly for those buses that may be different, lap belts will still need to restrain program that would assess the have been in service longer. In some the same amount of loading as lap/shoulder belts. performance of the retrofitted seat belts.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 70467

None of the respondents provided data belts in forward-facing seats prevented shoulder belts). Figure V–17 of the FRIA that would guide the agency in elevated head and neck injury values shows that the lowest average HIC and addressing this issue, even for newer and provided enhanced occupant Nij values were associated with the lap/ buses. protection compared to lap belts. In the shoulder belt restraint for both dummy VRTC full-scale motorcoach crash, the sizes. The lower HIC and Nij values XIX. Regulatory Alternatives 15 lap/shoulder-belted dummies exhibited for the lap/shoulder restraint condition NHTSA examined the benefits and the lowest injury measures and are consistent with the dummy costs of the adopted amendments, improved kinematics, with low head kinematics, which indicated that the seeking to adopt only those and neck injury measures and little lap/shoulder belt restraint limited head amendments that contribute to movement outside the seating, contact with the forward seat back, improved safety, and mindful of the compared to the lap-belted dummies particularly for the 5th percentile adult principles for regulatory decision- and unbelted dummies. female dummies. In contrast, most of making set forth in Executive Orders In the VRTC sled tests of lap/ the average injury measures for the lap 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and shoulder-belted dummies— belt restraint condition were at or above • Review,’’ and 13563, ‘‘Improving Average HIC and Nij values were the IARVs. In the sled tests, lap belts Regulation and Regulatory Review.’’ low for all dummy sizes and below resulted in more injuries than being NHTSA has analyzed the merits of those seen in unbelted and lap-belted unrestrained, while lap/shoulder belts requiring lap belts for passenger seating sled tests. This was consistent with the were the most effective restraint positions as an alternative to lap/ lap/shoulder belt results from the full strategy. We also note that, while in the shoulder belts for those seating scale crash test. • test program we did not measure risk of positions, knowing, however, that the Lap/shoulder belts retained the abdominal injuries, abdominal injuries Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act dummies in their seating positions and have been shown to be a problem with requires lap/shoulder belts on over-the- were able to mitigate head contact with lap belts.153 All this information road buses. NHTSA also considered ECE the seat in front. • overwhelmingly shows that lap/ R.14 anchorage strength requirements as When lap/shoulder-belted dummies shoulder belts would provide more an alternative to FMVSS No. 210 were subject to loading (of their seats) safety benefits to occupants on the requirements. These alternatives are by an aft unbelted dummy, there was affected buses than lap-only belts. addressed below. additional forward excursion of the lap/ There is also a difference between the The Alternative of Lap Belts shoulder-belted dummies, but the restraint systems in terms of estimated resulting average head injury measures The agency examined the alternative belt use rates. In the FRIA, NHTSA were still relatively low in most cases, estimates that the breakeven point for of a lap belt only requirement (as an even with head contact with the seat in alternative to lap/shoulder belts) for lap belt use is 2–3 percent, and for lap/ front in some cases. shoulder belt use the breakeven point is passenger seats in buses. (We note that In the FRIA (see Table V–6 of the 4–5 percent (a difference of 2 percentage the alternative of lap belts is not FRIA) accompanying this final rule, we points). The agency has found that lap/ available under the Motorcoach highlight the average injury shoulder belt usage is 10 percentage Enhanced Safety Act requirement for measurements from two sled tests points higher than lap belt usage in the lap/shoulder belts on over-the-road conducted with lap-belted 5th rear seat of passenger cars. Assuming buses.) We determined that the lap belt percentile adult female and 50th that this relationship would hold for the alternative was not a reasonable percentile adult male dummies. Two covered buses, the information indicates alternative. Lap belts, while effective crash pulses were utilized in these sled that lap/shoulder belts would also be against ejection, would provide only a tests, the VRTC pulse and the EU pulse. more cost effective than lap belts. portion of the benefits of passenger Both tests were conducted with no rear frontal crash protection as lap/shoulder occupants. Table V–6 of the FRIA shows Alternative Anchorage Strength belts. Further, test data also leads the average dummy response in the lap Requirements NHTSA to believe that certain types of belted sled tests. In every instance, the In an earlier section of this preamble, injuries would be far more severe if dummies exceeded the head and neck NHTSA discussed its decision that the passenger seats only were equipped IARVs when the dummies were lap lap/shoulder belt anchorages (and the with lap belts, rather than lap/shoulder belted. seat structure itself) must meet FMVSS belts. In addition, data indicate that In contrast to the lap/shoulder-belted No. 210 requirements. We sought motorists are more inclined to use lap/ dummies, the sled test results for lap comment on the alternative of applying shoulder belts than lap-only belts. These only dummies showed— the requirements of ECE R.14 and ECE points are discussed below. • HIC and Nij measures exceeded the R.80 rather than FMVSS No. 210. Real world data on light vehicles has IARVs for virtually all the dummies As the agency does in all its FMVSS led the agency to require lap/shoulder tested (there was a 50th percentile male rulemaking, in developing this final rule belts rather than lap belts in as many dummy which measured a HIC of 696 NHTSA considered international seating positions in light vehicles as (99 percent of the IARV limit)). practical. Both light vehicle data and • The poor performance of the lap standards for harmonization purposes. sled testing with motorcoach seats show belt restraint in the sled tests was The agency thus reviewed regulations that lap belts are not as effective as lap/ consistent with the lap belt results from issued by Australia and Japan. In shoulder belts in reducing injuries and the full scale motorcoach crash test. Australia, buses with 17 or more seats fatalities, particularly in frontal impacts. In the FRIA (see Figure V–17 of the and with GVWRs greater than or equal to 3,500 kg (7,716 lb) must comply with Our analysis in passenger cars of the FRIA), we compare the average HIC15 effectiveness of lap belts in reducing and Nij values for the 5th percentile ADR 68 (Occupant Protection in Buses). fatalities in frontal impacts was zero, adult female and 50th percentile adult The ADR 68 anchorage test specifies while it was 29 percent for lap/shoulder male dummy sizes in the sled testing 153 Morgan, June 1999, ‘‘Effectiveness of Lap/ belts. program, as a means to compare the Shoulder Belts in the Back Outboard Seating Testing done in NHTSA’s motorcoach relative performance of each restraint Positions,’’ Washington, DC, National Highway test program found that lap/shoulder strategy (unbelted, lap belts, and lap/ Traffic Safety Administration.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 70468 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

