Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

Federal RegisterNov 25, 2013

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0121]

RIN 2127-AK56

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

AGENCY:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

Completing the first initiative of NHTSA's 2007 “NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach Safety” plan and one of the principal undertakings of DOT's 2009 Motorcoach Safety Action Plan, and fulfilling a statutory mandate of the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of 2012, incorporated into the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, this final rule amends the Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) on occupant crash protection to require lap/shoulder seat belts for each passenger seating position in all new over-the-road buses, and in new buses other than over-the-road buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 11,793 kilograms (kg) (26,000 pounds (lb), with certain exclusions. By requiring the passenger lap/shoulder seat belts, this final rule significantly reduces the risk of fatality and serious injury in frontal crashes and the risk of occupant ejection in rollovers, thus considerably enhancing the safety of these vehicles.

DATES:

The effective date of this final rule is November 28, 2016. Optional early compliance is permitted.

Petitions for reconsideration:

Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must be received not later than January 9, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer to the docket and notice number set forth above and be submitted to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For non-legal issues, you may contact Lawrence Valvo or Louis Molino, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards, telephone 202-366-1740, fax 202-493-2739. For legal issues: Deirdre Fujita, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, telephone 202-366-2992, fax 202-366-3820. The mailing address for these officials is: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Completing the first initiative of NHTSA's 2007 “NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach Safety” plan and one of the principal undertakings of DOT's 2009 Motorcoach Safety Action Plan, and fulfilling a statutory mandate of the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of 2012, incorporated into the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, this final rule amends the Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) on occupant crash protection to require lap/shoulder seat belts for each passenger seating position in: (a) All new over-the-road buses; and (b) in new buses other than over-the-road buses, with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 11,793 kilograms (kg) (26,000 pounds (lb)).

The notice of proposed rulemaking preceding this final rule called buses with GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) “motorcoaches.” Although transportation by these buses overall is a safe form of transportation in the U.S., several bus crashes in recent years have illustrated that crashes of these vehicles can cause a significant number of fatal or serious injuries in a single event, due in part to the high occupancy rate of the vehicles, the speed at which they travel, and occupant ejection in rollovers. NHTSA's safety research on seat belts in large buses (greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) GVWR) completed in 2009, shows that the installation of lap/shoulder belts on the vehicles is practicable and effective and could reduce the risk of fatal injuries in rollover crashes by 77 percent, primarily by preventing occupant ejection. Lap/shoulder belts are also highly effective in preventing fatalities and serious injuries in frontal crashes, and will enhance protection in side crashes in the affected buses. By requiring passenger lap/shoulder seat belts on (a) new over-the-road buses, and (b) new buses, other than over the road buses, with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), this final rule significantly reduces the risk of fatality and serious injury in frontal crashes and the risk of occupant ejection in rollovers, thus considerably enhancing the safety of these vehicles.

Some buses are excluded from this latter category, such as transit and school buses.

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary

II. NHTSA's Statutory Authority

a. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act

b. Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of 2012

c. Agency Views

III. Background

a. The Agency's 2007 “NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach Safety” Plan

b. DOT's 2009 Task Force Action Plan

c. NTSB Recommendations

d. Congressional Mandate

IV. Safety Need

a. Introduction

b. FARS Data

c. Updated FARS Data

V. Summary of the NPRM

VI. Overview of the Comments

VII. Differences Between the Final Rule and the NPRM

VIII. Motorcoach Definition

a. GVWR

1. Response to Comments On Looking Like A Traditional Motorcoach

2. On Lowering the GVWR Criterion

b. Sixteen Designated Seating Positions

c. At Least 2 Rows of Forward-Facing Seats Rearward of the Driver's Seat

d. Treatment of Various Bus Types and Configurations Under the Final Rule

1. Shuttle Buses

2. Trolley and Double-Decker Sightseeing Buses

3. Limousine and Entertainment Buses, Buses With Multiple Wheelchair Positions

4. Military Ambulances

5. Prison Buses

e. Transit Buses

f. School Buses

g. Agency Observations

IX. Requiring Seat Belts at Passenger Seating Positions

X. Type of Belt System on Forward-Facing Seats

XI. Integrated Anchorages

XII. Seat Belt Adjustment, Fit, Lockability, and Other Requirements

XIII. Passenger Seats That Are Not Forward-Facing

XIV. Driver's Seat

XV. Seat Belt Signage and Other Reminders

XVI. Strength Requirements

XVII. Lead Time

XVIII. On Retrofitting Used Buses

XIX. Regulatory Alternatives

XX. Overview of Costs and Benefits

XXI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Executive Summary

One of the guiding principles NHTSA considers in determining the priorities of our rulemaking projects is to protect the public against unreasonable risk of death or injury in high-occupancy vehicles. In 2007, NHTSA published a comprehensive plan to research improvements to bus safety, entitled, “NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach Safety.”

In the plan, the term “motorcoach” referred to intercity transport buses. This plan was developed in direct response to several National Transportation Safety Board

(NTSB) recommendations and also to address several crashes that occurred since the recommendations were issued. NHTSA's plan identified as our highest priorities four specific areas where we can most effectively address open NTSB recommendations in the near-term, and also improve the safety of the buses most expeditiously. The four priority areas were: (1) Passenger ejection; (2) rollover structural integrity; (3) emergency egress; and (4) fire safety.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2007-28793-0001

. See Docket No. NHTSA-2007-28793.

In 2009, DOT issued a Departmental Motorcoach Safety Action Plan, which is described later in this preamble. Today's final rule completes one of the principal rulemakings included in the DOT plan to enhance motorcoach safety.

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/documents/safety-security/MotorcoachSafetyActionPlan_finalreport-508.pdf

This final rule addresses the first priority area of the NHTSA plan, to minimize intercity bus passenger and driver ejection by requiring the installation of seat belts for all occupants of: (a) New over-the-road buses;

and (b) new buses, other than over-the-road buses, with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb).

The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) preceding this final rule, published on August 18, 2010 (75 FR 50958), proposed to call buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) “motorcoaches,” and proposed to apply seat belt requirements to those vehicles.

An over-the-road bus is a bus characterized by an elevated passenger deck located over a baggage compartment. See section 3038(a)(3) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, cited in section 32702(6) of Subtitle G, the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, of MAP-21.

Certain bus types are excepted.

This final rule fulfills a statutory mandate on motorcoach safety set forth in the “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act” (MAP-21), On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed MAP-21, which incorporated the “Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of 2012” (Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act) in Subtitle G. Among other matters, the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act requires DOT to “prescribe regulations requiring safety belts to be installed in motorcoaches

at each designated seating position” not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Act. We have completed this final rule in furtherance of NHTSA's goal to enhance the safety of all heavy buses used in intercity bus transportation, while attending to the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act's focus on over-the-road buses.

Under the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, “motorcoach” means an over-the-road bus, but does not include a bus used in public transportation provided by, or on behalf of, a public transportation agency, or a school bus.

[Footnote added.]

This final rule is based on scientific data from an extensive test program completed in 2009 at NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC). The program began with a full-scale frontal 48 kilometers per hour (km/h) (30 miles per hour (mph)) barrier crash test of a 54-passenger over-the-road bus. The testing involved instrumented test dummies representing 50th percentile adult males, 5th percentile adult females, and 95th percentile adult males in belted and unbelted seating configurations. The weight of the bus as tested (including test dummies and equipment) was 19,377 kg (42,720 lb), which was less than the GVWR of the bus (~24,500 kg (54,000 lb)).

In the crash test, NHTSA analyzed the head accelerations (head injury criterion, (HIC)), neck injury (Nij) values, and other injury criteria measured by the test dummies, the kinematics of the dummies during the crash, and the structural integrity of the seats, floor and bus. Follow-on sled testing was also conducted to evaluate the performance of seat belt systems on motorcoach seats under a range of belted and unbelted conditions, and to evaluate seat anchorage strength testing.

GVWR means the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle (49 CFR 571.3). Under NHTSA's certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), the GVWR “shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the number of the vehicle's designated seating positions. However, for school buses the minimum occupant weight allowance shall be 120 pounds per passenger and 150 pounds for the driver.”

Transportation by buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) overall is a safe form of transportation. Data from NHTSA's Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) shows that over the 10-year period between 2000 and 2009, there were 87 fatal crashes of buses covered by this final rule, resulting in 209 fatalities.

During this period, on average, 21 fatalities have occurred annually to occupants of these buses in crash and rollover events, with about 4 of these fatalities being drivers and 17 being passengers. However, while transportation on these buses is safe overall, given the typical high occupancy of the subject buses and the intercity operation of many of them at high speeds, when serious crashes do occur, a significant number of fatal or serious injuries can result, particularly when occupants are ejected.

These data have been updated from the NPRM.

A primary goal of this rulemaking is to reduce occupant ejections occurring in crashes of buses the NPRM identified as “motorcoaches,” i.e., buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). Data from 2000-2009 FARS show that most fatal crashes of large buses involve buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) and most of the fatal crashes involving these buses (55 percent) are rollover crashes. Ejections account for 66 percent of the fatalities in rollover crashes of these buses, 20 percent of the fatalities in non-rollover crashes and 45 percent of all fatalities. The risk of ejection can be reduced by seat belts, a simple and effective countermeasure. Seat belts are estimated to be 77 percent effective

in preventing fatal injuries in rollover crashes, primarily by preventing ejection.

Estimated based on Kahane, “Fatality Reduction by Safety Belts for Front-Seat Occupants of Cars and Light Trucks,” December 2000, Washington, DC, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

We estimate that even at a minimum seat belt usage rate of only 6 percent, the rule will remain cost effective for the bus passengers.

Another important goal is to improve passenger crash protection of the buses in crashes generally, particularly frontal crashes. Frontal crashes account for 42 percent of the fatalities involving buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). Lap/shoulder

belts are estimated to be 29 percent effective in preventing fatal injuries in frontal crashes of the subject buses.

The ability of the belts to improve the passenger crash protection of heavy buses was demonstrated in our test program, which found that lap/shoulder belts prevented critical head and neck injury values from being exceeded for belted test dummies. (In contrast, unbelted test dummies and test dummies in lap-only belts measured head and neck injury values surpassing critical thresholds.) We also estimate lap/shoulder belts to be 42 percent effective in preventing side fatalities.

FMVSS No. 209, an equipment standard, currently applies to all seat belt assemblies installed in buses. FMVSS No. 209 uses the term “Type 2 seat belt assembly” to refer to a lap/shoulder belt system. As defined in that standard, a Type 2 seat belt assembly is “a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints.” In this preamble, we use the term “lap/shoulder” belt system rather than “Type 2 seat belt assembly” for plain language purposes. Documents may occasionally refer to lap/shoulder belts as 3-point belts. Under FMVSS No. 209, a “Type 1” seat belt assembly is “a lap belt for pelvic restraint.” This preamble refers to Type 1 belts as “lap-only belts.”

This is discussed in NHTSA's Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA) that discusses issues relating to the estimated costs, benefits and other impacts of this regulatory action. The FRIA is available in the docket for this final rule and may be obtained by downloading it or by contacting Docket Management at the address or telephone number provided at the beginning of this document.)

Estimated based on Morgan, “Effectiveness of Lap/Shoulder Belts in the Back Outboard Seating Positions,” June 1999, Washington, DC, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. See FRIA.

Accordingly, to reduce the likelihood of occupant ejection and to improve occupant protection in all crashes, particularly frontal crashes, this final rule amends FMVSS No. 208, “Occupant crash protection” (49 CFR 571.208), under NHTSA's rulemaking authority set forth in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (“Vehicle Safety Act”) (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) and the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act. The standard is amended to:

• Require a lap/shoulder belt at all designated seating positions on all over-the-road buses,

including over-the-road buses used in public transportation,

but excluding school buses.

There is no lower GVWR bound on the definition of over-the-road bus used in the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act and none adopted by this final rule for such buses. Nonetheless, as a practical matter, NHTSA is not aware of any bus meeting the over-the-road bus definition with a GVWR of less than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb).

We are mindful that the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act excludes a bus used in public transportation provided by, or on behalf of, a public transportation agency from the meaning of “motorcoach.” However, as discussed in the NPRM and in this final rule, we are applying the final rule to over-the-road buses used for public transportation based on determinations we have made pursuant to NHTSA's Vehicle Safety Act authority, 49 U.S.C. 30111, which has existed and continues to exist prior to and separate from the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act provisions.

• For buses other than over-the-road buses, this final rule requires a lap/shoulder belt at all passenger seating positions on new buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), except for certain excluded bus types.

(For buses other than over-the-road buses, we permit side-facing seats to be equipped with a lap belt, for reasons discussed later in this document.)

The exceptions are transit buses, school buses, “prison buses” (buses manufactured for the purpose of transporting persons subject to involuntary restraint or confinement), and “perimeter-seating buses” (which the NPRM had referred to as buses with fewer than two rows of forward-facing seats. As explained in a later section of this preamble, we have decided it would be simpler to define a perimeter-seating bus by reference to the number of forward-facing seats it has than the number of rows it has. Note that, as a result of the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, only buses other than over-the-road buses (which we sometimes refer to as “non-over-the-road buses”) can be included in this excepted category of a perimeter-seating bus.

• Require a lap/shoulder belt at the driver's seating position on subject buses.

The buses are all over-the-road buses, and non-over-the road buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), except transit buses and perimeter-seating buses. This final rule also requires a lap/shoulder belt at the driver's seating position on school buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb).

• Require the lap/shoulder belt system for passenger seats to meet provisions for seat belt adjustment and fit, so that the seat belts can accommodate children as well as large (95th-percentile) adult males, be lockable for use with a child restraint system, and be releasable at a single point and by a pushbutton action.

• Require the seat belt anchorages, both torso and lap, on passenger seats to be integrated into the seat structure, so as not to impede emergency egress.

The “performance requirement” for the lap/shoulder seat belts is the FMVSS No. 210 strength requirement, measured in a static “pull” test. The seat belt assembly anchorages must meet the following FMVSS No. 210 requirement:

• Withstand a force of 13,345 Newtons (N) (3,000 lb) applied to the lap portion and a force of 13,345 N (3,000 lb) applied simultaneously to the torso portion of the seat belt assembly.

This final rule does not adopt a “motorcoach” definition. Comments responding to the NPRM expressed some confusion and disagreement over attaching the name of “motorcoach” to buses that may not have been widely thought of as motorcoaches in the past. In addition, the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act uses the term “motorcoach” differently than the NPRM. After considering these factors, we have determined that it is unnecessary to define the term “motorcoach” to accomplish the objective of this rulemaking. To avoid potential confusion over use of the term, and since the term is unnecessary, we have decided not to use the term “motorcoach” to describe the applicability of the lap/shoulder seat belt requirements. Instead, we have decided to simply amend FMVSS No. 208 such that the provisions of FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210 relevant to lap/shoulder belt and anchorages, respectively, are applied to (a) all over-the-road buses, and to (b) non-over-the-road buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), excepting the few bus types.

