**ATTACHMENT 1**

**September 9, 2007 Letter to Docket**

**Charles L. Gauthier**

**6298 Rock Hill Road**

**The Plains, Virginia 20198-1916**

**540-253-5657**

**540-253-5524 (fax)**

Docket Management Facility September 9, 2007

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, DC 20590

Docket No. NHTSA-2007-28103

The following comments are offered to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) with respect to the issue of lap belts and
lap/shoulder belts on school buses. Comments are separated into four
categories.

**Terminology**

One of the major causes of misunderstanding and confusion that has
plagued any discussion of "belts" on school buses has been the use of
the terms "seat belts," "safety belts," "restraint systems," etc. These
generic terms apply to any and all types of belts systems. However, when
these terms are used in documents and in discussions, it is not always
clear to everyone exactly what type of "belt" is meant.

For example, in the June 4, 2007, *Federal Register* Notice announcing
NHTSA's public meeting on school bus passenger crash protection, the
term "seat belt" is used repeatedly. Unfortunately, the reader has no
certainty of exactly which type of belt system is meant. Is it a "lap
belt?" Or, is it a "lap/shoulder belt?" These are very different
systems, both in terms of design and effectiveness. And, when it comes
to discussing school bus passenger crash protection, the distinction
between lap belts and lap/shoulder belts is extremely significant. Why?
As NHTSA noted in its 2002 Report to Congress, lap belts "can produce a
high risk for severe or fatal neck injury" \[page 49 of report\], while
lap/shoulder belts "could provide benefits to the passengers of school
buses ... especially true for the neck injury, where lap/shoulder belts
produced substantially better results in comparison to lap belts and
compartmentalization" \[page 47 of report\].

I believe the foundation for clear communication among individuals and
organizations is the use of words and terms that everyone understands.
"Seat belt" is [not]{.underline} a term that everyone understands.
Rather than using such vague and confusing terms, I strongly encourage
NHTSA to use specific terms. If NHTSA means "lap/shoulder belts," then I
believe NHTSA should use that term. Why force people to assume what is
meant?

Most of the 30-year debate over "seat belts" in school buses is really a
discussion of whether or not there should have been [lap
belts]{.underline} in school buses. It has only been several years since
lap/shoulder belt systems have been available for school bus passenger
seats.

When NHTSA quotes the 1987 study by the National Transportation Safety
Board, "Safety Study -- Crashworthiness of Large Poststandard School
Buses," that "... most fatalities and injuries in school bus crashes
occurred because the occupant seating positions were directly in line
with the crash forces and that **seat belts** \[emphasis added\] would
not have prevented those injuries and fatalities," it is critical for
everyone to understand that the Safety Board was talking about [lap
belts]{.underline}. Likewise, in the 1989 study by the National Academy
of Sciences, "Special Report 222 --Improving School Bus Safety," the
conclusion that "the overall potential benefits of requiring **seat
belts** \[emphasis added\] on large school buses were insufficient to
justify a Federal mandate for installation" was based on [lap
belts]{.underline}. Unfortunately, not everyone fully comprehends what
these two reports really mean because of different meanings of "seat
belt." Additionally, these reports and others that use the term "seat
belt" have been misused and misquoted by individuals and organizations
trying to force the installation of lap belts in school buses.

While NHTSA may know what it means when it uses the term "seat belt," I
firmly believe that the vast majority of the public, including the
parents of school-aged children, make assumptions about what the term
"seat belt" means. And they assume it means a "lap/shoulder belt" since
that is the type of belt that they have in the motor vehicles that they
drive or ride in each day.^1^ Their assumption is further validated by
the wide use of "seat belt" in the various motor vehicle safety
education and enforcement activities, many of which NHTSA develops and
funds.

Because NHTSA has used the term "seat belt" in its regulatory language
for so long, e.g., in the titles and text of the Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards, it appears likely that NHTSA will continue to use Type
I and Type II to distinguish between lap belts and lap/shoulder belts.
However, I strongly encourage NHTSA to stop using generic terms such as
"seat belt" in all other documents, including preambles to regulatory
actions. It is not sufficient to simply define "seat belt" to mean
lap/shoulder belt at the beginning of a document and then use the term
"seat belt" in the rest of the document, since quotes will be taken from
the document and the term "seat belt" will continue to be undefined in
that quote. Getting rid of "seat belt" (a generic term) and using
"lap/shoulder belt" (a specific term) will go a long way to eliminating
confusion and misunderstanding in the real world.