simultaneous application of loading are far below that required to generate 7,934 injuries to occupants of covered from the belted occupant, the unbelted the peak seat anchorage loads that buses. We estimate that installing lap/ occupant in the rear (applied to the seat NHTSA measured in its sled tests, shoulder seat belts on new covered back), and the inertial seat loading from which means a seat that minimally buses will save 1.7–9.2 lives and a 20 g crash pulse. We estimate that the meets the ECE required static loads for prevent 146–858 injuries (3.46–25.17 ADR 68 anchorage test would result in M3 vehicles may separate from its floor equivalent lives), depending upon the significantly greater (1.5 times higher) anchorages in a crash, especially in a usage of lap/shoulder belts in the anchorage loads than those measured in severe frontal crash where tri-loading of vehicles (Table 9).154 The cost of adding our sled tests. In addition, the maximum the seat occurs. lap/shoulder belts will be We have also compared ECE R.14 and deceleration in our 48 km/h (30 mph) approximately $2,101 per vehicle. ECR R.80 to FMVSS No. 210 to see if the motorcoach crash test was only 13 g Lifetime fuel costs due to an increased compared to the 20 g specified for ECE regulations offer less costs than FMVSS No. 210. The information from weight of the bus will be an additional inertial seat loading in ADR 68. For cost of $794 to $1,077 (estimated in these reasons, NHTSA decided not to the seat manufacturers indicate that meeting ECE R.14 and R.80 would not Table 10 below). Total costs are further consider ADR 68. NHTSA estimated to range from $6.4 to $8.6 decided against further consideration of necessarily result in cost or weight million for the 2,200 buses sold per year Japan’s regulation because Japan savings. Seat supplier IMMI stated that (all costs are in $2008). The cost per requires lap belts, and as explained its own review determined that meeting above, the agency has concluded that ECE R.14 would result in minor material equivalent life saved is estimated to lap belts are not a reasonable reductions compared to a seat meeting range from $0.3 million to $1.8 million alternative. FMVSS No. 210, resulting in minimal (Table 11). savings per seat assembly. U.S. seat NHTSA has compared ECE R.14 and suppliers C.E. White and IMMI and TABLE 9—ESTIMATED BENEFITS OF ECR R.80 to FMVSS No. 210 to see if the possibly others already have established FINAL RULE ECE regulations offer greater benefits their structural concepts and production than FMVSS No. 210. Our sled and to meet FMVSS No. 210. For these static testing indicated that ECE R.14/ Fatalities ...... 1.7 to 9.2. reasons, we have decided to adopt AIS 1 Injuries (Minor) 89 to 536. ECE R.80 regulations do not provide the FMVSS No. 210 and not the ECE AIS 2–5 (Moderate to 57 to 322. level of seat belt anchorage strength standards. Severe). required for the foreseeable frontal crash XX. Overview of Costs and Benefits Total Non-fatal Inju- 146 to 858. scenario represented by a 48 km/h (30 ries. mph) barrier impact. The static load Based on FARS data 2000–2009, requirements for ECE R.14 and ECE R.80 annually there were 20.9 fatalities and

TABLE 10—ESTIMATED COSTS OF FINAL RULE [in $2008]

Per average Total fleet vehicle ($Millions)

Bus Driver ...... $7.54 $0 .02 Bus Passenger ...... 2,094 4.6 Fuel Costs @ 3% ...... 1,077 2 .4 Fuel Costs @ 7% ...... 794 1.7 New Vehicle and Fuel Costs @ 3% ...... 3,178 7.0 @ 7% ...... 2,895 6.4

TABLE 11—COSTS PER EQUIVALENT LIFE SAVED

Cost per equivalent life saved 3% to 7% discount rate

50% Belt use for drivers and 15% Belt usage for passengers ...... $1.5 to $1.8 mill. 83% Belt usage ...... $0.3 to $0.3 mill. Breakeven point in passenger belt usage ...... 4 to 5%.

TABLE 12—ANNUALIZED COSTS AND BENEFITS [In millions of $2008 dollars]

Annualized Annualized costs benefits Net benefits

3% Discount Rate ...... $7.0 $28.5–158.6 $21.5 to 151.6. 7% Discount Rate ...... 6.4 21.8–121.1 15.4 to 114.7.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 70469