We estimate that installing lap/shoulder seat belts on new subject buses will save approximately 1.7 to 9.2 lives and prevent 146 to 858 injuries per year (3.46-25.17 equivalent lives), depending on the usage of lap/shoulder belts in the buses (see Table 1 below).

The cost of installing lap/shoulder belts on new buses is estimated as follows (see Table 2 below). The incremental cost of adding a shoulder belt to the already required lap belt for drivers is estimated to be $18.86. With about 60 percent of the driver seating positions already equipped with lap/shoulder belts, the average bus cost will increase by $7.54. For the driver position, the total cost to the fleet of adding a shoulder belt to the driver seat for 40 percent of covered buses will add an additional $16,597 ($18.86 × 2,200 × .4).

See FRIA for this final rule. The FRIA assumes that the seat belt use rate on buses regulated by today's rule will be between 15 percent and the percent use in passenger vehicles, which was 83 percent in 2008. These annual benefits accrue when all subject buses in the fleet have lap/shoulder belts.

The incremental cost of adding lap/shoulder belts and to change the seat anchorages for a two passenger seat is $78.14 or $39.07 per seating position. On a 54-passenger bus the cost for the passenger seats is $2,110 ($39.07 × 54). The total cost of adding lap/shoulder belts to all new 54-passenger buses is about $4.4 million ($2,110 × 2,100). The cutaway buses have seats for an average of 45 passengers. The incremental cost of adding lap/shoulder belts on a 45-passenger cutaway bus with two passengers per seat is $1,758 ($39.07 × 45). The total cost of adding passenger lap/shoulder belts to all new cutaway covered buses is about $0.2 million ($1,758.15 × 100). Thus, the total cost for all covered bus passenger positions is about $4.6 million. The total cost of adding lap/shoulder belts for passengers and shoulder belts to 40 percent of the driver's seats is $4.6 million ($4,606,353 + $25,238).

The agency has also estimated increased costs in fuel usage. The increased fuel costs depend on added weight (estimated to be 161 lb

) and the discount rate used. NHTSA estimates the increased costs in fuel usage for added weight and discounts the additional fuel used over the lifetime of the bus using a 3 percent and 7 percent discount rate. See the FRIA for more details.

See FRIA for this final rule. This estimate is based on results from a NHTSA contractor conducting cost/weight teardown studies of motorcoach seats. The weight added by lap/shoulder belts was 5.96 per 2-person seat. This is the weight only of the seat belt assembly itself and does not include changing the design of the seat, reinforcing the floor, walls or other areas of the motorcoach.

The cost per equivalent life saved is estimated to be $0.3 million to $1.8 million (see Table 3 below). Annualized costs and benefits are provided in Table 4.

Table 1—Estimated Benefits

Fatalities

1.7 to 9.2.

AIS 1 injuries (Minor)

89 to 536.

AIS 2-5 (Moderate to Severe)

57 to 322.

Total Non-fatal Injuries

146 to 858.

Table 2—Estimated Costs

[2008 Economics]

Per

average

vehicle

Total

fleet

($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, benefits, and costs with respect to the application of the seat belt requirements to buses manufactured before the date on which this final rule applies to new vehicles. Based on that assessment, we have decided not to require retrofitting of used buses with seat belts. To learn more about retrofitting, the NPRM requested comment on issues concerning the structural viability of used buses to accommodate seat belts and the crash forces from belted passengers, the reinforcement needed to the bus structure to accommodate the loads, and the cost of retrofitting. Our hypothesis at the time of the NPRM was that the cost of and engineering expertise needed for a retrofitting operation would be beyond the means of bus owners (for-hire operators), many of which are small businesses.

The comments on the retrofit issue supported a finding that the impacts would be unreasonable. After considering the low likelihood that a retrofit requirement would be technically practicable at a reasonable cost, the cost impacts on small businesses, and the low benefits that would accrue from a retrofit requirement we have decided not to pursue a retrofit requirement for seat belts. (See FRIA discussion of cost/benefit of retrofit).

The agency estimated in the NPRM that the service life of a motorcoach can be 20 years or longer. We estimated that the cost of retrofitting can vary substantially. To retrofit a vehicle with lap belts, we estimated it could cost between $6,000 (assuming that the motorcoach structure is lap belt-ready, and can accommodate the loads set forth in the NPRM) to $34,000 per vehicle to retrofit the vehicle with the lap belts and with sufficient structure to meet the NPRM's requirements. To retrofit it with lap/shoulder belts and reinforced structure so as to meet FMVSS No. 210 to support the loads during a crash, we estimated it could cost $40,000 per vehicle. The existing fleet size was estimated to be 29,325 motorcoaches. Hence, the fleet cost of retrofitting lap belts was estimated to range from $175,950,000 ($6,000 × 29,325) to $997,050,000 ($34,000 × 29,325), while the fleet cost of retrofitting lap/shoulder belts was estimated to be $1,173,000,000 ($40,000 × 29,325). These costs did not include increased remaining lifetime fuel costs incurred by adding structural weight to the motorcoach. Later in the analysis we examine a range of costs and include the lifetime fuel costs for the weight of the belts themselves. Weight would vary depending upon the needed structural changes, and lifetime fuel cost would vary depending upon the age of motorcoaches that would be retrofitted.

II. NHTSA's Statutory Authority

a. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act

This final rule is issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (“Vehicle Safety Act”) (49 U.S.C. 30101

et seq.

). Under the Vehicle Safety Act, the Secretary of Transportation is responsible for prescribing motor vehicle safety standards that are practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and are stated in objective terms.

“Motor vehicle safety” is defined in the Vehicle Safety Act as “the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle, and against unreasonable risk of death or injury in an accident, and includes nonoperational safety of a motor vehicle.”

“Motor vehicle safety standard” means a minimum performance standard for motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.

When prescribing such standards, the Secretary must consider all relevant, available motor vehicle safety information, and consider whether a standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the types of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed.

The Secretary must also consider the extent to which the standard will further the statutory purpose of reducing traffic accidents and associated deaths and injuries.

The responsibility for promulgation of

Federal motor vehicle safety standards is delegated to NHTSA. (49 CFR 1.95)

49 U.S.C. 30111(a).

49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8).

49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9).

49 U.S.C. 30111(b).

Id.

The Secretary also delegated to NHTSA the authority set out for Section 101(f) of Public Law 106-159 to carry out, in coordination with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator, the authority vested in the Secretary by subchapter 311 and section 31502 of title 49, U.S.C., to promulgate safety standards for commercial motor vehicles and equipment subsequent to initial manufacture when the standards are based upon and similar to a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard promulgated, either simultaneously or previously, under chapter 301 of title 49, U.S.C.

b. Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of 2012

On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed MAP-21, which incorporated in Subtitle G the “Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of 2012,” P.L. 112-141 (July 6, 2012). Section 32703(a) of the Act states that, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Act, the Secretary shall prescribe regulations requiring safety belts to be installed in motorcoaches at each designated seating position. The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act also directs the Secretary to consider various motorcoach rulemakings, in provided timeframes, relating to improved roof support standards, advanced glazing standards and other portal improvements to prevent partial and complete ejection of motorcoach passengers, rollover stability enhancing technology, tire pressure monitoring systems, and tire performance standards. The Act also includes provisions on fire research, interior impact protection, enhanced seating designs, and collision avoidance systems, and the consideration of rulemaking based on such research. There also are provisions in the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act relating to improved oversight of motorcoach service providers, including enhancements to driver licensing and training programs and motorcoach inspection programs.

In Section 32702, “Definitions,” of the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, the Act states at Section 32702(6) that “the term `motorcoach' has the meaning given the term `over-the-road bus' in section 3038(a)(3) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 5310 note), but does not include a bus used in public transportation provided by, or on behalf of, a public transportation agency; or a school bus, including a multifunction school activity bus.” Section 3038(a)(3) (49 U.S.C. 5310 note) states: “The term `over-the-road bus' means a bus characterized by an elevated passenger deck located over a baggage compartment.”

Section 32702(2) of the Act states: “The term `bus' has the meaning given the term in section 571.3(b) of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act).” 49 CFR 571.3(b) is a NHTSA regulation that defines “bus” as: “a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.”

Section 32702(12) of the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act states: “The term `safety belt' has the meaning given the term in section 153(i)(4)(B) of title 23, United States Code.” Section 153(i)(4)(B) of Title 23 defines “safety belt” as “an occupant restraint system consisting of integrated lap shoulder belts.”

Under section 32703(e)(1) of the Act, any regulation prescribed in accordance with section 32703(a) (and several other subsections) shall apply to all motorcoaches manufactured more than 3 years after the date on which the regulation is published as a final rule, take into account the impact to seating capacity of changes to size and weight of motorcoaches and the ability to comply with State and Federal size and weight requirements, and be based on the best available science.

Section 32703(e)(2), “Retrofit Assessment For Existing Motorcoaches,” states: “The Secretary may assess the feasibility, benefits, and costs with respect to the application of any requirement established under subsection (a) or (b)(2) to motorcoaches manufactured before the date on which the requirement applies to new motorcoaches under paragraph (1).” The requirements of today's final rule were established under subsection (a).

Section 32706, “Concurrence of Research and Rulemaking,” states in paragraph (a) that, to the extent feasible, the Secretary shall ensure that research programs are carried out concurrently, and in a manner that concurrently assesses results, potential countermeasures, costs, and benefits. Paragraph (b), “Authority to Combine Rulemakings,” states: “When considering each of the rulemaking provisions, the Secretary may initiate a single rulemaking proceeding encompassing all aspects or may combine the rulemakings as the Secretary deems appropriate.” Paragraph (c), “Considerations,” states: If the Secretary undertakes separate rulemaking proceedings, the Secretary shall (1) consider whether each added aspect of rulemaking may contribute to addressing the safety need determined to require rulemaking; (2) consider the benefits obtained through the safety belts rulemaking in section 32703(a); and (3) avoid duplicative benefits, costs, and countermeasures.

Section 32711 of the Act states: Any standard or regulation prescribed or modified pursuant to the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of 2012 shall be prescribed or modified in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code.

c. Agency Views

At the time of the enactment of the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, the agency's August 18, 2010 NPRM to require lap/shoulder belts in new buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) had been published and work was close to completion in DOT on the final rule. Congress was aware of our progress on the agency's 2007 NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach Safety Plan and the achievements of the Department's Motorcoach Safety Plan when it passed the statute. Given that the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act provides a very short timeframe (1 year) for issuance of a final rule, we believe that Congress intended that a final rule based on the 2010 NPRM would complete the rulemaking proceeding specified in section 32703(a) of the Act. This final rule fulfills the rulemaking mandate of section 32703(a).

We interpret the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act as providing us discretion in most areas, while limiting it in some. This regulation was initiated by NHTSA prior to enactment of Act and we are required by the statute to complete it in 1 year, and to complete it in such a way as to prescribe “safety belts” (lap/shoulder belts) at “each designated seating position” in the buses the statute calls “motorcoaches” (over-the-road buses except for buses used in public transportation provided by, or on behalf of, a public transportation agency, or school buses). This final rule achieves the Congressional goal that focuses on over-the-road buses

and requires all designated seating positions on the over-the-road buses to have lap/shoulder belts regardless of the seating configuration of the bus or the vehicle GVWR. To the extent discretion in our decision-making on a particular issue for over-the-road buses is limited by the Act, we have identified those circumstances in this preamble.

An over-the-road bus is a bus characterized by an elevated passenger deck over a baggage compartment.

Yet, this regulation was initiated by NHTSA under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101

et seq.

), prior to enactment of the Motorcoach

Enhanced Safety Act, and Congress was aware of the NPRM when it enacted the 2012 statute. NHTSA issued the NPRM under rulemaking authority that has existed and continues to exist prior to and separate from the 2012 Act. There is no provision in the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act limiting NHTSA's rulemaking authority under the Vehicle Safety Act to require belts on buses, other than specific mandate for “over-the-road buses,” which the statute defines. Thus, we believe that the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act calls for a regulation for “over-the-road buses” without limiting our authority under the Vehicle Safety Act to apply the regulation to other buses as NHTSA finds appropriate under the Vehicle Safety Act, including over-the-road buses used in public transportation, and buses other than over-the-road buses (e.g., body-on-frame buses) with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb).

Accordingly, this final rule requires lap/shoulder belts on buses other than those called “motorcoaches” in the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act. We also believe that NHTSA has wider decision-making discretion regarding those “other buses,” and is able to exclude a particular type of non-over-the-road bus from a requirement of the final rule if the agency finds good reason to do so. For example, for sound, practical reasons, including the safety of prison guards, this regulation does not require designated seating positions for prisoners on “prison buses” to have seat belts.

NHTSA is authorized under the Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that “shall be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms” (49 U.S.C. 30111(a)). When prescribing a motor vehicle safety standard, NHTSA considers,

inter alia,

relevant available motor vehicle safety information, whether a standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed, and the extent to which the standard will carry out the purpose and policy of the Act, i.e., reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents (49 U.S.C. 30111(b)). In exercising this authority, we have responded to the comments on the NPRM and assessed other information relevant to this rulemaking in a manner that ensures that the final rule meets the criteria of the Vehicle Safety Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, other relevant statutes and orders, and the particular statutory instructions of the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act.

As to the latter, among the matters we have taken into account are the impact on seating capacity and the impact on the size and weight of motorcoaches. We have considered the best available science. We have weighed the cumulative effect of our rulemakings and whether rulemaking could be combined. We have analyzed retrofit requirements. In sum, we have issued this final rule after careful deliberation of the factors emphasized for consideration in the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, which we note are also factors NHTSA investigates carefully and as a matter of course when the agency conducts rulemaking under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

III. Background

a. The Agency's 2007 “NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach Safety” Plan

In 2007, NHTSA undertook a comprehensive review of motorcoach (intercity bus) safety issues and the course of action that the agency could pursue to address them. The agency considered various prevention, mitigation, and evacuation approaches in developing the course of action. Many considerations were factored into determining the priorities, including: Cost and duration of testing, development, and analysis required; likelihood that the effort would lead to the desired and successful conclusion; target population and possible benefits that might be realized; and anticipated cost of implementing the ensuing requirements into the bus fleet.

The result was NHTSA's 2007 “

NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach Safety

” plan (Docket No. NHTSA-2007-28793-001), in which we identified the following areas as the highest priorities for possible near term regulatory action to enhance the safety of the vehicles: (1) Passenger ejection; (2) rollover structural integrity; (3) emergency egress; and (4) fire safety. For passenger ejection (action (1)), we pursued the incorporation of passenger seat belts as the most effective and expeditious way to mitigate ejection.

Today's final rule completes the agency's initiative in achieving the first goal of the plan.

NHTSA is completing work on a proposal with regard to action (2) on improving rollover structural integrity.

b. DOT's 2009 Task Force Action Plan

In 2009, DOT issued a Departmental Motorcoach Safety Action Plan, which outlined a Department-wide strategy to enhance motorcoach safety.