NHTSA has changed terminology in the past -- switching from "accident"
to "crash" -- and NHTSA needs to change terminology again. Get rid of
"seat belt" and start using "lap/shoulder belt."

^\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_^

^1^ The basis of my belief that the public interprets the term "seat
belt" to mean "lap/shoulder belt" is my 10-year career as the Executive
Director of the National Association of State Directors of Pupil
Transportation Services (the State Directors Association), during which
I was interviewed on prime-time television, radio, and in the print
media on the topic of "seat belts on school buses" hundreds and hundreds
of times. In each instance, it was clear that the TV or radio audience,
or the newspaper/magazine reporter assumed that "lap/shoulder belts"
were being discussed, when in fact it was "lap belts."

It is encouraging to see that other organizations have recognized the
importance of clarifying the meaning of the term "seat belt." Recently,
the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) updated its policy statement on
school bus safety and clearly states that all new school buses should
have lap/shoulder belts. In previous policy statements, AAP used the
term "seat belt."

**Lap Belts in Large School Buses -- Real-world Experience**

In its July 4, 2007, *Federal Register* notice, NHTSA discussed the
conclusion from its school bus crash test program that, "... adding lap
belts on large school buses would have little, if any, benefit in
reducing serious-to-fatal injuries in severe frontal crashes, and could
raise the potential risk for head injury. But at the same time, lap
belts have been on large school buses for over 30 years without any
documented serious injuries resulting from the use of the seat belt
restraint systems." Two comments are offered on this statement:

1.  The second sentence represents an excellent example of the
    Terminology discussion above \-- the use of "lap belt" and "seat
    belt restraint systems" in the same sentence. Is the reader to
    interpret that these terms are interchangeable? I would hope not,
    since they are not. While a "lap belt" is certainly a "seat belt,"
    not all "seat belts" are "lap belts."

2.  I believe there are three reasons why there are no documented
    serious injuries resulting from the use of lap belts in large school
    buses:

    a.  There are not that many school buses in the United States with
        lap belts;

    b.  Lap belt usage rates in those buses is low; and

    c.  Serious school buses crashes are relatively rare.

I for one am thankful that there have not been children seriously
injured because of a lap belt in a school bus. I would hope NHTSA would
not wait for statistics from the real world to conclude that lap belts
are not a legitimate safety device for large school buses.

There is ample evidence from real-world crashes of other types of
passenger motor vehicles to recognize that lap belts are no longer a
good form of passenger crash protection. Additionally, the medical and
motor vehicle safety communities are aware of the internal injuries,
referred to as "Seat Belt Syndrome," that can result from a lap belt. In
a paper presented at the 1998 Annual Conference of the Association for
the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, the authors noted:

> "Injury risks to children restrained in 2-point belts have been well
> described. 'Seat belt syndrome,' associated with the use of 2-point
> belts, includes contusion of the abdominal wall, fracture of the
> lumbar spine, and intra-abdominal injury." ^2^

^\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_^

^2^ "Injuries to Children Restrained in 2- and 3-Point Belts," Catherine
S. Gotschall, Allison I. Better, Dorothy Bulas, and Martin R.
Eichelberger of the Children's National Medical Center, and Frances
Bents and Mike Warner of Dynamic Sciences, Inc., October 1998. 42^nd^
Annual Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive
Medicine.

In recent years, NHTSA has taken steps to eliminate the installation of
lap belts in most new motor vehicles -- the implementation of Anton's
Law, for example. The rationale behind these actions appears clear -- in
the 21^st^ century, lap belts are not a good form of crash protection in
any motor vehicle because when it comes to belt systems, a lap/shoulder
belt is far superior in terms of effectiveness.