The cost of installing lap/shoulder Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of including the benefits that would be belts on new buses is estimated as 2012, and thus relates to a matter of achieved by the rulemakings, the follows. For the driver, the difference in substantial Congressional and public anticipated vehicle designs and costs between a lap belt only and a lap/ interest. Accordingly, the action was countermeasures needed to comply with shoulder belt at the driver seating reviewed under the Executive Order the regulations, and the extent to which position is approximately $18.86.155 12866. NHTSA has prepared a FRIA for the timing and content of the This cost includes the difference in cost this final rule.157 rulemakings could be coordinated to between a lap and lap/shoulder belt. We estimate that installing lap/ lessen the need for multiple redesign About 60 percent of the driver positions shoulder belts on new covered buses and to lower overall costs. After this currently have lap/shoulder belts, thus will save approximately 1.7 to 9.2 lives examination, we decided on a course of adding a shoulder belt to the driver seat and prevent 146 to 858 injuries per year, action that prioritized the goal of for 40 percent of the large buses will depending on the usage of lap/shoulder reducing passenger ejection and add an average of $7.54 per bus. For the belts in the buses. We estimate that total increasing frontal impact protection passenger seats, the incremental cost of cost of adding lap/shoulder belts, because many benefits could be adding lap/shoulder belts and to change changing the anchorages and reinforcing achieved expeditiously with the seat anchorages for a two passenger the floor is approximately $2,101. The countermeasures that were readily seat is $78.14 ($39.07 per seating agency has also estimated increased available (using bus seats with integral position). On a 54-passenger bus, the costs in fuel usage. The cost per lap/shoulder seat belts, which are cost for the passenger seats is $2,109.78 equivalent life saved is estimated to be × already available from seat suppliers) ($39.07 54). On a 45-passenger bus, $0.3 million to $1.8 million. and whose installation would not The benefits, costs, and other impacts the incremental cost of adding lap/ significantly impact other vehicle of this rulemaking are summarized in shoulder belts and to change the seat designs. Similarly, we have also × the immediately preceding section of anchorages $1,758.15 ($39.07 45). A determined that an ESC rulemaking sales weighted average of those buses this preamble and discussed at length in the FRIA. would present relatively few results in the estimate of $2,094 per synchronization issues with other rules, average covered bus. The agency has Cumulative Effect of Regulations since the vehicles at issue already have also estimated increased costs in fuel Consistent with Executive Order the foundation braking systems needed usage. The increased fuel costs depend for the stability control technology, and on added weight (estimated to be 73 kg 13563 and the Vehicle Safety Act, we the additional equipment to realize ESC (161 lb) 156) and the discount rate used. have considered the cumulative effects are sensors that are already available NHTSA estimates the increased costs in of the new regulations stemming from and that can be installed without fuel usage for added weight and NHTSA’s 2007 ‘‘NHTSA’s Approach to significant impact on other vehicle discounts the additional fuel used over Motorcoach Safety’’ plan and DOT’s systems. Further, we estimate that 80 the lifetime of the bus using a 3 percent 2009 Motorcoach Safety Action Plan, percent of the affected buses already and 7 percent discount rate. See the and have taken steps to identify have ESC systems. We realize that a FRIA for more details. opportunities to harmonize and streamline those regulations. By rollover structural integrity rulemaking, XXI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices coordinating the timing and content of or an emergency egress rulemaking, Executive Order 12866, Executive Order the rulemakings, our goal is to could involve more redesign of vehicle expeditiously maximize the net benefits structure than rules involving systems 13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and 160 Procedures of the regulations (by either increasing such as seat belts, ESC, or tires. Our benefits or reducing costs or a decision-making in these and all the The agency has considered the impact combination of the two) while rulemakings outlined in the ‘‘NHTSA’s of this rulemaking action under simplifying requirements on the public Approach to Motorcoach Safety’’ plan, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and and ensuring that the requirements are DOT’s Motorcoach Safety Action Plan, the Department of Transportation’s justified. We seek to ensure that this and the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety regulatory policies and procedures (44 coordination will also simplify the Plan will be cognizant of the timing and FR 11034; February 26, 1979) and implementation of multiple content of the actions so as to simplify determined that it is economically requirements on a single industry. requirements applicable to the public ‘‘significant’’ under those documents. NHTSA’s Motorcoach Safety Action and private sectors, ensure that This final rule also satisfies a Plan identified four priority areas— requirements are justified, and increase Congressional mandate set forth in the passenger ejection, rollover structural the net benefits of the resulting safety integrity, emergency egress, and fire standards. 154 The FRIA assumes that the seat belt use rate on the affected buses will be between 15 percent safety. There have been other initiatives Section 32706 of the Motorcoach and the percent use in passenger vehicles, which on large bus performance, such as Enhanced Safety Act directs the was 83 percent in 2008. These annual benefits electronic stability control (ESC) Secretary to consider, if DOT undertakes would accrue when all affected buses in the fleet 158 systems —an action included in the separate rulemaking proceedings, have lap/shoulder belts. DOT plan—and an initiative to update 155 ‘‘Cost and Weight Added by the Federal Motor whether each added aspect of 159 Vehicle Safety Standards for Model Years 1968– the large bus tire standard. In rulemaking may contribute to 2001 in Passenger Cars and Light Trucks,’’ deciding how best to initiate and addressing the safety need determined December 2004, DOT HS 809 834, Pages 81 and 88. coordinate rulemaking in these areas, to require rulemaking and the benefits 156 See FRIA. This estimate is based on results NHTSA examined various factors from a NHTSA contractor conducting cost/weight obtained through this safety belt teardown studies of affected bus seats. The weight rulemaking, and to avoid duplicative added by lap/shoulder belts was 2.70 kg (5.96 lb) 157 NHTSA’s FRIA is available in the docket for benefits, costs, and countermeasures. this final rule and may be obtained by downloading per 2-person seat. This is the weight only of the seat NHTSA has and will consider these belt assembly itself and does not include changing it or by contacting Docket Management at the the design of the seat, reinforcing the floor, walls address or telephone number provided at the or other areas of the bus. The final cost and weight beginning of this document. 160 The initiative on fire safety is in a research results from the study are in the docket for the 158 77 FR 30766, May 23, 2012. phase. Rulemaking resulting from the research will NPRM. 159 75 FR 60037; September 29, 2010. not occur in the near term.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 70470 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