In addition to the four priority action items specified in NHTSA's 2007 “NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach Safety” plan, the DOT plan identified other strategies the Department will pursue to enhance motorcoach safety, such as pursuing electronic stability control (ESC) systems, event data recorders (EDR), and programs addressing driver fatigue and operator maintenance. On May 23, 2012, NHTSA issued an NPRM to establish a new Federal motor vehicle safety standard on ESC, to reduce rollover and loss of directional control crashes of truck tractors and large buses, including motorcoaches (77 FR 30766, Docket number NHTSA-2012-0065). Work is underway in NHTSA and the other DOT agencies on other motorcoach safety initiatives discussed in the plan.

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/documents/safety-security/MotorcoachSafetyActionPlan_finalreport-508.pdf.

In the DOT plan, “motorcoach” is generally used to describe over-the-road buses (buses characterized by an elevated passenger deck over a baggage compartment).

c. NTSB Recommendations

The following NTSB recommendations relate to this final rule.

• H-90-75: Revise Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, to include a requirement that lap shoulder belt systems for the driver position be installed in all newly manufactured buses, including city, intercity, small, and large. (Class II, Priority Action).

• H-99-47 (“Most Wanted”): In 2 years, develop performance standards for motorcoach occupant protection systems that account for frontal impact collisions, side impact collisions, rear impact collisions, and rollovers.

• H-99-48: Once pertinent standards have been developed for motorcoach occupant protection systems, require newly manufactured motorcoaches to have an occupant crash protection system that meets the newly developed performance standards and retains passengers, including those in child safety restraint systems, within the seating compartment throughout the accident sequence for all accident scenarios.

• H-05-01: Develop performance standards for passenger seat anchorages in motorcoaches.

• H-10-002: To maintain consistency in bus body classifications and to clarify the scope of bus safety initiatives, develop regulatory definitions and classifications for each of the different bus body types that would apply to all U.S. Department of Transportation agencies and promote use of the

definitions among the bus industry and state governments.

• H-10-003: In NHTSA's rulemaking to improve motorcoach occupant protection, include all buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 lb, other than school buses.

H-90-75, H-99-47, H-99-48, H-05-01, H-10-002, and H-10-003

It should be noted that, at the time NTSB recommendations H-90-75, H-99-47, H-99-48, and H-05-01 were issued, there were no crash test data or countermeasure studies available. Today, the testing we conducted as part of the “NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach Safety” plan provides extensive data upon which the agency has assessed the practicability of installing lap/shoulder belt systems on the affected buses and the potential effectiveness of the belts at passenger seating positions.

NHTSA's research program evaluating the performance of seat belt systems on motorcoach passenger seats is discussed in detail in the NPRM, Section V. See 75 FR at 50967. See also the FRIA for this final rule.

H-90-75 recommended that we amend FMVSS No. 208 to require that lap/shoulder belt systems for the driver position be installed in all newly manufactured buses. This final rule adopts a lap/shoulder belt requirement for the driver's position of large school buses, all over-the-road buses, and non-over-the-road buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) with certain exceptions.

Exceptions are transit buses and perimeter-seating buses.

H-99-47 and H-99-48 requested us to develop performance standards for motorcoach occupant protection systems that account for frontal impact collisions, side impact collisions, rear impact collisions, and rollovers, and apply those standards to new motorcoaches. Today's final rule requires lap/shoulder belts at each passenger seating position in the affected buses, which includes all over-the-road buses. In the NHTSA test program conducted as part of our “Approach to Motorcoach Safety” plan, lap/shoulder belts on forward-facing seats were found to prevent elevated head and neck injury values and provided enhanced occupant protection compared to lap belts.

Addressing H-99-48, this final rule requires the lap/shoulder belts on passenger seating positions to meet FMVSS No. 208's “lockability” requirement (S7.1.1.5, 49 CFR 571.208). The requirement is for the lap belt to be lockable so as to secure child restraint systems tightly, without the need to attach a clip or any other device to the vehicle's seat belt webbing.

This final rule addresses H-05-01, which recommended that NHTSA develop performance standards for passenger seat anchorages in motorcoaches. This final rule requires that the lap/shoulder seat belt anchorages on the affected buses meet the anchorage strength requirements for lap/shoulder belts in FMVSS No. 210. Those existing strength requirements specify that each lap/shoulder belt be tested with a load of 13,345 N (3,000 lb) applied simultaneously to the lap and shoulder belt, for a total load of 26,690 N (6,000 lb). This requirement is based on test data from our research program, discussed in “NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach Safety” plan, showing the 13,345 N (3,000 lb) strength requirement is needed to address loads that can occur in serious frontal crashes.

In issuing today's final rule, NHTSA carefully considered H-10-002, which asked NHTSA to develop regulatory definitions and classifications for each of the different bus body types that would apply to all DOT agencies. This issue is discussed in a later section of this preamble on the proposed “motorcoach” definition.

We also carefully considered H-10-003, which asked NHTSA to include buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or more in rulemaking to improve motorcoach occupant protection. NTSB and others raised this issue in comments on the NPRM, and our response on this issue is provided in the definition section of this preamble.

d. Congressional Mandate

On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed the “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act” (MAP-21),” which incorporated in Subtitle G the “Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of 2012.” Section II of this preamble, above, summarizes the provisions of the Act relevant to this final rule.

IV. Safety Need

a. Introduction

Each year, the commercial bus industry transports millions of people between and in cities, for long and short distance tours, school field trips, commuter, and entertainment-related trips. According to the American Bus Association (ABA), there were approximately 3,400 motorcoach

carriers in the United States and Canada in 2007.

These motorcoach carriers operated over 33,000 motorcoaches, they logged nearly 750 million passenger trips, and they traveled over 1.8 billion miles yearly. Approximately 3,100 of the carriers were chartered U.S. carriers that operated about 29,000 motorcoaches.

As used in the report, “motorcoach” refers to an over-the-road bus. When we discuss this report, we use the term motorcoach to mean an over-the-road bus.

“Motorcoach Census 2008, A Benchmarking Study of the Size and Activity of the Motorcoach Industry in the United States and Canada in 2007.” Paul Bourquin, Economist and Industry Analyst, December 18, 2008.

According to the ABA report, the services provided by these commercial buses in 2007 included charter services (pre-formed group (organization, association, tour company, shuttle service, church, school, etc.) that hires a motorcoach for exclusive use under a fixed contract) (46.4 percent of the miles driven), scheduled service (specified, ticketed, predetermined regular-route service between cities or terminals) (26.5 percent of the miles driven), commuter service (transporting people between home and work) (10.3 percent of the miles driven), tour/sightseeing service (planned trip at fixed price for leisure and/or sightseeing) (8.2 percent of the miles driven), special operations (published, regular-route service to special events, or service for employees to work sites) (3.5 percent of the miles driven), and airport shuttle services (private motorcoaches used to enhance public transportation system service to and from the airport) (3.4 percent of the miles driven). In 2007, each motorcoach was driven an average of 56,000 miles. The majority of the motorcoach trips (65 percent) were made by children and senior citizens.

Although commercial bus transportation overall is a safe form of transportation in the U.S., a number of crashes in recent years have illustrated that fatal crashes of high-capacity buses, while a relatively rare event, can cause a significant number of fatal or serious injuries in a single event. Pursuant to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA developed its “Approach to Motorcoach Safety” plan and commenced the associated safety rulemakings to explore whether there are unreasonable safety risks associated with these buses, and if there are, whether the risks can be reduced in a reasonable manner by the issuance of crashworthiness and crash avoidance safety standards.

We started by analyzing fatal accident crash data from 2000-2009 to assess whether there are unreasonable safety risks associated with high-occupancy bus transportation. We analyzed data for buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). The 2000-2009 FARS

data revealed that 83 percent of the fatalities in the buses were in buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). We focused our rulemaking on those buses, effectively using agency resources.

FARS data show that over half of the fatalities in buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) were attributable to rollovers, and that the vast majority of fatalities in rollovers were due to ejections.

NHTSA's research on passenger vehicle and motorcoach rollovers has shown that there exists a proven countermeasure (a lap/shoulder seat belt) that is readily available, practicable, and cost effective, that successfully mitigates the risk of ejection in rollovers. We have also found that nearly half of the fatalities in the covered vehicles were in non-rollover crashes, and that more than half of the fatalities in the 2000-2009 FARS files were not ejected. The potential benefit of lap/shoulder seat belts in reducing those non-ejection fatalities is also remarkable.

This final rule addresses the present occupant fatality risk in over-the-road buses and in other buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), given the occurrence of fatality and serious injury in rollover and frontal crashes, and the proven protection afforded by lap/shoulder seat belts. Various commenters have urged us also to require lap/shoulder seat belts on all buses with a GVWR between 4,536 kg and 11,793 kg (10,000 lb and 26,000 lb). Although we decline to do so in today's rulemaking, we can continue our evaluation of whether belts should be required for all buses with a GVWR less than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) after this final rule.

b. FARS Data

To identify the vehicles to which this rulemaking should apply, the agency examined FARS data files to understand characteristics and trends associated with bus fatal crashes.

FARS contains data on a census of fatal traffic crashes within the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. To be included in FARS, a crash must involve a motor vehicle traveling on a traffic way customarily open to the public, and must result in the death of an occupant of a vehicle or a non-occupant within 30 days of the crash.

Previous discussion of the FARS data is set forth in the 2010 seat belt NPRM and in the DOT 2009 Motorcoach Action Plan,

http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/reports/HS811177.pdf

. In the DOT 2009 Motorcoach Action Plan, “motorcoach” referred to over-the-road buses only.

In developing this rulemaking, we analyzed 10 years of FARS data for all high-occupancy buses, i.e., buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). We analyzed these FARS data to understand the involvement of these buses in fatal crashes, and to develop a focused strategy for improving the crashworthiness and crash-avoidance attributes of such buses involved in fatal crashes. We did not include data for transit and school buses in this analysis, as these vehicles are not used as motorcoaches or coded as such in FARS, and were not the vehicles targeted by the NHTSA and DOT safety plans, or by the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of 2012, as the subjects of this rulemaking initiative.

The FARS data analysis for fatalities of occupants in buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) showed that 83 percent of the occupant fatalities were in buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). That is, in these 10 years of data, one noteworthy attribute of the high-occupancy vehicles involved in fatal crashes was that in an overwhelming majority of cases, the GVWR of the vehicles was more than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). Thus, based on these data, NHTSA determined that the vehicles of significance for this immediate rulemaking were buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb).

The FARS data indicated that these buses have a substantially higher involvement in fatal crashes involving passenger fatalities than buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg to 11,793 kg (10,000 lb to 26,000 lb). The buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) also had more involvement in rollover crashes resulting in occupant ejection than buses with a lighter GVWR.

In the NPRM, NHTSA described the GVWR criterion as 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) or greater, which was not consistent with FMCSA's criterion describing the affected class of commercial vehicles (GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)). This final rule uses the FMCSA criterion (GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) in describing the affected vehicles.

c. Updated FARS Data

For the NPRM, the agency assumed that the vehicles of significance were coded in FARS as “cross-country/intercity buses” in the body type variable.

“Cross-country/intercity buses” is defined in FARS as buses designed to travel long distances between cities (e.g. Greyhound) and is represented by the over-the-road bus characterized by an elevated passenger deck located over a baggage compartment.

The FARS database has five bus body type categories: (1) cross-country/intercity bus, (2) transit bus, (3) school bus, (4) other bus, and (5) unknown bus.

After the NPRM was published, we became aware that we had missed some FARS data that had been filed in the “other buses” and “unknown buses” FARS body type categories by crash investigators. To address this, when we updated the FARS data for this final rule to include the 2009 FARS data, we also examined 2000-2009 FARS data for “other buses” and “unknown buses” FARS bus body types. We expanded our analysis to make sure that we identified and examined FARS data for all high-occupancy bus crashes (GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb)).

We considered data from all three bus body type categories to assess the fatal crash involvement of buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb).

By considering the data for buses categorized as cross-country/intercity buses, other buses, and unknown buses as relevant data, we are analyzing FARS data for all buses in FARS except data for transit buses and school buses. It is reasonable to exclude transit bus and school bus body types because those bus types are easily recognized and categorized as such by crash investigators and those coding the FARS data. By considering all data for the cross-country/intercity bus, other bus and unknown bus categories, today's final rule analyzes all available FARS data relevant to “motorcoach” and other bus fatal crashes.

The findings of the reanalyzed 2000-2009 FARS data of all buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) still showed the merits of focusing this particular rulemaking on buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). These buses have a substantially higher involvement in fatal crashes involving passenger fatalities than buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg to 11,793 kg (10,000 lb to 26,000 lb). Over the 10-year period (2000-2009), there were a total of 42 (7 drivers, 35 passengers) fatalities in cross-country/intercity buses, other buses, and unknown buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg to 11,793 kg (10,000 lb to 26,000 lb). In contrast, among the cross-country/intercity buses, other buses, and unknown buses categories with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), there were a total of 209 (41 drivers, 168 passengers) occupant fatalities

in crashes during the 10-year period (2000-2009). This number includes 134 occupant fatalities in cross-country/intercity buses, 47 in other buses, and 28 in unknown buses (see Table 5 and Figure 1 below).

There were 232 occupant fatalities in the affected buses in this 10-year period but 23 fatalities occurred due to a fire (Wilmer, Texas motorcoach fire) and were not related to a crash event. To accurately assess the fatality, NHTSA did not include the 23 Wilmer, Texas fatalities since those were not crash-related.

Table 5—Number of Bus Occupant Fatalities in Crashes by Bus Body Type, GVWR, and Occupant Type. FARS 2000-2009 Data Files

GVWR (lb)

Bus body type

Cross-country

Driver

Pass

Other

Driver

Pass

Unknown

Driver

Pass

Total

Driver

Pass

10,000-26,000

>26,000

112

168

ER25NO13.000

To promulgate a “motorcoach” lap/shoulder seat belt standard most effectively, expeditiously, and most closely aligned with NHTSA's Vehicle Safety Act, the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, and the NHTSA and DOT motorcoach safety plans, the agency has focused this particular rulemaking on all over-the-road buses and other buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). The present crash data indicate a current need to require lap/shoulder seat belts in buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb).

We can examine buses with a GVWR less than or equal to 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) in a separate action, where information specific to those buses could be more closely analyzed. Safety is our highest priority, and we will continuously work to adopt practical measures that make our transportation systems safer.

We note that, consistent with the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, today's final rule includes over-the-road buses with a GVWR less than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). However, the FARS data in Table 1 shows only 2 fatalities in over-the-road buses (coded as cross-country by FARS) with a GVWR of 4,536 kg to 11,793 kg (10,000 lb to 26,000 lb). These are most likely miscoded. Thus, the field data analysis focuses on buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb).