NHTSA has documented the injury mechanisms that can result from the use
of lap belts in school buses on different occasions. In addition to the
crash tests of large school buses used to support the 2002 Report to
Congress, NHTSA also ran crash tests in the 1990s evaluating child
safety seats on school buses.^3^ Those tests were conducted using a 24g,
30-mph crash test pulse, a crash severity more likely to be experienced
by a small school bus. The results of that crash test program, which
evaluated various seat spacing, showed that lap-belted 50^th^ percentile
male dummies consistently experienced higher HIC and Chest G values than
unbelted 50^th^ percentile male test dummies. It should be clear that
lap belts have no place in any size school bus.

I strongly encourage NHTSA to:

1.  Amend FMVSS No. 222 to no longer allow lap belts on school buses
    with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less;

2.  Make a strong public statement that makes it perfectly clear that
    any state or local school district that is considering the
    installation of lap belts in large school buses should not do so,
    and should consider the installation of lap/shoulder belt instead;
    and

3.  Advise states and school districts that currently require lap belts
    on large school buses that there are risks associated with lap belts
    and that lap/shoulder belts have fewer risks, but greater potential
    effectiveness.

There are still individuals and organizations that promote lap belts as
a viable technology for school buses in the 21^st^ century. State
legislatures and local school boards need definitive commentary on lap
belts from NHTSA to help in their decision making processes.

NHTSA has already laid much of the ground work for a strong statement
against the use of lap belts in school buses when it denied a rulemaking
petition from the Wayne Corporation in 1989.^4^ Wayne petitioned NHTSA
to establish mandatory performance standards for lap belts and lap belt
anchorages that were voluntarily installed in new large school buses. In
denying the petition, NHTSA discussed two potential safety problems
related to the use of lap belts in school buses -- the "jackknife
effect" and the "domino effect." Because NHTSA could see some situations
where a lap belt could be effective in a school bus (side impact,
rollover, and securing

^\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_^

^3^ "School Bus Compartmentalization and Seat Belt Usage -- Initial Test
Results," Report Number VRTC-86-0395, Docket 90-05.

^4^ *Federal Register* Notice, March 22, 1989, Vol. 54, No. 54, pages
11765 -- 11771.

a child safety seat), it declined a request from a commenter to the
public docket on the Wayne petition that would have prohibited the
installation of lap belts on large school buses.

Given the results of the various laboratory test programs of lap belts
in school buses, given the rulemaking that prohibits the installation of
lap belts in nearly all seating positions in new passenger motor
vehicles and light trucks, and, most importantly, given that
lap/shoulder belts are now available for installation in school buses of
all sizes, I believe NHTSA can and should take the three actions listed
above.

**Who Knows Best -- NHTSA or the Pupil Transportation Industry?**

In her closing comments summarizing the July 11, 2007, public meeting on
school bus passenger crash protection, NHTSA Administrator Nicole Nason
stated:

> "We heard a lot of conflicting information, unfortunately. We heard
> that this was a Federal issue. It cries for Federal intervention. What
> is the government waiting for? ... But, we also heard today that the
> states know best and frankly, we heard the school districts know best
> and the Federal government needs to back off." ^5^

From my perspective as both a former member of the NHTSA staff with
responsibility for the school bus Federal motor vehicle safety standards
and the former Executive Director of the State Directors Association, I
believe I can help answer the question, "Who Knows Best?"

As Administrator Nason aptly observed, the pupil transportation industry
itself is fractured on the question of lap/shoulder belts in school
buses. On the one hand, the State Directors Association (which
represents the state public policy makers on school bus transportation)
supports the installation of lap/shoulder belts in school buses provided
there is adequate funding. On another hand, the National School
Transportation Association (which represents the private sector
contractors that provide about 30% of school bus transportation)
believes it should be up to the individual states to decide whether
lap/shoulder belts should be on school buses. And on still another hand,
the National Association for Pupil Transportation (which has members
from all areas of the pupil transportation industry) will not support
lap/shoulder belts unless it "can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that
those modifications will improve the safety of each and every child
riding in a school bus." It is pretty clear that there is no consensus
on the installation of lap/shoulder belts in school buses among the
three national associations that represent the pupil transportation
industry.