factors so as to avoid duplicative In addition, certifying that their buses tests, without testing a full vehicle. The benefits, costs, and countermeasures. comply with the safety requirements manufacturer could also test a bus that adopted today will not have a is not completely new. A manufacturer Regulatory Flexibility Act significant economic impact on the could test seating systems installed on Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility manufacturers. Small manufacturers are an old bus chassis or other underlying Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by already certifying their bus’s structure, and could sufficiently assess the Small Business Regulatory compliance with FMVSS No. 207’s seat the ability of the seating system to meet Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of strength requirements (driver’s seat), today’s requirements. 1996), whenever an agency is required FMVSS No. 208’s occupant crash Moreover, a small manufacturer is not to publish a notice of rulemaking for protection requirements applying to the required to conduct actual testing. It can any proposed or final rule, it must driver’s seating position, and the certify compliance by using modeling prepare and make available for public FMVSS No. 210 seat belt anchorage and engineering analyses. Unlike comment a regulatory flexibility strength requirements for the driver’s NHTSA, manufacturers certifying analysis that describes the effect of the seating position. The methodology that compliance of their own vehicles have rule on small entities (i.e., small is used to certify to today’s requirements more detailed information regarding businesses, small organizations, and is a relatively simple static pull test, the their own vehicles and can use small governmental jurisdictions). The same or similar to the tests currently reasonable engineering analyses to Small Business Administration’s applying to small manufacturers to determine whether their vehicles will regulations at 13 CFR Part 121 define a certify compliance with FMVSS Nos. comply with the requirements. A small small business, in part, as a business 207, 208 and 210 for the driver’s seating manufacturer is closely familiar with its entity ‘‘which operates primarily within position. vehicle design and can use modeling the United States.’’ (13 CFR 121.105(a)). Small manufacturers have many and relevant analyses on a vehicle-by- No regulatory flexibility analysis is options available to certify compliance, vehicle basis to reasonably predict required if the head of an agency none of which will result in a whether its bus design will meet the certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on these requirements of today’s rule. significant economic impact on a entities. Bus manufacturers typically We also note that the product cycle of substantial number of small entities. obtain seating systems from seat the covered buses is significantly longer The SBREFA amended the Regulatory suppliers and install the seats on the than other vehicle types. With a longer Flexibility Act to require Federal bus body. Seat suppliers currently offer product cycle, we believe that the costs agencies to provide a statement of the bus seats with lap/shoulder belts of certification for manufacturers would factual basis for certifying that a rule integral to the seats. As a result of this be further reduced as the costs of will not have a significant economic final rule, the bus manufacturers will be conducting compliance testing and the impact on a substantial number of small able to order passenger seats with lap/ relevant analyses could be spread over entities. shoulder belts from the same suppliers, a significantly longer period of time. NHTSA has considered the effects of We note that today’s rule may affect just as they do today. Seat suppliers this rulemaking action under the small businesses as purchasers of the (which are large businesses) offer Regulatory Flexibility Act. According to affected buses, but this is an indirect technical assistance to the bus 13 CFR 121.201, the Small Business effect. Moreover, as mentioned above, manufacturer regarding installation of Administration’s size standards we anticipate that the impact on these the seats and testing to the FMVSSs.161 regulations used to define small businesses will not be significant The small bus manufacturer can certify business concerns, manufacturers because the expected price increase of compliance with the requirements affected today would fall under North the buses used by these businesses is adopted today using the information American Industry Classification ($2,101 for each bus valued between and instruction provided by the seat System (NAICS) No. 336111, $200,000 and $500,000). While fuel supplier. (Note also that the Automobile Manufacturing, which has a costs for these businesses will increase performance requirements of today’s size standard of 1,000 employees or between $794 and $1,077 (in 2008 final rule involve a simple static pull fewer. NHTSA estimates that there are dollars) per bus over the lifetime of the test.) 20 manufacturers of buses subject to this bus, these expected increases in costs For small bus manufacturers that wish rulemaking, and that approximately 9 of are small in comparison to the cost of to perform their own testing, there are these manufacturers are considered each vehicle. We further anticipate that several options available. One option is small businesses (these include second- these costs will equally affect all to ‘‘section’’ the vehicle or otherwise stage manufacturers). operators of the covered buses and thus obtain a body section representative of For the reasons discussed below, I small operators will be able to pass the vehicle, install the seat in the certify that this final rule will not have these costs onto their consumers. a significant economic impact on a section as they would in the actual full substantial number of small entities. vehicle, and test the seat assembly to the Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) The agency estimates that the average FMVSS No. 210 pull test. This is NHTSA has examined today’s final incremental costs to each bus will be basically the approach that VRTC used rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 $2,101 per unit to meet this final rule. in NHTSA’s motorcoach seat belt (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and This incremental cost does not research program. The bus manufacturer concluded that no additional constitute a significant impact given could base its certification on these consultation with States, local that the average cost of the buses subject governments or their representatives is 161 See http://www.cewhite.com/testing-lab (‘‘The to this rulemaking ranges from $200,000 entire testing program is FREE for our customers’’), mandated beyond the rulemaking to $500,000. Further, these incremental see also http://www.freedmanseating.com/fstl/) process. The agency has concluded that costs, which are very small compared to (‘‘We Provide . . . FMVSS/CMVSS 207, 210, and the rulemaking will not have sufficient the overall cost of the bus, can 225 Testing . . . Special Tests Performed Per federalism implications to warrant Client’s Specifications’’) [Web sites last accessed ultimately be passed on to the bus February 1, 2012]. IMMI indicated in its comments consultation with State and local purchaser and/or persons purchasing that it also assists in the testing of buses using its officials or the preparation of a tickets or chartering the bus’s services. seats. federalism summary impact statement.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 70471