Fatality Trends for Buses With a GVWR Greater Than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)

Among the 209 occupant fatalities in buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) in the 10-year period (2000-2009), the FARS data show that 168 (80 percent) were passengers, and 41 (20 percent) were drivers. In addition, the data show that 64 percent of the fatalities were in cross-country/intercity buses and 36 percent were in the other bus and unknown bus categories (see Table 5 above).

As shown in Figure 1, fatalities in the affected vehicles in certain years were significantly higher than average. There were 28 or more occupant fatalities in the covered buses in 2002, 2004, and 2008. We note that such increases in the fatality statistics were often attributable to a small number of serious crashes during the year which caused a large number of fatalities.

For example, the majority of fatalities in 2004 resulted from a crash in Arkansas, which involved an over-the-road bus hitting a highway signpost and subsequently rolling over. The rollover and partial detachment of the roof resulted in the ejection of all 30 occupants. This crash resulted in 15 fatalities, including the driver. All 14 passengers who died in this crash were ejected.

The 42 passenger fatalities in the covered buses in 2008 were mainly a result of 3 separate crashes. The first event was a rollover crash that occurred in Mexican Hat, Utah, where the over-the-road bus overturned as it departed the roadway and rolled one full turn, striking several rocks in a drainage ditch bed at the bottom of the embankment, and came to rest on its wheels. The roof of the bus separated from the body, and 51 of the 53 occupants were ejected. Nine passengers were fatally injured

and 43 passengers and the driver received various injuries.

The second 2008 event was a crash in Sherman, Texas, where the over-the-road bus went through the bridge railing and off the bridge about 15 feet above a creek, then rolled onto its side. Seventeen passengers died in the crash.

The third 2008 event was a rollover crash near Williams, California, where the over-the-road bus flipped and rolled into a ditch, killing 9 people and injuring more than 30 others. Approximately a dozen passengers were ejected from the bus.

Rollover and Ejection Statistics

Using the aforementioned FARS bus body type categories (cross-county/intercity, other buses and unknown buses), the agency examined the 2000-2009 FARS data for vehicles with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) to understand more about the fatal crashes. The FARS data show that rollovers account for more than half of the occupant fatalities in crashes of the affected buses. Figure 2, below, shows the 209 fatalities in the affected buses categorized by rollover/first impact point for the 10-year period 2000-2009. If a bus had been involved in a rollover, it is categorized as a rollover crash since a rollover is generally the most harmful event in a crash and results in most of the passenger fatalities. Buses not involved in a rollover are categorized by first impact point (front, side, and rear).

ER25NO13.001

Among the 209 occupant fatalities in buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) (2000-2009 FARS data), rollovers accounted for 114 fatalities (55 percent). There were no fatalities in side impacts in cross-country and unknown bus body type categories and no fatalities in rear impacts for all three bus body type categories.

The agency further examined these data and found that a majority of fatalities in rollover crashes of buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) involved occupant ejections. Figure 3 shows the distribution of fatalities in rollover crashes of cross-country, other, and unknown buses with a GVWR greater than 26,000 lb, by occupant type and ejection status. For the 10-year period from 2000 to 2009, there were 32 fatal rollover crashes, resulting in 114 fatalities. In these rollover crashes, two-thirds (75 out of 114) of the fatalities were occupants who were ejected. Three drivers (3 percent) involved in rollover crashes were ejected.

ER25NO13.002

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

ER25NO13.003

V. Summary of the NPRM

The FARS data showed that rollovers accounted for 55 percent of fatalities in buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). Further, the vast majority of fatalities in rollover crashes of these covered buses involved occupant ejections. NHTSA proposed in the August 18, 2010 NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 208 to require lap/shoulder belts at all passenger seating positions on “motorcoaches,” which the NPRM identified as buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb).

The agency focused the NPRM on these buses to address the ejection safety problem as quickly as possible, and to improve occupant protection in frontal crashes. NHTSA's bus research showed that lap/shoulder belts would improve the survivability of occupants in frontal crashes even when a rollover was not involved.

Exceptions were transit and school buses and buses with fewer than two rows of forward-facing seats. Also, as noted earlier, the NPRM stated “GVWR of 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) or more,” when it should have stated “GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)” to be consistent with FMCSA regulations. The latter term is also consistent with other NHTSA standards, which use the “GVWR greater than” phrasing rather than the “GVWR of X or more.”

To define the types of vehicles to which the amended requirements would apply, the NPRM proposed to add a definition of “motorcoach” to 49 CFR Part 571.3 and to apply FMVSS No. 208`s amended requirements to “motorcoaches.” The proposed definition was as follows:

[Proposed definition]

Motorcoach

means a bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 11,793 kilograms (26,000 pounds) or greater, 16 or more designated seating positions (including the driver), and at least 2 rows of passenger seats, rearward of the driver's seating position, that are forward-facing or can convert to forward-facing without the use of tools.

Motorcoach

includes buses sold for intercity, tour, and commuter bus service, but does not include a school bus, or an urban transit bus sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation along a fixed route with frequent stops.

The NPRM proposed to modify FMVSS No. 208 to require lap/shoulder belts at each seating position (except side-facing seats were permitted to have either a lap or a lap/shoulder belt), require the belts to be integral to the seat (except the driver seat) and to meet current FMVSS No. 208 provisions for seat belt adjustment, fit, lockability, and release. By virtue of the FMVSS No. 208 requirement for lap/shoulder belts at each seat, the NPRM proposed the lap/shoulder belt anchorages meet FMVSS No. 210, which specifies a force of 13,345 N (3,000 lb) applied simultaneously to the lap and torso portions of the belt assembly.

VI. Overview of the Comments

NHTSA received approximately 130 comments on the NPRM. Comments were received from consumer and other groups, individuals, bus seat suppliers, bus manufacturers and industry groups, and motorcoach owners and operators.

This section provides a high-level overview of the comments, and focuses mainly on the reaction of the commenters to the general issue of whether lap/shoulder belts should be required for motorcoach passengers. We note below the general support or opposition to that issue, but readers should keep in mind that there were many issues in the NPRM to which commenters replied. Summaries of responses to sub-issues are provided, to the extent relevant, in the appropriate sections of this preamble.

Many consumer and other groups strongly supported the proposal that lap/shoulder belts be provided for motorcoach passengers. Commenters supporting the proposal included: NTSB, Consumers Union, Advocates for Highway Safety, Center for Automotive Safety, National Association of Bus Crash Families/West Brook Bus Crash Families, groups representing pediatricians, child passenger safety advocates, and school bus transportation organizations, and private individuals. Of the approximately 42 individual members of the public commenting on the NPRM, over 31 supported the proposed requirement for lap/shoulder belts.

The 10 individual members of the public opposing the proposed requirement for lap/shoulder belts generally cited the low annual number of motorcoach fatalities, low seat belt use, poor comfort, difficulty of enforcing use, and a perceived high cost per life saved. Many suggested that efforts should be placed on “more meaningful” safety reforms than seat belts, such as driver training programs, limiting the driver's operating hours and/or distance traveled between breaks, and monitoring driver performance. The People's Republic of China opposed the NPRM, stating that seat belts should be optional except for seats in rows that lack “obvious shielding” (e.g., the first row).

Seat suppliers IMMI

and American Seating supported the proposed seat belt requirement, as did the Automotive Occupant Restraints Council.

IMMI was founded as Indiana Mills and Manufacturing, Inc. IMMI also manufactures seat belt systems.

In 2011 the organization changed its name to the Automotive Safety Council (ASC).

Bus manufacturers and associations mostly did not overtly support or oppose the proposal, but most expressed concern about one or more aspects of it. Motor Coach Industries (MCI), a motorcoach manufacturer, stated that the NPRM's claiming that seat belts would enhance rollover protection was speculative and that NHTSA should conduct more research on this subject. Turtle Top, a bus manufacturer, asked that seat belts be a safety option. Blue Bird, a bus and school bus manufacturer, indicated that it supported NHTSA's efforts, but asked that NHTSA exclude buses that met Federal school bus roof crush and occupant protection (lap belt) requirements. Several European bus manufacturers (Van Hool, Setra) stated that the FMVSS No. 210 seat belt anchorage requirement will cause seat backs to be too rigid, and suggested we adopt European belt anchorage requirements instead. Several bus manufacturers asked for a “prison bus” exclusion.

Motorcoach transportation providers were divided in their reaction to the proposed requirement for lap/shoulder seat belts. The operators of the larger fleets in the industry were supportive of the proposal. There was concern about costs associated with the upkeep and maintenance of seat belts and enforcement of belt use. The majority of smaller transportation providers opposed having seat belts for passenger seating positions. Most of these commenters cited the excellent overall safety record for their industry, and expressed concerns about increased cost, possible low seat belt use rate, and difficulties in enforcing seat belt use. About 30 submitted a form letter that stated that the costs associated with a retrofit requirement would put many companies out of business since they are already operating at or close to a loss.

An issue in the NPRM on which many commented was: To which vehicles should lap/shoulder seat belt requirements apply, i.e., the proposed definition of “motorcoach.” Many consumer groups, seat suppliers, and some bus manufacturers supported applying the seat belt requirements to all buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). Many bus manufacturers believed that the proposal did not clearly differentiate between motorcoaches and “transit buses.” A number of bus manufacturers

wanted to reduce the reach of the definition and exclude more bus types. Many commenters had questions about or suggested changes to various components of the proposed definition.

VII. Differences Between the Final Rule and the NPRM

The most significant differences between this final rule and the NPRM are described briefly below. Less significant changes are discussed in the appropriate sections of this preamble.

For the convenience of the reader, we have placed in the docket for this final rule a memorandum that describes this final rule's changes to the organization of FMVSS No. 208.

This final rule does not adopt a “motorcoach” definition. We have determined that it is unnecessary to define “motorcoach” to accomplish the objective of this rulemaking. Instead, it amends FMVSS No. 208 to require seat belts and the associated requirements at all seating positions on over-the-road buses and on buses, other than over-the-road buses, with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), with the exception of certain bus types.

Further, simply applying FMVSS No. 208 and 210 to all over-the-road buses and to other buses based on the GVWR criterion avoids some confusion associated with using the term “motorcoach” to describe certain buses that may not have been widely thought of as motorcoaches in the past or described as such by the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act.

The exceptions are transit buses, school buses, “prison buses” (buses manufactured for the purpose of transporting persons subject to involuntary restraint or confinement), and “perimeter-seating buses” (which the NPRM had referred to as buses with fewer than two rows of forward-facing seats). Note that under the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, only non-over-the-road buses can be included in these excepted categories of prison bus and perimeter-seating bus. The Act requires each designated seating position on an over-the-road bus to have a lap/shoulder belt.

The proposed GVWR criterion of 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) has been slightly changed to “GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)” from “GVWR of 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) or greater.” The one-pound change was made to make the GVWR cut-off more consistent with the regulations of FMCSA, which refer to the “greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)” terminology in applying its regulations to commercial vehicles.

The definition of “motorcoach” proposed in the NPRM excluded buses with fewer than two rows of passenger seats, rearward of the driver's seat, that are forward-facing or can convert to forward-facing. The intent of this exclusion was to assure that buses whose seating configuration was primarily around the perimeter of the bus would not need to install seat belts.

For simplification, we have decided to exclude such perimeter-seating buses by referring to the number of forward-facing designated seating positions (DSPs) rearward of the driver (7 or fewer DSPs) rather than refer to the term “row,” which is not defined in 49 CFR 571.3. However, as noted in the footnote above, because of the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, only non-over-the-road buses can be included in this excepted category of a perimeter-seating bus.

Perimeter seating is exemplified by a single forward-facing row of seats at the back of the vehicle, inward-facing seats and a large luggage rack, along the side walls. This configuration is intended to increase the speed and ease of passenger boarding and alighting, such as for airport shuttle buses.

The transit bus exclusion now refers to a simple description of a physical feature typically present on a transit bus—the passenger “stop request” system—to identify a transit bus under the rule.

The passenger seats in buses used for the transport of passengers under physical restraint (prison buses) are also excluded from the seat belt requirements adopted today. However, as noted in the footnote above, because of the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, only non-over-the-road buses can be included in this excepted category of prison bus.

VIII. Motorcoach Definition

The Vehicle Safety Act requires the FMVSSs to be appropriate for the vehicle type to which they apply. Each FMVSS specifies the vehicle types subject to the standard.

The vehicles affected by this final rule currently fall under the definition of “bus” for the purposes of applying the FMVSSs (49 CFR Section 571.3) and must comply with the FMVSSs that apply to buses, consistent with GVWR specifications. A “bus” is defined in § 571.3 as “a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.” Some FMVSSs (or requirements within those standards) apply to buses with a GVWR equal to or less than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb), others apply to buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb), and some apply to buses without distinguishing GVWR.

The agency issued the NPRM to reduce the risk of ejection in intercity transport buses (75 FR at 50969). A “motorcoach” definition was proposed “to define the vehicle type to which the proposed requirements apply and to distinguish motorcoaches from other bus types.”

Id.

NHTSA typically analyzes the construction type and the purpose for which the vehicle is being built when the agency establishes a vehicle class for the FMVSSs. NHTSA has defined a number of motor vehicle types in 49 CFR 571.3, including: passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. For the most part, for purposes of objectivity and to facilitate the ability of manufacturers to know at the time of vehicle manufacture which FMVSS the vehicle must meet, and the ability of dealers knowing at the time of vehicle sale which vehicles may be sold, the agency seeks to define vehicles by their attributes and construction features rather than by their purported intended use.

To make manufacturers' and dealers' responsibilities in meeting the Vehicle Safety Act as clear as possible, NHTSA sought to define “motorcoach” using reference to relevant visible attributes and construction characteristics rather than by the intended use of the vehicles, or some other factor determined after manufacture or sale.

An exception is the “school bus” definition, which is statutory in origin and which refers to the intended purpose for which the vehicle is sold.

NHTSA reviewed various definitions used in motorcoach safety legislation. The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act defines the term “motorcoach” as the meaning given the term “over-the-road bus” in section 3038(a)(3) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).

Section 3038(a)(3) of TEA-21 states that the term “over-the-road bus” means a bus characterized by an elevated passenger deck located over a baggage compartment.

The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act states also that the term does not include a bus used in public transportation provided by, or on behalf of, a public transportation agency; or a school bus, including a multifunction school activity bus.

TEA-21's definitions also include the following:

• The term “intercity, fixed-route over-the-road bus service” means regularly scheduled bus service for the general public, using an “over-the-road bus,” that (a) operates with limited stops over fixed routes connecting two or more urban areas not in close proximity; (b) has the capacity for transporting baggage carried by passengers; and (c) makes meaningful connections with scheduled intercity bus service to more distant points.

• The term “other over-the-road bus service” means any other transportation using over-the-road buses including local fixed-route service, commuter service, and charter or tour service (including tour or excursion service that

includes features in addition to bus transportation such as meals, lodging, admission to points of interest or special attractions or the services of a tour guide).