Over the past 18 months, the media that cover the pupil transportation
industry have published a number of articles that directly address the
issue of lap/shoulder belts on school buses. While I am not suggesting
that the media is the oracle on this issue, I do believe that the views
and opinions expressed in these articles are very insightful. While some
are written by recognized members of the industry itself, others are
editorials written by people who have been actively involved in the
pupil transportation industry for many years and have a certain amount
of "looking from the outside-in" insight.

^\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_^

^5^ Meeting Transcript. Docket NHTSA-2007-28103, item 25, pages 268 -
269.

1.  *School Transportation News* -- May 2006, editorial by Bill Paul,
    publisher:

**"What we need to do is upgrade our conversation and ask questions
relative to the 21^st^ century and societal norms. Perhaps then we'll
unravel the thorny seat belt dilemma that has bedeviled us for nearly 4
decades."**

2.  *School Transportation News* -- June 2006. full-page article by Mike
    Wagner, school bus contractor in Illinois:

**"Lap/shoulder belts are a great idea whose time has come."**

3.  *School Bus Fleet* -- January 2007, editorial by Frank Di Giacomo,
    publisher:

**"Maybe its time to look a little more closely at the possibility that
we are clinging to an outdated notion. Ten years from now, I believe we
will have shifted our paradigm and three-point restraint systems will be
mandatory on all our buses."**

4.  *School Bus Fleet* -- February 2007, reactions to Frank Di Giacomo's
    editorial:

**"We should be in the lead demanding lap/shoulder belts and let the
politicians face the heat for not funding them."**

**"Do we want our industry to be looked at as the professional group
that was proactive and worked to increase safety for our children? Or do
we want our industry to be viewed as that backward group that dragged
its heals for as long as it could and was finally forced to swallow the
seat belt pill?"**

5.  *School Transportation News* -- August 2007, article by Jim Ellis,
    transportation director, Monrovia, New York:

**"Personally, I am tired of the self-congratulatory tone of many of the
arguments against belts. Yes, the crashworthiness of school buses is
much better than passenger vehicles. But is it so good that further
improvements are unnecessary. ... It's time to get beyond the
circle-the-wagons mentality on this issue and think about what's really
best for the next generation of American children."**

6.  *School Bus Fleet* -- August 2007, editorial by Frank Di Giacomo,
    publisher:

**"This industry's longstanding argument about the effectiveness of
compartmentalization has the tired ring of complacency: 'It ain't broke,
so why fix it'? Why? Because the highways are growing even more
dangerous, with inattentive motorists; bigger, heavier cars and truck; a
decaying infrastructure that makes roads harder to navigate. We need to
respond to these challenges with more than the status quo."**

These commentaries provide a clear indication that many leaders in the
pupil transportation industry believe lap/shoulder belts on school buses
should be taken seriously and embraced.

I would like to comment on the statement Frank Di Giacomo made in his
August 2007 editorial, with respect to the "It ain't broke, so why fix
it?" argument. While Mr. Di Giacomo is correct with his comments about
the highways being more dangerous today, that is not the only reason why
the industry needs to change. As we all know, compartmentalization is
not perfect. While it performs exceptionally well in frontal and rear
impacts, it does not do as well in side impacts and rollovers. As the
Safety Board has said on a number occasions, compartmentalization is
"incomplete." Compartmentalization does not keep children within the
seating compartment in all crash configurations -- an essential if
compartmentalization is to be effective.

As the national public policy maker for motor vehicle safety, NHTSA has
the responsibility to utilize its extensive data, knowledge and
experience to make decisions that will help further reduce the number of
crashes on the Nation's highways and the associated injuries and
fatalities. As with any public policy decision at any level of
government, it is important that NHTSA make its decisions about school
bus passenger crash protection on the best available data and science.
Personal opinions, emotional pleas and supposition have no place in
public policy making. I believe that NHTSA has the data and science it
needs to make intelligent decisions about the future of school bus
passenger crash protection.

Yes, school buses are extremely safe today without lap/shoulder belts,
but all of the data indicates that school buses can be made even safer
with lap/shoulder belts. Any safety improvement from lap/shoulder belts
will be small (because the school bus safety problem is already small).
I believe the safety improvement from lap/shoulder belts will more
likely be in the area of reduced injury levels rather than reduced
fatalities.