The final rule will not have ‘‘substantial whether this final rule could or should Executive Order 12988 direct effects on the States, on the preempt State common law causes of With respect to the review of the relationship between the national action. The agency’s ability to announce promulgation of a new regulation, government and the States, or on the its conclusion regarding the preemptive section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, distribution of power and effect of one of its rules reduces the ‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, responsibilities among the various likelihood that preemption will be an February 7, 1996) requires that levels of government.’’ issue in any subsequent tort litigation. Executive agencies make every NHTSA rules can preempt in two To this end, the agency has examined reasonable effort to ensure that the ways. First, the National Traffic and the nature (e.g., the language and regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an structure of the regulatory text) and preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies express preemption provision: When a objectives of today’s final rule and finds the effect on existing Federal law or motor vehicle safety standard is in effect that this final rule, like many NHTSA regulation; (3) provides a clear legal under this chapter, a State or a political rules, will prescribe only a minimum standard for affected conduct, while subdivision of a State may prescribe or safety standard. As such, NHTSA does promoting simplification and burden continue in effect a standard applicable not intend that this final rule preempt reduction; (4) clearly specifies the to the same aspect of performance of a state tort law that would effectively retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately motor vehicle or motor vehicle impose a higher standard on motor defines key terms; and (6) addresses equipment only if the standard is vehicle manufacturers than that other important issues affecting clarity identical to the standard prescribed established by today’s final rule. and general draftsmanship under any under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. Establishment of a higher standard by guidelines issued by the Attorney 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command means of State tort law will not conflict General. This document is consistent by Congress that preempts any non- with the minimum standard final here. with that requirement. identical State legislative and Without any conflict, there could not be Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes administrative law addressing the same any implied preemption of a State as follows. aspect of performance. common law tort cause of action. The issue of preemption is discussed The express preemption provision above in connection with E.O. 13132. described above is subject to a savings National Environmental Policy Act NHTSA notes further that there is no clause under which ‘‘[c]ompliance with NHTSA has analyzed this final rule requirement that individuals submit a a motor vehicle safety standard petition for reconsideration or pursue prescribed under this chapter does not for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency other administrative proceeding before exempt a person from liability at they may file suit in court. common law.’’ 49 U.S.C. 30103(e) has determined that implementation of Pursuant to this provision, State this action will not have any significant Unfunded Mandates Reform Act impact on the quality of the human common law tort causes of action The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act environment. against motor vehicle manufacturers of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a that might otherwise be preempted by Paperwork Reduction Act written assessment of the costs, benefits the express preemption provision are and other effects of proposed or final Under the procedures established by generally preserved. However, the rules that include a Federal mandate the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a Supreme Court has recognized the likely to result in the expenditure by possibility, in some instances, of person is not required to respond to a State, local or tribal governments, in the implied preemption of such State collection of information by a Federal aggregate, or by the private sector, of common law tort causes of action by agency unless the collection displays a more than $100 million annually virtue of NHTSA’s rules, even if not valid OMB control number. This (adjusted for inflation with base year of expressly preempted. This second way rulemaking does not establish any new 1995). This final rule will not result in that NHTSA rules can preempt is information collection requirements. expenditures by State, local or tribal dependent upon there being an actual National Technology Transfer and governments, in the aggregate, or by the conflict between an FMVSS and the Advancement Act private sector in excess of $100 million higher standard that would effectively annually. be imposed on motor vehicle Under the National Technology manufacturers if someone obtained a Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 Executive Order 13211 State common law tort judgment against (NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104–113), ‘‘all Federal Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, the manufacturer, notwithstanding the agencies and departments shall use May 18, 2001) applies to any manufacturer’s compliance with the technical standards that are developed rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA or adopted by voluntary consensus economically significant as defined standards established by an FMVSS are standards bodies, using such technical under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have minimum standards, a State common standards as a means to carry out policy a significantly adverse effect on the law tort cause of action that seeks to objectives or activities determined by supply of, distribution of, or use of impose a higher standard on motor the agencies and departments.’’ After energy; or (2) that is designated by the vehicle manufacturers will generally not carefully reviewing the available Administrator of the Office of be preempted. However, if and when information, including standards from Information and Regulatory Affairs as a such a conflict does exist—for example, the European Union, Australia and significant energy action. This when the standard at issue is both a Japan, NHTSA has determined that rulemaking is not subject to E.O. 13211. minimum and a maximum standard— there are no voluntary consensus the State common law tort cause of standards that we will be incorporating Plain Language action is impliedly preempted. See into this rulemaking. The reasons the Executive Order 12866 and E.O. Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 agency has decided against adopting the 13563 require regulations to be written U.S. 861 (2000). international regulations regarding the in a manner that is simple and easy to Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 performance of seat belt anchorages understand. Application of the and 12988, NHTSA has considered were discussed earlier in this preamble. principles of plain language includes