We believed that the definitions referring to over-the-road buses or over-the-road bus service were too narrow for our purpose, because a number of intercity transport buses involved in fatal crashes were body-on-chassis buses that lacked an elevated passenger deck over a baggage compartment. The issue of body-on-chassis buses is discussed further below. Further, as explained above, definitions that were based on the intended use of the vehicle could pose difficulties for manufacturers and dealers, since the intended use of a vehicle might not be known at the time of vehicle manufacture or sale. We wanted to make sure as reasonably possible that the buses we most wanted to affect (high-capacity buses associated with known fatality and injury risks) would meet the “motorcoach” safety standards, without having to depend on the state of knowledge of persons in the manufacturing and distribution chain about the prospective use of the bus.

We were also concerned that the meaning of some of the terms used in the above definitions was not sufficiently objective for use in the FMVSSs. Examples of these are: “regularly scheduled,” “two or more urban areas not in close proximity,” and “meaningful connections . . . to more distant points.”

Currently, there is no common Departmental or industry definition of “motorcoach.” FMCSA does not have a definition for motorcoach in its regulations, but it considers a “motorcoach” to be an over-the-road bus. As noted above, over-the-road buses are a subset of the buses NHTSA believed should be regulated as “motorcoaches,” encompassing a part of but not enough of the heavy bus safety problem we seek to address.

In developing criteria for defining motorcoaches, we also examined other countries' approaches. For countries that have adopted United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) regulations, motorcoaches are defined as Class III, M3 vehicles. Class III, M3 vehicles are defined as having occupant seating locations for more than 8 passengers, vehicle weights in excess of 5 metric tons (11,023 lb) and are not designed to carry standing passengers. We consider this ECE definition too broad for us to use as a definition of motorcoach, as it captures vehicles that are not subject to today's lap/shoulder seat belt standard. The ECE definition includes vehicles that are not “buses” under 49 CFR 571.3.

Our discussion of the GVWR criterion is discussed further later in this section. Further, the reference to “not designed to carry standing passengers” would not be sufficiently objective for our purposes, as people could reasonably disagree as to whether a particular design allowed or did not allow standees.

Under 571.3, a bus is designed to carry 10 or more passengers. Vehicles designed to carry fewer than 10 passengers are multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) or passenger cars.

We examined the terms used in FARS. The FARS database uses the following description of a motorcoach: “Cross Country/Intercity Bus (e.g., Greyhound).” Other descriptive information is also collected in the bus use sub-category, i.e., commuter, tour, scheduled service, shuttle, etc. For our purposes, as explained in the NPRM (75 FR at 50970), the FARS bus body type definition for “Cross Country/Intercity” and the use-based sub-categories are not appropriate. One problem is that these terms lack sufficient specificity. In addition, the use-based subcategories are problematic simply because they describe use and not physical characteristics, which limits their potential efficacy in determining the appropriate applicability of the FMVSS at time of vehicle manufacture and sale. The FARS designations are not clear enough to give manufacturers and dealers knowledge of the FMVSSs the bus must meet at the time of manufacture or sale of the vehicle.

In developing the NPRM, NHTSA sought to develop a motorcoach definition as an expedient means of applying FMVSSs to the vehicles targeted by the agency's safety plan. The vehicles of interest were high-occupancy buses associated with a known fatality and injury risk. The buses typically carried a large number of passengers and were operated at highway speeds. Specific safety risks addressed by the NHTSA plan were the risks of ejection, prolonged emergency egress from the vehicles, fire risk, and structural vulnerability to roof loading in a rollover event.

To develop a definition for application of these safety initiatives, we examined the involvement of high-occupancy buses

in fatal crashes over a 10-year period (FARS data files, for the NPRM, 1999-2008; for the final rule, 2000-2009). In this examination of high-occupancy bus data, we inspected crash data for buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). We analyzed the construction type and various attributes of the vehicles. The 2000-2009 FARS data show that for buses over 4,536 kg (10,000 lb), only 17 percent of the passenger fatalities were in buses with a GVWR less than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), but that 83 percent of the fatalities were in buses with a GVWR greater than 11, 793 kg (26,000 lb).

Other than transit buses and school buses.

We reviewed the underlying chassis structure of high-occupancy vehicles involved in fatal crashes. Some had a monocoque

structure with a luggage compartment under the elevated passenger deck (“over-the-road buses”). However, an elevated passenger deck over a baggage compartment was not an element common to the buses involved in fatal intercity transport. In FARS data for buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), 36 percent of the fatalities were in the other bus and unknown bus categories, i.e., not in the over-the-road bus category. Some buses were built using body-on-chassis configurations.

Monocoque means a type of vehicular construction in which the body is combined with the chassis as a single unit.

We believe that body-on-chassis configurations are newer entrants into the motorcoach services market. They appear to be increasing in number. A cursory review of the types of buses being used in the Washington, DC area for motorcoach services showed that traditional motorcoaches are generally used for fixed-route services between major metropolitan areas. However, for charter, tour, and commuter transportation from outlying areas, many bus types are used. Some are of monocoque structure, while others are of body-on-chassis structure.

The review of the FARS files performed for the NPRM also showed other characteristics that were common to high-occupancy buses involved in fatal crashes: 16 or more designated seating positions, and two or more rows of forward-facing seats that were rearward of the driver's seating position (i.e., this feature distinguishes the bus from a bus with perimeter seating).

With this information, we included these criteria in the proposed definition, noting that the 16 or more capacity criterion also was consistent with FMCSA regulations for commercial driver's licenses. We intended the definition to include buses sold for “intercity, tour, and commuter bus service” (75 FR at 50970) and listed those types of service in the definition. We proposed to exclude school buses and urban transit buses from the definition, for reasons explained in the NPRM.

a. GVWR

Approximately 11 commenters addressed the proposed GVWR criterion of 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) or greater. Some commenters expressed their support for the criteria proposed in the NPRM, including the 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) GVWR cut-off, without providing specific reasons for their agreement. Many commenters believed that the criterion should be lowered to 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) from 11,793 kg (26,000 lb).

NTSB commented in favor of a 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) GVWR criterion, stating that “all buses with a GVWR above 10,000 pounds should be defined and have standards addressing roof strength, occupant protection, and window glazing.” NTSB stated that the 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) GVWR criterion in the motorcoach definition will exclude some medium-sized buses from the proposed lap/shoulder seat belt requirements while including other buses that “are essentially the same.” The commenter stated that medium-size buses should be categorized as motorcoaches because of the buses' interior design, use for tour operations, and seating capacity.

The National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services, Safe Ride News, and Advocates for Highway Safety (Advocates) also supported lowering the GVWR criterion to 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). These commenters stated that the proposed definition would exclude buses that serve the same function and are similar in design to buses that transport many passengers on high-speed roads.

Seat suppliers Freedman Seating Company (Freedman) and IMMI supported lowering the criterion to 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). Freedman stated that the definition of motorcoach proposed in the NPRM would leave a class of vehicles with a GVWR between 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) and 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) that would not be required to have seat belts. Seat supplier American Seating suggested a GVWR criterion of 8,618 kg (19,000 lb) or greater in order to include vehicles of similar construction and design intent as “motorcoaches.”

Bus manufacturers IC Bus and MCI suggested various vehicle attributes and features of a “traditional motorcoach” for use in a definition (e.g., 40+ passenger seats, an elevated passenger deck over a baggage compartment, buses engaged in highway speed). These features are typically associated with over-the-road buses. Alternatively, IC Bus suggested that, if NHTSA believes there is a need to “expand the motorcoach definition beyond what we would consider the traditional motorcoach,” then IC Bus would support a mandate for seat belts on all forward-facing passenger seats on all buses with a GVWR over 10,000 lb, excluding urban transit buses and school buses. Similarly, MCI stated that the GVWR criterion should be lowered to include buses with a GVWR less than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) if the vehicles are sold for and/or are engaged in highway speed operations that are the same as or similar to the typical operation as motorcoaches.

United Motorcoach Association (UMA) commented in favor of applying the rulemaking to buses with a GVWR between 4,536 kg and 11,793 kg (10,000 lb and 26,000 lb), stating that these buses are being increasingly used in intercity charter and tour bus applications and have been in accidents.

Agency Response

We begin by separating two entwined subjects addressed in the comments on the proposed definition. First is a matter about which buses should be called “motorcoaches,” and the second concerns the vehicles to which this rulemaking ought to apply.

1. Response to Comments on Looking Like A Traditional Motorcoach

As to the first matter, some commenters were troubled that certain buses would be “motorcoaches” under the proposed definition when “motorcoaches” were traditionally understood by various industry and user groups to be over-the-road buses (characterized by an elevated passenger deck located over a baggage compartment) and not trolley buses (buses configured to look like trolley cars), double-decker buses, buses using body-on-chassis design, entertainment buses, and the like. MCI, IC Bus, and UMA presented their arguments in a manner that appeared to reserve the term “motorcoach” for buses that they described as a “traditional motorcoach,” i.e., an “over-the-road” bus. IC Bus further recommended that “motorcoach” be defined as a “Class 8” bus, which has a GVWR greater than 33,000 lb.

Several commenters identified physical features

of a “motorcoach” that they believed would be helpful to use in a motorcoach definition, such as vehicle floor height (low or high height) (e.g., a passenger compartment that is more than 45 inches above the ground); engine location; body/chassis construction (monocoque versus body-on-chassis); 40 or more passenger seats; whether the bus has equipment for standees; center of gravity (CG), the number of entrance/exit doors, the presence of a lavatory, and the presence of three axles. Some of these features were suggested to distinguish motorcoaches from transit buses. Some appeared to be suggested by commenters seeking to avoid having their buses called motorcoaches.

Some commenters also suggested operating speed and where the bus is driven (such as exclusively in urban areas), but these features were not helpful. Since these issues relate to how the vehicle would be used, as discussed earlier, these use-based suggestions are not conducive toward determining the applicability of the FMVSSs during vehicle manufacture.

After the NPRM, NHTSA and FMCSA met to determine whether it was necessary to define the term “motorcoach” in the final rule given the public comments and the types of buses NHTSA intended to cover under its rulemaking. Although FMCSA does not define the term motorcoach, it uses the term in its programs and many of its constituency groups have long understood the term “motorcoach” to mean an over-the-road bus. FMCSA informed NHTSA that defining “motorcoach” to mean buses other than over-the-road buses could cause some consternation among user groups (e.g., bus operators and inspectors) who are accustomed to thinking of a motorcoach as an over-the-road bus. For instance, if NHTSA considered all buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) “motorcoaches,” confusion in the field may arise as to whether FMCSA's in-use requirements for “motorcoaches” apply to the vehicles.

Although each agency in DOT is able to define specific terms in their regulations that have legal relevance only in the context of that agency's regulations, NHTSA agrees that confusion should be avoided as reasonably possible over the use of the word “motorcoach” by the agencies of DOT.

Thus, after evaluating the above information, we have made the following conclusions.

NHTSA seeks to require passenger lap/shoulder seat belts in high-occupancy buses that, according to accident data, are associated with an unreasonable risk of passenger fatality and injury due to ejection. Accident data indicate that these buses, which we proposed in the NPRM to call “motorcoaches,” are buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). FARS data did not show that any feature other than GVWR—such as floor height, seating capacity, CG, number of axles or emergency exits, body/chassis construction, or presence of a toilet—

was relevant in distinguishing these buses from buses that did not pose the increased fatality risk.

As explained previously and in the NPRM, we believe that limiting the scope of this rulemaking only to “traditional motorcoaches” (over-the-road buses) would only be a partial, incomplete response to the safety problem. FARS data for 2000-2009 show that buses other than over-the-road coaches were involved in high speed crashes involving multiple passenger fatalities due to rollover, ejection and frontal impacts. FARS data show that 64 percent of the fatalities were in cross-country/intercity buses (traditional over-the-road type buses) and 36 percent were in the “other bus” and “unknown bus” categories. We do not find good reason to exclude from today's seat belt requirements buses that are of a similar size, seating configuration, and function as an over-the-road bus type, and that are associated with the same safety risk as an over-the-road bus, only because they have a non-traditional (e.g., body-on-chassis) design and appearance.

To illustrate, the IC Bus HC Series is an example of large “mid-sized” body-on-chassis bus that approaches the size of a traditional over-the-road motorcoach. This vehicle can be ordered with a GVWR up to 13,608 kg (30,000 lb), an occupant capacity of 37 or 45, and an interior that has many of the same features as a traditional motorcoach. IC Bus advertises this bus on its Web site

as suitable for tours, shuttle service, sports team transport, high-frequency trips, ski trips, church group transport, and scheduled route and transit service. The bus is advertised as having luxury features found on traditional motorcoaches, such as an audio-video entertainment system with DVD and AM/FM/CD stereo, overhead parcel rack with aircraft style air conditioning controls, reading light, plush seating, and availability of WiFi, satellite TV, and wide-screen television. In short, this bus can be ordered in a configuration which lends itself to use as a motorcoach with motorcoach features. There is no reason to believe that it poses a lesser ejection crash safety risk than a traditional over-the-road motorcoach. The main difference between this bus and an over-the-road bus is body-on-chassis construction and a dedicated luggage compartment in the rear.

There are similarly sized buses from other manufacturers which even offer luggage storage under the passenger deck.

www.icbus.com/ICBus/buses/commercial/hcseries/features. Last accessed July 10, 2012.

Similar buses are being offered by several other manufacturers, including Turtle Top, Glaval Bus, Starcraft Bus, Krystal Koach, and Thor Industries and their subsidiaries.

www.turtletop.com/OdysseyXLT/Options.aspx.

An elevated passenger deck over a baggage compartment was not an element common to the buses involved in fatal crashes. We believe it would be short-sighted for our regulation to refer to an under-compartment storage location for baggage as determinative of the applicability of this regulation since a separate storage location has been irrelevant to distinguishing the buses' involvement in fatal crashes. Also, tour buses are frequently equipped with just an overhead rack for passengers to store personal belongings. Some buses offer the baggage compartment as an option to the purchaser.

We also determined that a self-contained toilet was only prevalent on long distance travel buses and was not present in all tour or commuter buses. Other equipment such as reading lights, video displays, ventilation ports and adjustable seat backs were also not common to all motorcoach type buses. Accordingly, identifying a motorcoach by the presence of these features could exclude many of the buses that have been in fatal crashes over the years. We also wanted to avoid a definition that could be easily circumvented by persons seeking to have their buses excluded from the motorcoach category. Such a definition would be one that specified that a motorcoach is a vehicle with a feature that a manufacturer could readily leave off of the vehicle.

Yet, after reviewing the comments, the information from FMCSA, the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, and other information, we have decided to adopt a different approach to apply the requirements of this final rule than defining “motorcoach” as proposed in the NPRM. We have determined it is unnecessary to define the term to accomplish our rulemaking objectives, and that it is simpler not to define the term at all.