While the potential benefits in terms of reduced injury/fatality levels
in school buses because of lap/shoulder belts is small, I do not believe
today's parents will easily accept inaction by NHTSA on the issue of
lap/shoulder belts in school buses. Why? As noted in a speech given by
the President of the State Directors Association in 2002:

> *"Our industry is at a crossroads. Similar to the intersection created
> by April 1, 1977.*
>
> *At the crossroads are today's young and skeptical parents.*
>
> *To them cars have ALWAYS had 'seat belts' -- lap/shoulder belts.*
>
> *To them there have ALWAYS been mandatory passenger restraint laws.*
>
> *To them there have ALWAYS been mandatory child restraint laws.*
>
> *They do not readily accept the explanation of compartmentalization.*
>
> *Simply put, they believe buses need belts."*

Over the past several years, there have been a number of surveys done on
the topic of school bus safety and lap/shoulder belts specifically. In a
2002 study conducted by IMMI, a private company in Indiana that
manufacturers and sells lap/shoulder belt systems for school buses and
other vehicles, it found about 84 percent of parents who had children
riding in school buses believed lap/shoulder belts should be in school
buses. A more recent study by the American School Bus Council found that
80 percent of parents surveyed all school buses should be equipped with
lap/shoulder belts. These results should not be a surprise to anyone --
today's parents have learned the lessons that NHTSA and others have been
preaching for decades -- buckle up for safety!

So Who Knows Best? From my perspective, the views/opinions opposing
lap/shoulder belts by some organizations and individuals in the pupil
transportation industry are not credible. As discussed in the next
section, "The What If Objections," the major objections to lap/shoulder
belts in school buses can all be addressed in a logical manner. I
believe the views espoused in the media articles mentioned above
illustrate how the pupil transportation industry should be viewing
lap/shoulder belts. The bottom line -- I believe NHTSA knows best since
it appears to have a much better understanding of the data and science
on school bus passenger crash protection. Also, NHTSA is more accustomed
to making public policy decisions that impact the Nation, not just a
state, a school district, an association or an individual company. The
safety of school children is a national issue and should be dealt with
at the national level. If NHTSA leaves it up to the individual states or
school districts to decide the future of lap/shoulder belts in all sizes
of school buses, it could very easily result in a hodgepodge.

**Lap/Shoulder Belts -- the "What If" Objections**

Individuals and organizations cite a number of reasons for their
objections to or lack of support of lap/shoulder belts in large school
buses, and presumably would use these same reasons to object to
lap/shoulder belts in small school buses:

[Reduced Seating Capacity]{.underline}: The most often cited objection
to the installation of lap/shoulder belts in school buses in a supposed
reduction in the "design" seating capacity of the school bus. Two
comments are offered.

1.  Just because the "design" seating capacity of the school bus is
    reduced, that does not automatically mean the "in-use" seating
    capacity of the school bus is comparably reduced. There have been
    studies in Indiana, North Carolina, and California of the impact of
    school bus seating capacities with lap/shoulder belts. It is
    strongly recommended that NHTSA obtain copies of these studies and
    review them closely.

2.  It may be possible to engineer a school bus seat with lap/shoulder
    belts such that the "design" seating capacity of the school bus is
    not changed. This is an engineering issue and engineers have a long
    history of developing very creative and effective solutions to motor
    vehicle safety problems.

[Emergency Evacuation]{.underline}: Some have theorized that
lap/shoulder belts would cause catastrophic results if a school bus was
on fire or submerged in water because of the additional time needed to
release the buckle. It is important to note that in the history of
school transportation, there is only one known crash where fire or smoke
inhalation was the cause of death (Carrolton, Kentucky 1988) and one
known crash where drowning was the cause of death (Alton, Texas 1989).
While that is not to say crashes involving fire or submersion will never
happen again, it is clear that such crash situations are extremely rare.
It also is important to note that there have been significant changes in
school buses since those two crashes -- fewer gasoline-powered school
buses and more emergency exits on school buses.