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 70472 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

consideration of the following § 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant and S7.2 of this standard. If a Type 2 questions: crash protection. seat belt assembly installed in • Have we organized the material to * * * * * compliance with this requirement suit the public’s needs? S4.4 Buses manufactured on or after incorporates a webbing tension relieving • Are the requirements in the rule November 28, 2016. device, the vehicle owner’s manual clearly stated? S4.4.1 Definitions. For purposes of shall include the information specified • Does the rule contain technical S4.4, the following definitions apply: in S7.4.2(b) of this standard for the language or jargon that isn’t clear? Over-the-road bus means a bus tension relieving device, and the vehicle • Would a different format (grouping characterized by an elevated passenger shall conform to S7.4.2(c) of this and order of sections, use of headings, deck located over a baggage standard. Side-facing designated seating paragraphing) make the rule easier to compartment, except a school bus. positions shall be equipped, at the understand? Perimeter-seating bus means a bus manufacturer’s option, with a Type 1 or • Would more (but shorter) sections with 7 or fewer designated seating Type 2 seat belt assembly. be better? positions rearward of the driver’s S4.4.3.1.1 Any rear designated • Could we improve clarity by adding seating position that are forward-facing seating position with a seat that can be tables, lists, or diagrams? or can convert to forward-facing without • adjusted to be forward- or rear-facing What else could we do to make the the use of tools and is not an over-the- and to face some other direction shall rule easier to understand? road bus. either: If you have any responses to these Prison bus means a bus manufactured (a) Meet the requirements of S4.4.3.1 questions, please write us. for the purpose of transporting persons with the seat in any position in which Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) subject to involuntary restraint or it can be occupied while the vehicle is confinement and has design features in motion, or meet S4.4.3.1.1(b)(1) and The Department of Transportation consistent with that purpose. S4.4.3.1.1(b)(2). assigns a regulation identifier number Stop-request system means a vehicle- (b)(1) When the seat is in its forward- (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in integrated system for passenger use to facing and/or rear-facing position, or the Unified Agenda of Federal signal to a vehicle operator that they are within ±30 degrees of either position, Regulations. The Regulatory Information requesting a stop. have a Type 2 seat belt assembly with Service Center publishes the Unified Transit bus means a bus that is an upper torso restraint that Agenda in April and October of each equipped with a stop-request system (i) Conforms to S7.1 and S7.2 of this year. You may use the RIN contained in sold for public transportation provided standard, the heading at the beginning of this by, or on behalf of, a State or local (ii) Adjusts by means of an emergency document to find this action in the government and that is not an over-the- locking retractor conforming to Unified Agenda. road bus. Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209), and Privacy Act S4.4.2 Buses with a GVWR of 3,855 (iii) May be detachable at the buckle kg (8,500 lb) or less and an unloaded or upper anchorage, but not both. Anyone is able to search the vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5,500 lb) or (2) When the seat is in any position electronic form of all submissions to any less. in which it can be occupied while the of our dockets by the name of the S4.4.2.1 Each bus with a GVWR of vehicle is in motion, have a Type 1 seat individual submitting the comment (or 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) or less and an belt or the pelvic portion of a Type 2 signing the comment, if submitted on unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg seat belt assembly that conforms to S7.1 behalf of an association, business, labor (5,500 lb) or less, except a school bus, and S7.2 of this standard. union, etc.). You may review DOT’s shall comply with the requirements of S4.4.3.1.2 Any rear designated complete Privacy Act Statement in the S4.2.6 of this standard for front seating seating position on a readily removable Federal Register published on April 11, positions and with the requirements of seat (that is, a seat designed to be easily 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages S4.4.3.1 of this standard for all rear removed and replaced by means 19477–78). seating positions. installed by the manufacturer for that List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 S4.4.2.2 Each school bus with a purpose) may meet the requirements of GVWR of 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) or less and S4.4.3.1 by use of a belt incorporating a Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg release mechanism that detaches both vehicles, and Tires. (5,500 lb) or less shall comply with the the lap and shoulder portion at either In consideration of the foregoing, requirements of S4.2.6 of this standard the upper or lower anchorage point, but NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as set for front seating positions and with the not both. The means of detachment forth below. requirements of S4.4.3.2 of this standard shall be a key or key-like object. for all rear seating positions. S4.4.3.1.3 Any inboard designated PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR S4.4.3 Buses with a GVWR of 4,536 seating position on a seat for which the VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS kg (10,000 lb) or less. entire seat back can be folded such that S4.4.3.1 Except as provided in no part of the seat back extends above ■ 1. The authority citation for Part 571 S4.4.3.1.1, S4.4.3.1.2, S4.4.3.1.3, a horizontal plane located 250 mm is amended to read as follows: S4.4.3.1.4 and S4.4.3.1.5, each bus with above the highest SRP located on the Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg seat may meet the requirements of 30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at (10,000 lb) or less, except a school bus S4.4.3.1 by use of a belt incorporating a 49 CFR 1.95. or an over-the-road bus, shall be release mechanism that detaches both ■ 2. Section 571.208 is amended by equipped with a Type 2 seat belt the lap and shoulder portion at either revising S4.4, S4.5.5.1(a) and assembly at every designated seating the upper or lower anchorage point, but S4.5.5.1(b), the introductory text of position other than a side-facing not both. The means of detachment S4.5.5.2(a), the introductory text of position. Type 2 seat belt assemblies shall be a key or key-like object. S4.5.5.2(b), and the introductory text of installed in compliance with this S4.4.3.1.4 Any rear designated S7.1.1.5; and adding S7.1.6, to read as requirement shall conform to Standard seating position adjacent to a walkway follows: No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209) and with S7.1 located between the seat, which