In the NPRM, the agency's proposed definition basically sought to apply FMVSS No. 208's passenger lap/shoulder belt requirements to buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), excepting certain bus types. After reviewing the comments, we decided that if those excepted bus types were defined (e.g., transit bus, school bus

), a preferred approach would be to simply apply FMVSS No. 208's requirements to buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) and exclude those excepted bus types.

“School bus” is already defined in 49 CFR 571.3.

After passage of the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, it became necessary to modify this approach slightly for buses meeting the Act's over-the-road bus definition. The Act does not place a 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) lower limit on over-the-road buses, and does not permit other than lap/shoulder belts on designated seating positions in those buses. With the Act's provisions in mind, we decided to apply FMVSS No. 208's requirements separately to over-the-road and to non-over-the-road buses. This is the approach adopted by this final rule.

This approach is preferable to the NPRM's approach for several reasons. Some commenters had trouble reconciling the traditional view of a motorcoach with our proposed definition of a motorcoach and were confused or perplexed that a bus they had never considered to be a motorcoach would be a motorcoach under the regulation. We decided that, with people having pre-conceived ideas of what a “motorcoach” is or should be, it is best not to use the traditional term to describe a nontraditional universe of buses. This approach accords with plain writing principles.

Some manufacturers objected to having their buses called motorcoaches and having them subject to this rulemaking. In reality, it does not matter for the application of the standard what name we called the vehicles. The term was intended as an abbreviated way to apply the seat belt requirements to the buses that crash data indicate need seat belts, i.e., buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). After considering the comments, we decided we did not need to use the term “motorcoach” to accomplish our rulemaking objectives, and that it was best to avoid adopting a definition of “motorcoach” that differed from a commonly held understanding of the term.

This approach is also more practical than the NPRM's because of enactment of the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, which refers specifically to over-the-road

buses without a limitation on GVWR, and calls specifically for lap/shoulder belts at all designated seating positions on these vehicles. To our knowledge, all buses “characterized by an elevated passenger deck located over a baggage compartment” currently manufactured in the U.S. have GVWRs

greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). It also does not seem likely that an “over-the-road” bus would be produced in the future with a GVWR under 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). However, markets change, and we are aware of buses apparently meeting the “elevated passenger deck located over a baggage compartment” description with GVWRs below 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) being sold for use in other countries. Thus, to ensure that all over-the-road buses in the U.S. in the future are equipped with lap/shoulder belts at all designated seating positions, we are adopting the TEA-21 definition of over-the-road bus and explicitly applying today's regulation to that bus type, as well as to buses other than over-the-road buses with GVWRs greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). This approach not only ensures that Congress's intent to enhance the safety of over-the-road buses is realized now and in the future, but better attains our overarching goal under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of enhancing the safety of intercity buses used for motorcoach transportation.

An over-the-road bus is statutorily defined as “a bus characterized by an elevated passenger deck located over a baggage compartment.” See section 3038 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 5310 note).

Furthermore, another practical advantage is this approach enables us to refine the requirements of today's final rule in a clearer manner. We read the Motorcoach Enhancement Safety Act as limiting the final rule's allowance of lap belts on over-the-road buses. We have more discretion for other bus types, and we have used our discretion, as appropriate, to allow lap belts for side-facing seats on non-over-the-road buses, and to exclude certain buses (e.g., prison buses) from requirements for seat belts.

Thus, we are amending FMVSS No. 208 to require lap/shoulder belts at all seating positions on: (a) Over-the-road buses; and (b) non-over-the-road buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) (with the exception of excluded bus types). By extending FMVSS No. 208 to these vehicles, we are also extending associated requirements to the seat belt systems on the vehicles, such as the FMVSS No. 210 anchorage strength requirements. This approach makes the applicability of the amended FMVSS No. 208 requirements very clear. Under today's final rule, if the bus is an over-the-road bus, the seat belt system requirements apply. If the bus is not an over-the-road bus, if its GVWR is greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), the seat belt system requirements apply unless the bus is in an excluded category of bus (transit bus, school bus, perimeter-seating bus, prison bus). This clear-cut approach accords with plain writing principles.

Today's approach is more aligned with NTSB H-10-002 than a situation where the term “motorcoach” had different meanings in the NHTSA and FMCSA programs. Today's approach avoids potential confusion among the public that might result from a NHTSA definition of “motorcoach” that differed from the understanding of the FMCSA community or from the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act.

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, this final rule does not adopt a “motorcoach” definition. It amends FMVSS No. 208 to apply seat belts and associated requirements at all seating positions and thereby applies the FMVSS No. 210 anchorage strength requirements to over-the-road buses, and to non-over-the-road buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) with the exception of certain excluded bus types.

As indicated above, the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act also directs the Secretary to consider various other motorcoach rulemakings aside from today's final rule, and directs us to conduct those rulemakings in accordance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We note that in future rulemaking actions targeted at over-the-road buses and other large buses taken pursuant to these statutory authorities, there might be a need for the agency to clarify one or more descriptive parameters in the definition of over-the-road bus, such as the terms “elevated” and “baggage compartment” in deciding the applicability of the amended rules. Clarification might be needed so as to avoid possible conflict among the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for buses of various types and weights, or to make the applicability of a standard easier to understand.

2. On Lowering the GVWR Criterion

The second matter of concern expressed in the comments was: To which vehicles should this rule apply. Many comments expressed the position that, since the agency is undertaking a rulemaking to install lap/shoulder belts on all seats of large buses, now is the time to require installation of such belts on all buses.

It seemed that some commenters wanted the GVWR criterion lowered from 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) to 4,536 kg (10,000 lb), so that when belts are required and other safety efforts are initiated for “motorcoaches,” the seat belts and safety improvements would be required for all buses.

FMVSS No. 208 requires lap/shoulder belts for all seats on buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less. It also requires lap belts at the driver seat of buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb).

This final rule requires all over-the-road buses to have lap/shoulder belts without reference to GVWR, in accordance with the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act. For buses other than over-the-road buses, this rule adopts the GVWR criterion of 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)

and does not lower it to 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). Our reasons for not lowering the GVWR criterion for buses other than over-the-road buses are discussed below.

This final rule slightly changes the proposed GVWR criterion “GVWR of 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) or greater” to “GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb).” The change referring to the 1-lb difference was made to make the GVWR cut-off more consistent with the regulations of FMCSA, which use a criterion of “26,001 lb” in its definition of “commercial motor vehicle.” See 49 CFR 383.5.

This rulemaking originated to focus on the risk of fatality associated with “motorcoaches,” which NHTSA's 2007 Motorcoach Safety Plan had called intercity transport buses. This rulemaking was not intended to address whether seat belts should be required on buses regardless of vehicle weight class. This final rule also responds to the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, which requires NHTSA to issue a final rule “requiring safety belts to be installed in motorcoaches” within one year after date of enactment of the Act. Congress was aware of the August 2010 NPRM preceding this final rule, and the short timeframe provided by the Act indicates that Congress was aware that NHTSA intended this rulemaking to be focused on heavy buses and that Congress wanted NHTSA to complete it quickly.

The decision to focus this rulemaking on buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) is data-driven. In developing this rulemaking, NHTSA analyzed accident data that identified unique safety risks affecting buses that were not sufficiently addressed by the current FMVSSs. These risks include the risks of occupant ejection, prolonged emergency egress from the vehicles, and structural vulnerability to roof loading in a rollover event.

As to which buses posed these risks, we examined accident data from a 10-year period to see which buses were involved in fatal crashes, the type of crashes that caused the harm, and the specific mechanics of the injury-causing event. FARS data showed that most passenger fatalities involved buses with a GVWR of more than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). This final rule applies the seat belt regulation to these buses associated with that risk.

The decision to focus this rulemaking on buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) is based on a sound and focused agency policy. NHTSA established the 2007 “NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach Safety” plan after a comprehensive review of safety issues associated with bus

transportation and the course of action that the agency could pursue to address them, as well as projects that should be priority actions. Many considerations were factored into determining the priorities, including: cost and duration of testing, development, and analysis required; likelihood that the effort would lead to the desired and successful conclusion; target population and possible benefits that might be realized; and anticipated cost of implementing the ensuing requirements into the motorcoach fleet. The agency has focused today's rulemaking on the subject buses (GVWR above 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)) to achieve the specific goals of NHTSA's 2007 plan efficiently and expeditiously.

Expanding this rulemaking into a major undertaking on seat belts on all buses would delay issuance of this final rule and the benefits attained, which would not accord with the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act. We believe that a belt requirement for buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg to 11,793 kg (10,000 lb to 26,000 lb) is an important issue, our understanding of which would benefit from a fuller discussion of related issues. We would like to consider more fully matters related to the current and future use of the buses, belt use, any technical issues, and the benefits and costs of a belt requirement. Also, as the majority of manufacturers of “mid-size buses” (between 10,000 and 26,000 lb GVWR) are small businesses, a separate action on mid-size buses might result in many small businesses commenting on the initiative, with NHTSA gaining more information from participation of these entities in the rulemaking process.

In support of its argument that the GVWR criterion should be lowered to include buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb), NTSB provided data from the crashes of two body-on-chassis buses (both with a GVWR between 4,536 kg and 11,793 kg (10,000 lb to 26,000 lb) as evidence of a safety need to lower the GVWR weight limit to 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). These crashes resulted in a total of 10 fatalities in 2009 and 2010. As discussed above, the information from NTSB prompted NHTSA to perform a revised data review, to include data from the “other bus” and “unknown bus” FARS bus categories, both at the 4,536 kg to 11,793 kg (10,000 lb to 26,000 lb) and over 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) GVWR levels.

The updated data from the three FARS bus categories continue to show that buses with a GVWR between 4,536 kg and 11,793 kg (10,000 lb to 26,000 lb) do not constitute a large part of the overall safety problem that we were addressing in the “NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach Safety Plan.” (In this discussion, when we refer to the FARS data for buses, we are excluding transit bus and school bus body types, for the reasons discussed in the NPRM.)

See the previous discussion of this issue in the section titled, “Updated FARS Data.” For the NPRM, only data from the “cross-country/intercity” FARS bus category were analyzed, as NHTSA had thought that this cross-country/intercity FARS bus category contained the relevant data.

As discussed in the earlier section of this preamble, “Updated FARS Data,” the new analysis showed that from 2000 through 2009, there were 251 occupant fatalities in buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). Only 42 (17 percent) of these occupant fatalities occurred in buses with a GVWR between 4,536 kg and 11,793 kg (10,000 lb to 26,000 lb). In contrast, 209 (83 percent) occupant fatalities were in buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). Among the 137 fatalities occurring in rollover crashes in buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb), 114 (83 percent) were in buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb).

Notwithstanding the agency's determinations about limiting the GVWR limit for non-over-the-road buses, this final rule also responds to the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act. That Act requires lap/shoulder belts on over-the-road buses and provides no explicit limit on GVWR. As mentioned earlier, we are not aware of any over-the-road bus being sold in the U.S. with a GVWR below 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). Thus, as a practical matter, the buses affected by this final rule are buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb).

NHTSA has examined the benefits and costs of our final rule in accordance with the principles for regulatory decision-making set forth in Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563, and has made decisions consistent with those orders. Fatalities and injuries in transit buses and in mid-size buses (between 10,000 and 26,000 lb GVWR) were also examined by NHTSA after receiving the comments, to obtain a higher-level view of the occupant protection provided by buses generally. The FRIA provides these analyses for informational purposes.

Although it appears that the likely cost per equivalent life saved for mid-size buses will be much greater than the $6.3 million value of a statistical life guideline in ($2008) at least for the present and near future, we would like to continue to examine the need for seat belts on these buses in a future context that will allow more time to conduct this examination than that provided by the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act for this final rule.

For the FRIA analysis, we estimate that there are approximately 14,600 mid-size buses (between 10,000 and 26,000 lb GVWR) produced and sold annually for purposes other than school transportation and transit services. We assume for purposes of our analysis that the average mid-size bus has 24 passenger seats. The average per vehicle costs are estimated at $7.54 for the driver position and $937.68 for the passenger positions. The total fleet cost to install lap/shoulder belts on these vehicles is estimated to be $13.8 million and the additional fuel costs would be approximately $6.9 to $9.4 million. We estimate that 0.02 to 0.2 driver lives (1 to 12 injuries) and 0.3 to 1.71 passenger lives (28 to 153 injuries) would be saved annually (0.67 to 4.96 total equivalent lives) by a seat belt requirement applying to mid-size buses, assuming the effectiveness of belts on mid-size buses is equal to that we estimate for belts on buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). The cost per equivalent life saved is estimated to range between $0.3 to $1.2 million for drivers, $4.6 to $35.5 million for passengers and $4.2 to $33.7 for all occupants (assuming a seat belt use rate of 50 percent to 83 percent for drivers and 15 percent to 83 percent for passengers).

Accordingly, as we have shown in this section, in developing this final rule, we are applying this rule to high-occupancy buses that have a high involvement in fatal crashes, generally, and in fatal rollover crashes involving ejection, particularly—i.e., buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). In doing so, we are mitigating the vast majority of fatalities Congress intended to address in the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, and which NHTSA has targeted in the 2007 “NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach Safety” plan, in a focused and expedited manner.

This final rule does not prohibit the voluntary installation of passenger seat belts in buses with a GVWR between 4,536 kg and 11,793 kg (10,000 lb to 26,000 lb).

b. Sixteen Designated Seating Positions

The proposed “motorcoach” definition included a provision that one of the attributes of a motorcoach is that it has 16 or more DSPs. This reference was to make the definition similar to FMCSA's definition of a “commercial motor vehicle,” for purposes of FMCSA's commercial driver's license (CDL) requirements.

Comments

Some commenters (e.g., Freedman Seating Company, and MCI) recommended that the number of DSPs be reduced to fewer than 16. Freedman and MCI's comments were related to their suggestion that the rule should be applied to smaller buses. Turtle Top's comment highlighted the increased complexity and possible confusion that a “16 or more DSPs” provision could create in specifying vehicle types.

Agency Response

Under FMCSA's regulations, buses with a GVWR greater than 11,739 kg (26,000 lb) are commercial motor vehicles under the CDL regulation,

regardless of the number of DSPs.

Since this final rule does not lower the GVWR criterion, the number of DSPs on a bus with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) is of no consequence for purposes of CDL requirements. Thus, the comments are moot, and the “16 or more DSPs” provision is unnecessary and may only add confusion regarding the requirements for buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), especially those with only 10 to 15 DSPs. We have deleted the provision.

Pursuant to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's Commercial Driver's License Standards at 49 CFR 383.3, persons are required to obtain and hold a CDL if they operate in interstate, foreign or intrastate commerce if they operate a vehicle that meets any of the classifications of a “commercial motor vehicle” (CMV) where CMV is defined at 49 CFR 383.5 as follows:

“

Commercial motor vehicle (CMV)

means a motor vehicle or combination of motor vehicles used in commerce to transport passengers or property if the motor vehicle—

(1) Has a gross combination weight rating or gross combination weight of 11,794 kilograms or more (26,001 pounds or more), whichever is greater, inclusive of a towed unit(s) with a gross vehicle weight rating or gross vehicle weight of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds), whichever is greater; or

(2) Has a gross vehicle weight rating or gross vehicle weight of 11,794 or more kilograms (26,001 pounds or more), whichever is greater; or

(3) Is designed to transport 16 or more passengers, including the driver; or

(4) Is of any size and is used in the transportation of

hazardous materials

as defined in this section.”

c. At Least 2 Rows of Forward-Facing Seats Rearward of the Driver's Seat

The proposed “motorcoach” definition included a provision that one of the attributes of a motorcoach is that it has “at least 2 rows of passenger seats, rearward of the driver's seat, that are forward-facing or can convert to forward-facing without the use of tools.” This reference was to distinguish “motorcoaches” from buses with perimeter seating, such as those used to transport passengers in airports between the terminal and locations such as a rental car facility or long term parking.

Buses with perimeter seating usually have a single forward-facing row of seats at the back of the vehicle and seats along one or both sides of the bus. Passengers sitting along the side of the bus face the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle, usually with their backs toward the windows. Buses with perimeter seating are used to carry people for a relatively short period, typically are meant to transport standees, and are spacious to accommodate baggage and other carry-on items and to maximize the speed of passenger boarding and alighting. Passengers are expected to board and disembark the bus quickly, with large baggage and other belongings; the buses are on a tight operating schedule. We proposed to exclude buses with perimeter seating because we believed that they are used for relatively short rides, and are used on set routes and are not widely exposed to general traffic. Also, because of the nature of the transport (frequent and quick loading and unloading of passengers), and the roads on which they generally travel, passenger seat belts in such buses are not as needed or likely to be worn by passengers.

Comments

Advocates suggested that passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles should not be excluded from the “motorcoach” definition simply on the basis of “the arrangement of designated, forward-facing seating positions.” Other commenters supported placing seat belts on airport shuttles.

MCI commented changing the criterion from “at least two rows of passenger seats” to “at least 8 seating positions.”

Turtle Top thought the motorcoach definition proposed in the NPRM implied that motorcoaches can have 16 DSPs with only two rows of seats, requirements it thought were conflictive. IC Bus, American Seating, and IMMI commented that all seats in motorcoaches should be required to be forward-facing.

Agency Response

The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act directs NHTSA to “prescribe regulations requiring safety belts to be installed in motorcoaches at each designed seating position.” “Safety belts” mean lap/shoulder belts (see section 32702(12) of the Act) and “motorcoach” means “over-the-road bus” (a bus characterized by an elevated passenger deck located over a baggage compartment) but does not include a bus used in public transportation provided by, or on behalf of, a public transportation agency, or a school bus (see section 32702(6) of the Act). In response to the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, this final rule requires lap/shoulder belts at each designated seating position in over-the-road buses, even if the bus has perimeter seating.

The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act's mandate to require seat belts to be installed in over-the-road buses at each designated seating position applies to niche vehicles, such as a vehicles often referred to as a “limo bus” or “party bus,” to the extent that the “limo buses” are based on an “over-the-road” bus design. Another type of niche vehicle is the touring/entertainment bus that is a modified over-the-road bus, with eating and sleeping accommodations, used by some celebrities and entertainers when touring the country. Additional comments and discussion related to these two niche bus types can be found in section VIII.d.3. To the extent that these niche vehicles are body-on-frame construction (not over-the-road buses) they could qualify to be exempted as perimeter-seating buses. Also, some of these vehicles may not be buses at all if they have less than 10 passenger DSPs (11 total DSPs, including the driver).

For buses other than over-the-road buses (typically body-on-frame construction), we have decided to exclude buses with perimeter seating for the reasons discussed in the NPRM and summarized above. However, we are simplifying the language of the standard since the proposed language describing a bus of this type was not well understood or clear enough.

We wish to note, before beginning our discussion, that we received a comment from the family of a man who was permanently disabled in a crash of an airport shuttle bus with perimeter seating. The comment supported having belts on these buses. We have carefully considered the comment but we are unable to concur with its recommendation to require seat belts on these buses.

In our decision-making on safety regulations, our decisions must be practical, fair, reasonable and necessary. The available accident data indicate that fatalities and serious injuries in crashes of airport shuttle-type buses of GVWRs greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) with perimeter seating do not happen with a frequency that enables us to conclude that the affected buses with perimeter seating should be required to have seat belts. However, in the future, if data indicate a need for seat belts, we will be willing to revisit this issue.

This discussion assumes that the bus is not an over-the-road bus.

Simplified Language

The following discussion relates to buses other than over-the-road buses. It does not apply to over-the-road buses. The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act requires over-the-road buses to have safety belts, so we have therefore defined “perimeter-seating bus” as not including an over-the-road bus.

The proposed regulatory text that sought to exclude airport shuttle-type buses with perimeter seating was not well understood by commenters. To clarify it, we are simplifying the language describing perimeter-seating buses in two ways. First, we are changing the format of the regulatory text. As noted above, the NPRM attempted to specify what a motorcoach has or does not have (as proposed in the NPRM, a motorcoach had to have at least 2 rows of forward-facing passenger seats—i.e., a bus with fewer than 2 rows of forward-facing seats was a perimeter-

seating bus and not a “motorcoach”). We have decided it is easier to define “perimeter-seating bus,” and then exclude perimeter-seating buses from FMVSS No. 208's seat belt requirements.

Second, we have defined a perimeter-seating bus by referring to the maximum number of forward-facing DSPs the vehicle may have, rather than the number of “rows” the vehicle may have. This is along the lines suggested by MCI. We are making this change because we have found it difficult to define the term “row” for purposes of today's amendments using plain language.

FMVSS No. 226, “Ejection mitigation” (49 CFR 571.226) has a definition of row, but that definition does not work entirely well with regard to motorcoach seating configurations.

For example, assuming the forward-facing seating positions in a bus is divided by an aisle, the forward-facing seating positions on the left half of the bus may not align with the seats on the right half. This lack of alignment may occur when there is a parcel rack, junction box, door, or some other element of the bus' design that is located on only one side of the bus. These elements may shift placement of seats on that side of the bus, so that the seats do not align with seats on the other side (when viewed from the side of the bus, as specified by FMVSS No. 226).

We have defined “row” in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 226, “Ejection mitigation.” (See 49 CFR Section 571.226. “Row” means “a set of one or more seats whose seat outlines do not overlap with the seat outline of any other seats, when all seats are adjusted to their rearmost normal riding or driving position, when viewed from the side.”) That standard's definition of row is not suited to our goals for today's rulemaking. The reason is that “row” in FMVSS No. 226 is defined so that any seats that overlap when viewed from the side are considered to be in a single row, i.e., a row does not end until there is a clear separation between seats. This has the effect of minimizing the number of rows in a vehicle, which works well for FMVSS No. 226 because it maximizes the window area required to be covered with an ejection mitigation countermeasure. However, for motorcoaches, if the seats are configured so that when viewed from the side, there is no separation between any seats, the entire seating of the bus would be considered one row. Thus, the bus would not be considered to have two rows of forward-facing seats, and therefore, contrary to the goal of this rulemaking, would not be a “motorcoach.”

After reviewing the comments, we have decided that an easier approach is to define “perimeter-seating bus” by referring to a maximum number of forward-facing passenger DSPs allowed under the exclusion. Under the NPRM, a bus that has two or more rows of forward-facing passenger seats is potentially a “motorcoach.” Since there are typically 4 forward-facing passenger DSPs in a row on a motorcoach, there are 8 forward-facing DSPs in two rows. Thus, the equivalent of saying that a motorcoach has at least 2 rows of forward-facing seats is to say that a motorcoach has at least 8 forward-facing DSPs.

In other words, to be excluded from the affected class as a perimeter-seating bus, the bus has to have 7 or fewer forward-facing passenger DSPs.

This final rule adopts the following term in FMVSS No. 208 to describe a perimeter-seating bus: A “perimeter-seating bus” is a bus that has 7 or fewer designated seating positions rearward of the driver's seating position that are forward-facing or can convert to forward-facing without the use of tools.

The NPRM did not intend to count the driver's seat in consideration of what is a row. Likewise, we conclude that the driver's seat does not count toward the 7 forward-facing DSPs.

The maximum number of forward-facing DSPs that can fit side-by side in a vehicle 2.6 meters (102.36 inches)

wide is 5. This is calculated assuming a minimum DSP width of 450 millimeters (17.7 inches, as specified at 49 CFR 571.3). Thus, a “perimeter-seating bus” can have a forward-facing row along the rear wall (5 DSPs) and up to 2 other forward-facing seats behind the driver. Another example is a bus that has some side-facing seats and 3 pairs of seats forward-facing. Under today's rule, as long as the number of forward-facing passenger DSPs is 7 or fewer, the vehicle is a perimeter-seating bus and is excluded from the requirements of this rule.

According to the Federal Highway Administration's regulations at 23 CFR 658.15, the maximum width limit for commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) operating on the National Network (NN) is 102 inches, or its approximate metric equivalent of 2.6 meters (102.36 inches), except for Hawaii where it is 2.74 meters (108 inches).

We recognize that this approach allows a manufacturer to install up to 7 individual forward-facing seats (not including the driver's seat) scattered throughout a bus, and does not require that there be a single row of 5 forward-facing DSPs along the back of the bus. Nonetheless, in limiting the number of forward-facing DSPs to 7 for the bus to be considered a perimeter-seating bus, we believe the definition is clearer and easier to understand than one referring to rows, and adequately describes a bus with primarily side-facing (perimeter) seats.

Some commenters thought that the provision in the proposed definition referring to “at least two rows of forward-facing seats” was an attempt to require all seats to be forward-facing. We did not intend to propose such a requirement, nor are we aware of safety data showing a need for such a requirement.

d. Treatment of Various Bus Types and Configurations Under the Final Rule

We stated in the NPRM that we intended the motorcoach definition to include buses that are sold for intercity, tour, and commuter bus service (75 FR at 50970). In an effort to be as clear and straightforward as possible that buses sold for intercity, tour, and commuter bus service would be motorcoaches, the proposed regulatory text for the motorcoach definition included the following statement: “

Motorcoach

includes buses sold for intercity, tour, and commuter bus service. . . .” We did not exclude shuttle buses generally, but requested comment on whether shuttle buses should be excluded from the proposed definition.

1. Shuttle Buses

We received varied comments on whether “shuttle buses” should be motorcoaches.

Safe Ride News, Advocates, the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services and some individuals supported requiring “shuttle buses” to have seat belts. They believed that these vehicles are often in continuous service and can travel on high speed roads, and can match the risk exposure to ejection risk of intercity or over-the-road buses.

Agency Response

We have decided that there will not be a general exclusion of “shuttle buses” from the coverage of this final rule. Comments and agency observations indicate that there is not a clear meaning of the term “shuttle bus.” We agree with the United Motorcoach Association that “shuttle bus” covers a potentially broad range of uses and bus types. The term can apply to a myriad of commercial passenger vehicles in diverse road and highway exposures. An internet search for buses and services associated with “shuttle buses” resulted in vehicles that range from vans to over-the-road buses, transporting passengers over distances of less than a mile to over 100 miles.

Further, FARS data (2000-2009) indicated that for buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) and having bus body types other than the excluded categories of transit and school bus, shuttle bus use constituted 22.5 percent of fatalities. Accordingly, we are not excluding shuttle buses from today's final rule.

Freedman suggested that “shuttle bus” should be defined as it is in FMVSS No. 225 (49 CFR 571.225),” Child restraint anchorage systems: “a bus with only one row of forward-facing seating positions rearward of the driver's seat.” We note the FMVSS No. 225 definition of “shuttle bus” describes a bus that is classified as a “perimeter-seating bus” in today's final rule (see above section).

2. Trolley and Double-Decker Sightseeing Buses

The NPRM's proposed regulatory text for the motorcoach definition stated that “motorcoaches” included “buses sold for . . . tour . . . bus service. . . .”

Comments

Coach USA commented that sightseeing buses called “trolleys” (which are buses designed to look like a trolley car on tires) and “double-deckers” (buses with two levels of passenger seating, one above the other, some with the top level open and some with both levels enclosed) operate similarly to transit buses and should be excluded from the definition of “motorcoach.” The commenter stated that “[t]hese buses do not operate with passengers on highways, but rather the buses transport passengers exclusively on urban streets, do not exceed about 25 mph, and make frequent stops . . .” Both Coach USA and the American Bus Association (ABA) suggested that the motorcoach definition exclude buses “sold for urban sightseeing transportation with frequent stops.” ABA also recommended that low-floor buses that are used exclusively within urban areas, such as what the commenter said were intra-city double-decker sightseeing buses, be excluded from the motorcoach definition for the same reasons expressed by Coach USA.

Agency Response

We have decided against excluding trolley-type buses and both open and closed top double-decker sightseeing buses from the application of today's final rule.

Regarding trolley-type buses (trolley buses), the agency is concerned that the vehicles are manufactured as buses and are fully capable of being operated at highway speeds. Trolley buses also have overly-large window openings and can be and are at times operated with the windows open, which exacerbates the ejection risk. Seat belts for the passengers will meet a safety need.

We assume that the trolley buses at issue are not transit buses. Transit buses are excluded from coverage of today's final rule.

Regarding closed top double-decker sightseeing buses, no feature of the vehicle would prevent these buses from being operated in the same manner as double-decker buses operated on the highways, such as those operated by Megabus between major metropolitan areas of the Northeast corridor. Further, Van Hool's distributor advertises Van Hool double-decker buses for intercity bus service.

The vehicles can and are being used just like an over-the-road bus for intercity and tour services. (We note that, if a vehicle meets the definition of an over-the-road bus, i.e., if there is a baggage compartment under the elevated passenger deck, the bus must have lap/shoulder belts under the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act.)

See,

http://www.abc-companies.com/models/TD925.asp

. Last accessed July 12, 2012.

Regarding open-top double-decker buses, the vehicles are manufactured as buses and are fully capable of operating at highway speeds. We have observed these buses on high-speed freeways, with passengers, as they make their way into Washington, DC. We note that passengers on the top deck of an open-top double-decker bus face unique risks compared to other buses. A collision at a relatively low speed or an unexpected maneuver may expose passengers to an ejection risk. There is even a risk of injury simply to stand up while the vehicle is in operation.

(We note again that, if a vehicle meets the definition of an over-the-road bus, i.e., if there is a baggage compartment under the elevated passenger deck, the bus must have lap/shoulder belts under the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act.)

On July 11, 2008, two passengers of an open-top double-decker bus were killed when they stood as the bus went under an overpass on an interstate highway in Washington, DC. A similar incident occurred on May 30, 2009 near Mattoon, IL, which also killed two passengers.

Excluding “sightseeing buses” would not be reasonable. “Sight-seeing buses” generally are not distinguishable from over-the-road and heavy body-on-frame buses. They are manufactured as buses and are capable of and are used on high speed roads. The sights to which they travel may be far distances apart. Travelers are often riding on a particular bus for lengthy tours and may ride the bus over long distances over highways. The buses may pose unique ejection risks if they also have overly-large window openings. Seat belts for the passengers will meet a safety need. (If the bus meets the definition of an over-the-road bus, i.e., if there is a baggage compartment under the elevated passenger deck, the bus must have lap/shoulder belts under the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act.)

3. Limousine and Entertainment Buses, Buses With Multiple Wheelchair Positions

Turtle Top described three bus configurations (GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)) that may be ordered with fewer than 16 DSPs and asked whether they would be covered under the then-proposed motorcoach definition. Two of these bus configurations are the limousine and touring coach. Our answer is the limousine and touring/entertainment coaches are subject to today's seat belt requirements if they are over-the-road buses, regardless of seating capacity and regardless of GVWR, under the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act. If the buses are not over-the-road buses, they are subject to the final rule if they have a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), and have 8 or more forward-facing DSPs rearward of the driver's position. We assume that the vehicles meet the definition of a “bus,” which is defined in the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act and our regulations as “a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.” (See section 32702(2) of the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act and 49 CFR 571.3.)

The third bus configuration Turtle Top asked about is “a coach that has many wheelchair positions and not many seats.” The coach is subject to today's seat belt requirements if it is an over-the-road bus, regardless of seating capacity and regardless of GVWR, under the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act. The designated seating positions on the bus (not the wheel chair positions) must have lap/shoulder belts.

If the bus is not an over-the-road bus, the following discussion applies. NHTSA has interpreted the DSP definition such that wheelchair seating positions are not DSPs and thus are not required to comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to DSPs, such as the requirement in this final rule to have seat belts. However, we have said that wheelchair positions are counted in determining vehicle seating capacity for the determination of the type classification of a vehicle.

Accordingly, a vehicle would be subject to today's seat belt requirements if it has a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), 8 or more forward-facing DSPs or wheelchair positions rearward of the driver's position, and at least 10 passenger DSPs or wheelchair positions total.

http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/gm/78/nht78-3.31.html

We assume the bus is not a school bus. There are different provisions for school buses (see, the

DSP definition in 49 CFR 571.3, and FMVSS No. 222).

4. Military Ambulances

Blue Bird described a military ambulance bus that it provides to the General Services Administration (GSA) that is equipped with seats that fold down to allow transport of litters for the wounded. Blue Bird asked that the agency exclude this type of bus from the motorcoach definition and thus from the lap/shoulder seat belt requirements for passenger seats.

In response, 49 CFR 571.7(c) specifies that, “No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.” It is not clear, but it is possible that the sale Blue Bird describes is covered under 571.7(c). If the sale is not covered by 571.7(c) and if the bus is an over-the-road bus, it is required to have seat belts. If the ambulance bus is not an over-the-road bus, if the ambulance bus has 7 or fewer forward-facing DSPs rearward of the driver's position, it is excluded from the requirements of this final rule.

5. Prison Buses

MCI, Blue Bird and Turtle Top asked that vehicles designed to transport prisoners be excluded from the formerly-proposed “motorcoach” definition. The commenters stated that these vehicles are often equipped with small porthole style windows or metal screens over existing windows, segregation cells, and fiberglass or stainless steel low-back seats or benches (to optimize supervision and observation) that are specially designed to be impervious to human fluids and to have no crevices. The interior of the bus is designed to provide an enhanced view of detainees by law enforcement officers and to be free of loose articles that can be used as weapons and tools, such as a seat belt assembly. Commenters stated that since the detainees are often in restraints, the use of seat belts is impractical in most cases. They noted that for reasons related to the unique needs and purposes of prison buses, prison buses are currently excluded from emergency exit and other requirements of FMVSS No. 217, “Bus emergency exits and window retention and release.”

Agency Response

The agency agrees with MCI, Blue Bird, and Turtle Top that passenger seats on buses designed for the transport of passengers under physical restraint should be excluded from the amended FMVSS No. 208 requirements adopted today. The necessary features of the bus—fiberglass or stainless steel low-back seats or benches—are incompatible with installation of seat-mounted lap/shoulder belts. Further, according to the commenters, lap/shoulder belt equipment pose hazards as the buckle hardware and belt webbing could cause harm as weapons or tools. In addition, it is unlikely that the prisoners will be able to buckle themselves in, as their hands are usually handcuffed.

Accordingly, this final rule excludes buses other than over-the-road buses from the requirement to provide passenger seat belts on a “prison bus” for the reasons above. This final rule defines “prison bus” as follows: “Prison bus” means a bus manufactured for the purpose of transporting persons subject to involuntary restraint or confinement and has design features consistent with that purpose. This definition is based on a definition used in FMVSS No. 217. However, because these practical reasons do not apply to the driver's seating position, the driver's seating position is required to have lap/shoulder belts as proposed in the NPRM. For the same reason, any passenger seat opposite (not rearward of) the driver's seat is also required to have a lap/shoulder belt since that seat is not usually used by a prisoner.

For over-the-road buses, the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act requires over-the-road buses to have safety belts at each designated seating position. The driver's seating position must be equipped with a lap/shoulder belt. With regard to the passenger seats, we agree that the seats and safety belts could pose sufficient risk to the safety of guards and detainees that compliance with the final rule for passenger seating positions could result in an overall reduced level of safety compared to prison buses without the belts. Prison bus purchasers seeking to avoid installation of passenger safety belts due to concerns about the guards' safety should consider buses other than over-the-road buses. If an over-the-road bus is a necessity, the bus manufacturer could apply for an exemption from the requirements of this final rule under 49 CFR Part 555, presenting information that the applicant is unable to sell a bus whose overall level of safety is at least equal to that of a non-exempted vehicle.

49 CFR 555.6(d). The number of exempted vehicles sold in the U.S. in any 12-month period is limited to 2,500 vehicles, 49 CFR 555.6(d)(4). The exemption is limited to a period of 2 years by 49 CFR 555.8(b) but applications for renewal of the exemption are automatically granted if filed within 60 days before termination of the exemption and do not terminate until the Administrator grants or denies the application for renewal. 49 CFR 555.8(e).

e. Transit Buses

In the NPRM, based on an analysis of FARS data, we proposed that “motorcoach” would not include “an urban transit bus sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation along a fixed route with frequent stops.” Our analysis of FARS data showed that, for buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), the bus body type with the fewest fatalities at 8.2 percent was “transit buses.” We tentatively determined that, due to a lack of a safety need, it was warranted to exclude transit buses from the class of affected vehicles (motorcoaches) to which the lap/shoulder seat belt requirements would apply.

Comments

In general, most of the bus and seat manufacturers commented that the definition needs to better distinguish between the affected vehicles and “transit buses.” In general, the public transit agencies described three types of operations that cover most of the major services they provide.

These were: (a) “Urban transit” service, characterized by fixed route operation with frequent stops; (b) “express” service, characterized by fixed route operation that is similar to, but with less frequent stops than traditional urban transit service, and with potentially short portions of the route on the highway; and, (c) “commuter express” or “premium express” service, characterized by longer routes with a significant portion on the highway, with either single or frequent stops at each end of the route, and no or few intermediate stops.

The public transit agencies also asked use-related questions, such as whether passengers would be required to wear their seat belts, how would standing passengers (standees) benefit from seat belts, and whether standees would be permitted. Since this final rule does not require belts for transit buses, and because the NPRM did not broach these issues at all, NHTSA sees no need to discuss these issues in this final rule.

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) expressed its concern that the proposed “motorcoach” definition may confuse public transportation agencies, bus manufacturers, and the riding public. APTA explained that the term “urban” in the proposed definition would not exclude all buses used in fixed route transit service with frequent stops, “fixed route” would not exclude transit buses that are used for route-deviated services with frequent stops (i.e., service that conforms to riders' requests,

although still operating with frequent stops), and “frequent stops” may be interpreted to exclude express service (i.e., urban transit service with less frequent stops, although still operated on city streets). APTA suggested that the transit bus exclusion in the proposed definition be replaced with the following: “. . . [except] a transit bus designed and procured for operation in public transportation other than an over-the-road-bus as defined by the U.S. Department of Transportation.”

Turtle Top was concerned that the term “urban transit bus” is not defined in the FMVSSs, and was concerned that a given bus could have both over-the-road and urban transit applications.

IC Bus stated that “to properly exclude `urban transit bus' from proposed motorcoach bus definition, it is our opinion that it may not be possible to define a `motorcoach' without including the vehicle's intended use, or vocation.” IC Bus followed this statement by presenting to the agency an option to define motorcoach based solely on vehicle attributes and features. The features IC Bus presented were essentially those of an over-the-road bus. The American Bus Association (ABA) suggested NHTSA refer to the “low-floor” feature of urban transit buses in defining the buses, but did not define “low floor.” Gillig, a transit bus manufacturer, and most of the public transit agencies that commented, recommended that buses sold for or used to provide public transportation services, regardless of configuration, be excluded from the “motorcoach” definition. Gillig suggested that we adopt the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) definition of “urban bus” in 40 CFR 86.091-02.

Agency Response

This final rule excludes transit buses from today's lap/shoulder seat belt requirements because fatality data for urban transit buses differ significantly from that of other buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). We believe this difference is due in part to the stop-and-go manner of transit bus operation. Updated FARS data from 2000-2009 continue to show that for all bus body types with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), transit buses have the fewest fatalities at 8.2 percent or 23 out of a total of 281. These same data show that there were 20 fatal crashes involving occupants of urban transit buses, resulting in fatalities of 11 drivers and 12 were passengers. Thus, fatal transit bus crashes involve about one fatality, on average. In summary, there are many fewer total fatalities and fatalities per crash for transit buses, and thus a significantly lower risk than in the buses covered by this final rule.

We have not found a safety need justifying a lap/shoulder seat belt requirement for transit buses. To the extent commenters believe there is a safety need, this issue was not explored sufficiently in the NPRM. We discuss the issue of seat belt requirements for the driver seat of transit buses in section XIV of this notice.

Many commenters were troubled that the proposed definition was not sufficiently clear in distinguishing “transit buses” from the buses that do need lap/shoulder seat belts. We agree and have adjusted the proposed definition as follows:

• We made the regulatory text clearer in describing a “transit bus” by referring to a structural feature (a stop-request system) that buses must have to be a “transit bus.” A “stop-request system” means a vehicle-integrated system for passenger use to signal to a vehicle operator that a stop is requested.

• We expanded the description of a transit bus by recognizing that a transit bus could be sold for public transportation provided not only by, but also

on behalf of,

a State or local government, for example, by a contractor.

• We made clearer that over-the-road buses do not qualify as “transit buses,” even if the over-the-road bus has a stop-request system or is sold for public transportation provided by or on behalf of a State or local government.

The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act excludes a bus used in public transportation provided by, or on behalf of, a public transportation agency from its meaning of “motorcoach.” However, we are applying this final rule to over-the-road buses used for public transportation based on determinations we have made pursuant to NHTSA's Vehicle Safety Act authority, 49 U.S.C. 30111, which has existed and continues to exist prior to and separate from the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act provisions. The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act does not indicate an intent by Congress to limit NHTSA's rulemaking authority under the Vehicle Safety Act to issue regulations for vehicles not covered by the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act. We believe that the Act provides a minimum “floor” for this regulation's scope, and not a “ceiling” to its reach. Thus, the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act calls out a regulation for “over-the-road buses” without limiting our authority under the Vehicle Safety Act to regulate other buses as appropriate, including over-the-road buses used in public transportation.

This final rule adopts the following definition of “transit bus” and associated terms.

“Transit bus” means a bus sold for public transportation provided by, or on behalf of a State or local government, that is equipped with a stop-request system and that is not an over-the-road bus. “Stop-request system” means a vehicle-integrated system for passenger use to signal to a vehicle operator that they are requesting a stop. “Over-the-road bus” means a bus characterized by an elevated passenger deck located over a baggage compartment.

IC Bus suggested that we define motorcoach based solely on vehicle attributes and features. We support the idea of using vehicle attributes and features but the features IC Bus presented were essentially those of an over-the-road bus. We will not adopt an approach that narrowly limits the applicability of this final rule to over-the-road buses. In fact, as discussed below, our intent has been to make sure that over-the-road buses used for transit service do not get excluded from this rulemaking. We have not adopted the ABA's suggestion to refer to the “low-floor” feature of urban transit buses in defining the buses. Among other things, there is a lack of objectivity in the term, “low-floor.”

We disagree with Gillig and others suggesting that buses sold for or used to provide public transportation services, regardless of configuration, be excluded from coverage of the rule. We have decided not to use the “urban bus” definition in 40 CFR 86.091-02 because several of its terms are not specific enough for FMVSS purposes. Moreover, we are concerned that some attributes of the definition would exclude buses that should be included in this rulemaking, over-the-road buses. Gillig suggested that we adopt the California Air Resources Board (CARB) clarification of “urban bus.” We have decided not to do so, because CARB's definition would exclude commuter buses (over-the-road buses), which we intended to include in the definition of “motorcoach.”

It was NHTSA's intent in the NPRM to require lap/shoulder seat belts on “over-the-road” buses operated by transit agencies. Over-the-road buses used by transit agencies and over-the-road buses used by private companies for intercity transport both carry large numbers of passengers over long distances, and at highway speeds. Given the occurrence of a crash, the risk of fatality is the same for both groups of buses. It is not uncommon to see commuter express buses traveling on the highway alongside privately-operated tour and charter buses of nearly identical construction. We acknowledge that the public transit agencies' safety record for operating commuter express service is better than the safety record shown by some private sector operators. However, given the overall similarity of the buses in construction and use, we cannot distinguish, from a public safety standpoint, good reasons for requiring

passenger lap/shoulder seat belts in only privately-operated versions of the commuter express buses when the risk of rollover in a crash, risk of fatal or serious injury in a rollover, and risk of fatal or serious injury in all crashes are the same for both groups of buses.

We also note that many commuter express buses are sold to private operators when the public transit agencies turn over their fleets. An advantage to having passenger seat belts on the buses is that when these commuter express buses are eventually turned to private service, the used buses will have passenger seat belts on them.

To address confusion about the transit bus exclusion, in this final rule we have decided to adopt a more objective, simple description of “transit bus.” As suggested by APTA, we removed the terms “fixed route” and “frequent stops” since those terms are not sufficiently clear in meaning. In place of these terms, we have incorporating a reference to a structural feature which is present for transit operation along a route that makes frequent stops, a “stop-request system.” The terms are no longer needed since a bus with a “stop-request system” will likely be making frequent stops and thus operated in a stop-and-go manner.

We have removed the phrase “. . . operation as a common carrier . . .” and added instead the phrase “public transportation provided by, or on behalf of, a State or local government.” This is similar to APTA's suggestion, but adds additional, important detail. We have also added language that makes clear that an “over-the-road

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.