Emergency evacuation training is an essential part of school bus
training that is given every year in states across the country. It seems
reasonable to assume that students who ride in small school buses (which
have had lap belts or lap/shoulder belts for years) or large school
buses in states and school districts that currently require lap belts or
lap/shoulder belts are receiving training on how to release the buckle
in the emergency exit training. This training will supplement the
knowledge and experience children already have from using lap/shoulder
belts in other vehicles.

It is important to remember that there are two types of emergency
evacuations that occur in school buses. The first involves situations,
such as a school bus stalled on a railroad crossing, where it is
important to have all the students exit the bus and move to a safe
location. In these situations, all of the students exit the bus through
the front entry door in an orderly and timely fashion. The second type
of emergency evacuation involves situations where the school bus
passengers have to exit the bus ASAP and utilize any and all doors,
emergency exit windows, roof hatches, etc. The overwhelming majority of
emergency exit situations are of the first type, where there is ample
time for students to unbuckle the lap/shoulder belt, even if they need
assistance. Even in the second situation, it takes only a second to
release the lap/shoulder belt buckle. In the event that a child is
unconscious, it is irrelevant whether there are lap/shoulder belts on
the bus or not -- someone else is going to have to get the child out of
the school bus.

As a final note on emergency evacuations, current Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 222, "School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash
Protection," requires any school bus with a wheelchair location to be
equipped with wheelchair securement anchorages and wheelchair occupant
restraint anchorages that meet the performance requirements of FMVSS No.
222. In the rulemaking history that resulted in these Federal
requirements, there was never concern expressed about potential negative
effects lap/shoulder belts may have on the emergency evacuation of a
child in a wheelchair from a school bus. It is not clear why NHTSA
should be more concerned about any potential negative effects
lap/shoulder belts may have for the emergency evacuation of able-bodied
children from a school bus.

[Misuse or non-use of lap/shoulder belts]{.underline}: NHTSA's 2002
Report to Congress, made the following comments about the potential
misuse of a lap/shoulder belt:

> "Belt misuse is particularly a valid issue for the lap/shoulder belt
> system because of the likelihood of placing the shoulder belt portion
> of a belt under a child's arm or behind their back when they find it
> uncomfortable or if the belt systems restrict their movement while
> seated. The adjustable feature of the lap/shoulder best systems tested
> would reduce the potential for discomfort, but the potential for
> misuse remains. The testing showed that when the shoulder belt was
> placed behind the back, the restraint system functions like a lap
> belt."

Two comments are offered:

1.  The potential for misuse of a safety device/feature in any other
    motor vehicle has never been a reason NHTSA ignored the potential
    benefits of that safety device. Lap/shoulder belts are misused in
    all types of vehicles every day. Child safety seats are misused
    every day. Even compartmentalization is misused every day when
    children do not sit properly in the school bus seat. But, all of
    this misuse did not keep NHTSA from pursuing the safety benefits of
    those devices/features.

2.  The potential misuse or non-use of a lap/shoulder belt in a school
    bus should be viewed as an opportunity, not a potential negative.
    School transportation plays an important part in fulfilling the
    educational needs of children. The school bus provides experiences
    and knowledge to children starting at very young ages. Does it not
    make sense to include education and training to these children on
    the benefits of lap/shoulder belts in motor vehicles and how to
    properly wear and secure a lap/shoulder belt in motor vehicles? Is
    it possible that this training and education might stay with these
    children for the rest of their lives and have a positive impact on
    lap/shoulder use in all motor vehicles? Is it possible that this
    training and education might result in more people wearing their
    lap/shoulder belts properly?

I contend that most of us have never really received education and
training about the importance of lap/shoulder belts and how to properly
wear a lap/shoulder belt. If we start providing that education and
training to young children, I believe it will supplement the training
they hopefully get from home. I believe the net result would be an
increased level of lap/shoulder belt usage in all of the vehicles these
students ride in or operate during their lives. In terms of overall
motor vehicle safety in the United States, even a one percentage point
increase in lap/shoulder belt usage translates into hundreds of lives
saved and injuries reduced each year.

[Cost Increases and Limited Resources]{.underline}: Certainly there will
be increased costs associated with any improvement to a school bus,
whether for safety reasons, security reasons, health reasons, etc. But
cost has never been a particularly compelling reason in the minds of the
public (particularly parents) to ignore a safety benefit that would
accrue to school children.