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 70473

walkway is designed to allow access to greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), the belt assembly shall be at least 3⁄4; more rearward designated seating except a school bus or an over-the-road inch but less than 3 inches. positions, and not adjacent to the side bus, shall meet the requirements of S4.4.4.2 Each school bus with a of the vehicle may meet the S4.4.4.1.1 or S4.4.4.1.2. GVWR of more than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) requirements of S4.4.3.1 by use of a belt S4.4.4.1.1 First option—complete but not greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 incorporating a release mechanism that passenger protection system—driver lb) shall be equipped with a Type 2 seat detaches both the lap and shoulder only. The vehicle shall meet the crash belt assembly at the driver’s designated portion at either the upper or lower protection requirements of S5, with seating position. The seat belt assembly anchorage point, but not both. The respect to an anthropomorphic test shall comply with Standard No. 209 (49 means of detachment shall be a key or dummy in the driver’s designated CFR 571.209) and with S7.1 and S7.2 of key-like object. seating position, by means that require this standard. If a seat belt assembly S4.4.3.1.5 Any rear side-facing no action by vehicle occupants. installed in compliance with this designated seating position shall be S4.4.4.1.2 Second option—belt requirement includes an automatic equipped with a Type 1 or Type 2 seat system—driver only. The vehicle shall, locking retractor for the lap belt portion, belt assembly that conforms to S7.1 and at the driver’s designated seating that seat belt assembly shall comply S7.2 of this standard. position, be equipped with either a with paragraphs (a) through (c) of S4.4.3.2 Each school bus with a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly S4.4.4.1.2 of this standard. If a seat belt gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg that conforms to § 571.209 of this part assembly installed in compliance with (10,000 pounds) or less shall comply and S7.2 of this Standard. A Type 1 belt this requirement incorporates any with the requirements of S4.4.3.2.1 and assembly or the pelvic portion of a dual webbing tension-relieving device, the S4.4.3.2.2. retractor Type 2 belt assembly installed vehicle owner’s manual shall include S4.4.3.2.1 The driver’s designated at the driver’s seating position shall the information specified in S7.4.2(b) of seating position and any outboard include either an emergency locking this standard for the tension-relieving designated seating position not rearward retractor or an automatic locking device, and the vehicle shall comply of the driver’s seating position shall be retractor. If a seat belt assembly with S7.4.2(c) of this standard. equipped with a Type 2 seat belt installed at the driver’s seating position S4.4.4.3 Each over-the-road-bus with assembly. The seat belt assembly shall includes an automatic locking retractor comply with Standard No. 209 (49 CFR a GVWR of more than 4,536 kg (10,000 for the lap belt or the lap belt portion, lb) but not greater than 11,793 kg 571.209) and with S7.1 and S7.2 of this that seat belt assembly shall comply standard. The lap belt portion of the seat (26,000 lb) shall meet the requirements with the following: of S4.4.5.1 (as specified for buses with belt assembly shall include either an (a) An automatic locking retractor emergency locking retractor or an a GVWR or more than 11,793 kg (26,000 used at a driver’s seating position that lb)). automatic locking retractor. An has some type of suspension system for automatic locking retractor shall not S4.4.5 Buses with a GVWR of more the seat shall be attached to the seat than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). retract webbing to the next locking structure that moves as the suspension S4.4.5.1 Each bus with a GVWR of position until at least 3⁄4; inch of system functions. more than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), except webbing has moved into the retractor. In (b) The lap belt or lap belt portion of a perimeter-seating bus, transit bus, or determining whether an automatic a seat belt assembly equipped with an school bus, shall comply with the locking retractor complies with this automatic locking retractor that is requirements of S4.4.5.1.1 and requirement, the webbing is extended to installed at the driver’s seating position S4.4.5.1.2. 75 percent of its length and the retractor must allow at least 3⁄4; inch, but less is locked after the initial adjustment. If than 3 inches, of webbing movement S4.4.5.1.1 The driver’s designated the seat belt assembly installed in before retracting webbing to the next seating position and any outboard compliance with this requirement locking position. designated seating position not rearward incorporates any webbing tension- (c) Compliance with S4.4.4.2.1(b) of of the driver’s seating position shall be relieving device, the vehicle owner’s this standard is determined as follows: equipped with a Type 2 seat belt manual shall include the information (1) The seat belt assembly is buckled assembly. The seat belt assembly shall specified in S7.4.2(b) of this standard and the retractor end of the seat belt comply with Standard No. 209 (49 CFR for the tension-relieving device, and the assembly is anchored to a horizontal 571.209) and with S7.1 and S7.2 of this vehicle shall comply with S7.4.2(c) of surface. The webbing for the lap belt or standard. If a seat belt assembly this standard. lap belt portion of the seat belt assembly installed in compliance with this S4.4.3.2.2 Passenger seating is extended to 75 percent of its length requirement includes an automatic positions, other than any outboard and the retractor is locked after the locking retractor for the lap belt portion, designated seating position not rearward initial adjustment. that seat belt assembly shall comply of the driver’s seating position, shall be (2) A load of 20 pounds is applied to with paragraphs (a) through (c) of equipped with Type 2 seat belt the free end of the lap belt or the lap belt S4.4.4.1.2 of this standard. If a seat belt assemblies that comply with the portion of the belt assembly (i.e., the assembly installed in compliance with requirements of S7.1.1.5, S7.1.5 and end that is not anchored to the this requirement incorporates any S7.2 of this standard. horizontal surface) in the direction away webbing tension-relieving device, the S4.4.3.3 Each over-the-road-bus with from the retractor. The position of the vehicle owner’s manual shall include a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less free end of the belt assembly is the information specified in S7.4.2(b) of shall meet the requirements of S4.4.5.1 recorded. this standard for the tension-relieving (as specified for buses with a GVWR or (3) Within a 30 second period, the 20 device, and the vehicle shall comply more than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)). pound load is slowly decreased, until with S7.4.2(c) of this standard. S4.4.4 Buses with a GVWR of more the retractor moves to the next locking S4.4.5.1.2 Passenger seating than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) but not greater position. The position of the free end of positions, other than any outboard than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). the belt assembly is recorded again. designated seating position not rearward S4.4.4.1 Each bus with a GVWR of (4) The difference between the two of the driver’s seating position and more than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) but not positions recorded for the free end of seating positions on prison buses