In the past year, the prices of school buses rose by approximately
\$7,000 or more primarily because of the more stringent emission
regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. That price
increase has not had a measurable impact on the number of new school
buses purchased. I believe that the Letter to the Editor quoted earlier
is appropriate on this issue: "We should be in the lead demanding
lap/shoulder belts and let the politicians face the heat for not funding
them."

[Lap/shoulder Belts May Injure a Child or the Potential Benefits are
Minimal]{.underline}: In letters to NHTSA, the National Association for
Pupil Transportation (NAPT) has expressed its concerns over the
potential that a lap/shoulder belt may in some situation make a child in
a school bus less safe than with compartmentalization only. NAPT
believes that "modifications to the current system of school bus
passenger crash protection \[compartmentalization\] should occur only if
we can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that those modifications will
improve the safety of each and every child riding in a school bus."

With the varying definitions of "reasonable doubt" that exist^6^, it is
not clear what information and/or evidence NHTSA can use to convince
NAPT that lap/shoulder belts on school buses represent an improvement in
safety. Clearly it is more than was necessary to convince the other two
national associations, numerous other organizations and individuals in
the pupil transportation, and NHTSA itself. FMVSS No. 222 already
mandates either lap belts [o]{.underline}r [lap/shoulder
belts]{.underline}, in addition to compartmentalization, for each
designated seating position in school buses with a gross vehicle weight
rating of 10,000 pounds or less.^7^ If NHTSA did not believe
lap/shoulder belts were safe for all small school bus passengers, they
would not be allowed under the existing provisions of FMVSS No. 222.

A number of organizations and individuals question or minimize the
potential benefits of lap/shoulder belts in school buses by using only
selected parts of the data NHTSA developed in its 2002 Report to
Congress. For example, in NAPT's comments at the July 11, 2007, public
meeting, it stated that NHTSA's Report to Congress concluded
"lap-shoulder belt systems, if used properly, could save one life a
year." Unfortunately, this statement is not accurate. As noted on page
47 of NHTSA's Report to Congress, the fatality reduction estimate was
for frontal crashes only, and that frontal crashes account for the
fewest number of school bus passenger fatalities each year. In terms of
the potential benefits of lap/shoulder belts in school buses, it is
extremely important to acknowledge the other potential benefits of
lap/shoulder belts NHTSA identified on page 47 of its Report to
Congress:

*"While not quantified here, there would also be a companion reduction
in the number of injuries in frontal crashes. Additionally, properly
used lap/shoulder belt systems have the potential to be effective in
reducing fatalities and injuries in other (non frontal) crashes. Belt
systems are particularly effective in reducing ejection in rollover
crashes."*

^\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_^

^6^ Numerous definitions of "reasonable doubt" were obtained from a
simple internet search. As seen in the following examples, the term is
highly subjective:

"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a
convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it
without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However,
it does not mean an absolute certainty."

"Reasonable doubt is sometimes explained as being convinced 'to a moral
certainty.'"

"Reasonable doubt is such a doubt as would cause prudent people to
hesitate before acting in matters of importance to themselves."

^7^ 49 CFR Part 571.208 S4.4.3.3 as referenced in 49 CFR Part 571.222
S5(b)(1)(A)

Still other organizations make statements that are simply wrong. This is
particularly troubling when otherwise credible organizations make
incorrect statements, since those statements get wide distribution and
then are quoted by other organizations and individuals. For example, in
its comments to the subject docket (see docket item NHTSA-2007-28103-29)
the Texas Association for Pupil Transportation stated, "many more
students are actually killed or injured while outside (as compared to
those more protected inside) the bus." While it is true that more
children are killed as pedestrians outside the school bus than as
passengers inside the school bus each year, the same is not true for
injuries. Real-world crash data clearly show that thousands of children
are injured each year as passengers on school buses, while only a few
children are injured as pedestrians outside of a school bus.

As stated previously, I believe the greatest benefits that can accrue
from lap/shoulder belts in school buses will be a reduction in injuries
and injury levels. It is not clear why some in the pupil transportation
industry ignore these potential benefits. Additionally, real-world
experience in multiple states clearly shows that lap/shoulder belts can
and do improve student behavior on school buses. With better student
behavior on school buses, there is less chance that school bus drivers
will be distracted from their driving duties -- which we know are
getting more and more complex as the highways and roadways get more and
more congested.

"[What If" Summary]{.underline}: While all of these "what if" scenarios
are legitimate to recognize and discuss, they are not reasons for
ignoring the overall potential benefit of a proven safety feature. Let
us not forget that there is no perfection in the world. People are
killed or injured because of lap/shoulder belts in passenger cars, light
trucks and SUVs each year. People are killed or injured by air bags each
year. Infants and toddlers are killed or injured in child safety seats
each year. Does that mean we should not have these safety devices in
motor vehicles? Of course not. What it means is we need to recognize all
of the "what ifs" and then develop education and training programs to
minimize any unintended consequences from a proven safety technology.

I believe improving motor vehicle safety is an incremental and
continuing effort. Completely eliminating fatalities for all size
students in all possible school bus crash conditions is a great
objective. So is the notion that a lap/shoulder belt or a child safety
seat or an air bag would never injure another person in any motor
vehicle. However, these utopian goals are simply not achievable with
today's technologies. But, does that mean we leave school buses as they
are until we can reach perfection? No, we need to consider the small
incremental benefits from lap/shoulder belts while we continue to
support future research.

**Closing Comments**

I believe the opening comments of Secretary of Transportation Mary
Peters at the July 11, 2007 meeting accurately describes what NHTSA must
do with respect the future of school bus passenger crash protection:

> *"Three decades ago after a great deal of debate, the Federal
> government said NO to seat belts on \[school\] buses... it was decided
> that designing safety into the school bus and the seat structure,
> relying on what we know as compartmentalization was the best approach.
> \... But, we do know that seat belts work on passenger cars and we
> know that they work on light trucks as well and that they have saved
> many, many lives... They're the most effective piece of lifesaving
> technology ever designed for transportation. The absolute most
> effective."*
>
> *"I think we owe it to our children, to every American, to look at
> this issue with fresh eyes, to look at the data and the decisions that
> we've made in the past and decide if they're still the right decisions
> to make today. ... With that in mind, I think it's time to look again
> at the issue of belts on buses, and I'm willing to make the argument
> one way or another, but first I want to be absolutely certain that we
> are defending the policy for the right reasons. ... Our first priority
> must be the safety of America's children."*

It should be clear to everyone that the decision to not require lap
belts on school buses in 1977 was and still is the right decision. At
that time, the usage rate of lap belts in any motor vehicle was very
low, and there was no reason to believe that lap belts would be used at
any significant level in school buses. Thus, the passive protection of
compartmentalization offered the greatest opportunity to reduce the
number of fatalities and injuries in school bus crashes.
Compartmentalization was the correct decision.

But times and technology have changed. All of the reasons for opposing
lap belts in school buses are invalid when the discussion centers on
lap/shoulder belts. Lap/shoulder belt usage rates in passenger motor
vehicles is around 80 percent, and lap/shoulder belts do an excellent
job of not only keeping the person inside the vehicle during a crash,
but also of restraining the upper torso during a crash.

It would be inappropriate for NHTSA to re-evaluate the decisions of the
mid-1970's [based on]{.underline} today's technology. Rather, NHTSA has
to decide whether the time has come to update the Federal standards on
school bus passenger crash protection [because of]{.underline} today's
technologies and today's motor vehicle travel environment (both the
risks and severities of motor vehicle crashes and the lap/shoulder belt
usage rates).

When NHTSA announced its school bus passenger crash protection research
program^8^ in August 1998, it noted that it was "a comprehensive
research plan for the next generation of occupant protection in school
buses." It is hard to imagine with all of the data and science available
to NHTSA that the "next generation" will not include lap/shoulder belts
in school buses, either as a mandate or as an option with mandatory
performance standards.

If you have any questions or wish to discuss these comments, please let
me know.

Sincerely,

Charles L. Gauthier

Charles L. Gauthier

^\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_^

^8^ *Federal Register* Notice, October 26, 1998, Vol. 63, No. 206, page
57089.