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 70474 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

rearward of the driver’s seating position, (b) A manufacturer that sells two or manufactured on or after November 28, shall: fewer carlines, as that term is defined at 2016. The lap belt of any seat belt (a) Other than for over-the-road buses: 49 CFR 583.4, in the United States may, assembly on any passenger seat in each (i) Be equipped with a Type 2 seat at the option of the manufacturer, meet bus with a GVWR of more than 11,793 belt assembly at any seating position the requirements of this paragraph, kg (26,000 lb), except a perimeter- that is not a side-facing position; instead of paragraph (a) of this section. seating bus, prison bus, school bus, or (ii) Be equipped with a Type 1 or Each vehicle manufactured on or after transit bus, shall adjust by means of any Type 2 seat belt assembly at any seating September 1, 2006, and before emergency-locking retractor that position that is a side-facing position; September 1, 2007, shall meet the conforms to 49 CFR 571.209 to fit (c) For over-the-road buses, be requirements specified in S4.1.5.5 for persons whose dimensions range from equipped with a Type 2 seat belt complying passenger cars, S4.2.7 for those of a 50th percentile 6-year-old assembly; complying trucks & multipurpose child to those of a 95th percentile adult (d) Have the seat belt assembly passenger vehicles, and S4.4.3.1 for male and the upper torso restraint shall attached to the seat structure at any complying buses. Credits for vehicles adjust by means of an emergency- seating position that has another seating manufactured before September 1, 2006 locking retractor that conforms to 49 position, wheelchair position, or side are not to be applied to the requirements CFR 571.209 to fit persons whose emergency door behind it; and (e) Comply with the requirements of of this paragraph. dimensions range from those of a 5th S7.1.1.5, S7.1.3, S7.1.6 and S7.2 of this * * * * * percentile adult female to those of a standard. S4.5.5.2 Phase-in schedule. 95th percentile adult male, with the seat S4.4.5.2 Each perimeter-seating bus (a) Vehicles manufactured on or after in any position, the seat back in the and transit bus with a GVWR of more September 1, 2005, and before manufacturer’s nominal design riding than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) shall meet the September 1, 2006. Subject to position, and any adjustable anchorages requirements of S4.4.4.1.1 or S4.4.4.1.2 S4.5.5.3(a), for vehicles manufactured adjusted to the manufacturer’s nominal (as specified for buses with a GVWR of on or after September 1, 2005, and design position for a 50th percentile more than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) but not before September 1, 2006, the amount of adult male occupant. greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)). vehicles complying with S4.1.5.5 for * * * * * S4.4.5.3 Each school bus with a complying passenger cars, S4.2.7 for ■ 3. Section 571.222 is amended by: GVWR of more than 11,793 kg (26,000 complying trucks and multipurpose ■ a. Revising S5(a)(2)(i); lb) shall be equipped with a Type 2 seat passenger vehicles, or S4.4.3.1 for ■ b. Removing and reserving S5(b)(1)(ii); belt assembly at the driver’s designated complying buses shall be not less than and seating position. The seat belt assembly 50 percent of: ■ shall comply with Standard No. 209 (49 *** c. Revising S5(b)(1)(iii). CFR 571.209) and with S7.1 and S7.2 of (b) Vehicles manufactured on or after The revisions read as follows: this standard. If a seat belt assembly September 1, 2006, and before September 1, 2007. Subject to § 571.222 Standard No. 222; School bus installed in compliance with this passenger seating and crash protection. requirement includes an automatic S4.5.5.3(b), for vehicles manufactured * * * * * locking retractor for the lap belt portion, on or after September 1, 2006, and that seat belt assembly shall comply before September 1, 2007, the amount of S5. Requirements. with paragraphs (a) through (c) of vehicles complying with S4.1.5.5 for * * * * * S4.4.4.1.2 of this standard. If a seat belt complying passenger cars, S4.2.7 for (a) Large school buses. assembly installed in compliance with complying trucks and multipurpose *** this requirement incorporates any passenger vehicles, or S4.4.3.1 for (2) * * * complying buses shall be not less than webbing tension-relieving device, the (i) S4.4.3.2 of Standard No. 208 (49 80 percent of: vehicle owner’s manual shall include CFR 571.208); the information specified in S7.4.2(b) of * * * * * this standard for the tension-relieving S7.1.1.5 Passenger cars, and trucks, * * * * * device, and the vehicle shall comply buses, and multipurpose passenger (b) Small school buses. *** with S7.4.2(c) of this standard. vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (1) * * * * * (10,000 lb) or less manufactured on or (iii) In the case of vehicles S4.5.5.1 Vehicles manufactured on after September 1, 1995 and buses with manufactured on or after October 21, or after September 1, 2005 and before a GVWR of more than 11,793 kg (26,000 2011 the requirements of S4.4.3.2 of September 1, 2007. pounds) manufactured on or after § 571.208 and the requirements of (a) For vehicles manufactured for sale November 28, 2016, except a perimeter- §§ 571.207, 571.209 and 571.210 as they in the United States on or after seating bus, prison bus, school bus, or apply to school buses with a gross September 1, 2005, and before transit bus, shall meet the requirements vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg or less; September 1, 2007, a percentage of the of S7.1.1.5(a), S7.1.1.5(b) and and, manufacturer’s production as specified S7.1.1.5(c). * * * * * in S4.5.5.2, shall meet the requirements *** specified in either S4.1.5.5 for S7.1.6 Passenger seats, other than Dated: November 19, 2013. complying passenger cars, S4.2.7 for any outboard designated seating David L. Strickland, complying trucks and multipurpose position not rearward of the driver’s Administrator. passenger vehicles, or S4.4.3.1 for seating position, in buses with a GVWR [FR Doc. 2013–28211 Filed 11–20–13; 4:15 pm] complying buses. of more than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Nov 22, 2013 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\25NOR2.SGM 25NOR2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES