Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 65509 

1 ‘‘School bus’’ is defined in 49 CFR § 571.3 as a 

bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate 

commerce, for purposes that include carrying 

students to and from school or related events, but 

does not include a bus designed and sold for 

operation as a common carrier in urban 

transportation. A ‘‘bus’’ is a motor vehicle, except 

a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 

persons. In this NPRM, when we refer to ‘‘large’’

school buses, we refer to those school buses with 

GVWRs of more than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). These 

large school buses may transport as many as 90 

students. ‘‘Small’’ school buses are school buses 

with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less. 

Generally, these small school buses seat 15 persons 

or fewer, or have one or two wheelchair seating 

positions. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2007–0014] 

RIN 2127–AK09 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Seating Systems, Occupant 

Crash Protection, Seat Belt Assembly 

Anchorages, School Bus Passenger 

Seating and Crash Protection 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: NHTSA issued a report in 

2002 on the results of a comprehensive 

school bus research program examining 

ways of further improving school bus 

safety. Based on that research, we are 

now proposing several upgrades to the 

school bus passenger crash protection 

requirements. 

For new school buses of 4,536 

kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less gross 

vehicle weight rating (GVWR), we 

propose to require lap/shoulder belts in 

lieu of the lap belts that are currently 

specified. For school buses with gross 

vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) greater 

than 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 

pounds), this NPRM provides guidance 

to State and local jurisdictions on the 

subject of installing seat belts. Each 

State or local jurisdiction would 

continue to decide whether to install 

belts on these large school buses. Where 

State or local decisions are made to 

install lap or lap/shoulder belts on large 

school buses, this NPRM proposes 

performance requirements for those 

voluntarily-installed seat belts on large 

school buses manufactured after the 

proposed effective date. 

Other changes to school bus safety 

requirements are also proposed, 

including raising the height of seat 

backs from 20 inches to 24 inches on all 

new school buses. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 22, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

to the docket number identified in the 

heading of this document by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building, Ground 

Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

Regardless of how you submit your 

comments, you should mention the 

docket number of this document. 

You may call the Docket at 202–366–

9324. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the Public Participation heading of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy 

Act heading under Rulemaking 

Analyses and Notices. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, Mr. Charles Hott, 

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards 

(telephone: 202–366–0247) (fax: 202–

366–4921). Mr. Hott’s mailing address is 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, NVS–113, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 

20590. 

For legal issues, Ms. Dorothy Nakama, 

Office of the Chief Counsel (telephone: 

202–366–2992) (fax: 202–366–3820). 

Ms. Nakama’s mailing address is 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, NCC–112, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 

20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Background 

III. The Issue of Seat Belts on Large School 

Buses 

IV. Studies 

V. Federal Guidance on Belts on Large Buses 

a. NHTSA School Bus Research Results 

b. Agency Recommended Best Practices 

c. Guidance on Lap Belts on Large School 

Buses 

VI. Proposed Upgrades to Occupant Crash 

Protection 

a. Improving the Compartmentalized 

School Bus Interior of Both Small and 

Large School Buses 

b. Additional Occupant Protection 

Requirements for Small School Buses 

(School Buses With a GVWR of 4,536 kg 

(10,000 lb) or Less) 

c. Additional Occupant Protection 

Requirements for Large School Buses 

With Voluntarily-Installed Lap/Shoulder 

Seat Belts 

d. Additional Requirements for Large 

School Buses with Voluntarily-Installed 

Lap Belts 

VII. Quasi-Static Test for Lap/Shoulder Belts 

on Small and Large School Buses 

a. Stage 1: Torso Belt Anchorage 

Displacement 

b. Stage 2: Energy Absorption Capability of 

the Seat Back 

c. Request for Comments 

VIII. Lead Time 

IX. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

X. Public Participation 

Appendix A to the Preamble—Proposed 

Amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standards 

I. Introduction 

This document proposes to upgrade 

the school bus occupant protection 

requirements of the Federal motor 

vehicle safety standards, primarily by 

amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard No. (FMVSS) No. 222, 

‘‘School bus passenger seating and crash 

protection’’ (49 CFR 571.222), and by 

amendments to FMVSS Nos. 207, 208, 

and 210. It also provides guidance to 

state and local jurisdictions on the 

subject of installing seat belts on large 

school buses (school buses with a 

GVWR greater than 4,536 kilograms (kg) 

(10,000 pounds (lb)) and asks for 

comments on the agency’s consideration 

of ‘‘best practices’’ concerning the belts 

on the large buses.1

This NPRM’s most significant 

proposed changes to FMVSS No. 222 

involve: 

• Increasing the minimum seat back 

height requirement from 20 inches from 

the seat’s seating reference point (SgRP) 

to 24 inches for all school buses; 

• Requiring small school buses to 

have a lap/shoulder belt at each 

passenger seating position (the buses are 

currently required to have lap belts); 

• Incorporating test procedures into 

the standard to test lap/shoulder belts in 

small school buses and voluntarilyinstalled lap/shoulder belts in large 

school buses to ensure both the strength 

of the anchorages and the compatibility 

of the seat with compartmentalization; 

and, 

• Requiring all school buses with seat 

bottom cushions that are designed to 

flip-up, typically for easy cleaning, to 

have a self-latching mechanism. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

65510 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

2Lap/shoulder belts and appropriate anchorages 

for the driver and front passenger (if provided) 

seating position, lap belts and appropriate 

anchorages for all other passenger seating positions. 

3Through the years, NHTSA has been petitioned 

about seat belts on large school buses. (See, e.g., 

denials of petitions to require seat belt anchorages, 

41 FR 28506 (July 12, 1976), 48 FR 47032 (October 

17, 1983); response to petition for rulemaking to 

prohibit the installation of lap belts on large school 

buses, 71 FR 40057 (July 14, 2006).) In a letter dated 

February 16, 2007, the National Association of 

Pupil Transportation (NAPT) petitioned the agency 

‘‘to initiate rulemaking on occupant protection in 

school buses.’’ NAPT said that it did not support 

the installation of lap belts in large school buses, 

nor the installation of lap/shoulder belts. NAPT 

stated it ‘‘will only support changes to 

compartmentalization when we are sure that those 

changes will not compromise student safety in any 

way.’’ NAPT requested that the agency review 

FMVSS No. 222, ‘‘with the goal of establishing a 

safety system that will definitively enhance the 

current passenger crash protection for all children 

that ride a school bus.’’ NAPT also advocated a 

public education program emphasizing the 

importance of safe school bus transportation. 

The proposed guidance to state and 

local jurisdictions on best practices of 

installing seat belts on large school 

buses acknowledges that, in terms of the 

optimum passenger crash protection 

that can be afforded an individual 

passenger on a large school bus, a lap/ 

shoulder belt system, together with 

compartmentalization, would afford that 

optimum protection. Thus, we 

encourage providers to consider lap/ 

shoulder belts on large school buses. 

However, installing current lap/ 

shoulder belts on large school buses 

would reduce the passenger carrying 

capacity of large buses. If children were 

diverted to other means of transport to 

school, such as transport by smaller, 

private vehicles, walking, or biking, the 

belts on the buses could result in an 

overall disbenefit to pupil 

transportation safety due to the children 

displaced from the large school buses 

having to find less safe modes of 

transportation to get to or from school 

or related events. Thus, we are not 

proposing to require lap/shoulder belts 

on large school buses, and we 

recommend providers to ascertain 

whether installing lap/shoulder belts 

would reduce the number of children 

that are transported to school on large 

school buses. 

II. Background 

The Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus 

Safety Amendments of 1974 directed 

NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety 

standards applicable to school buses 

and school bus equipment. In response 

to this legislation, NHTSA revised 

several of its safety standards to 

improve existing requirements for 

school buses, extended ones for other 

vehicle classes to those buses, and 

issued new safety standards exclusively 

for school buses. FMVSS No. 222, one 

of a set of new standards for school 

buses, improves protection to school 

bus passengers during crashes and 

sudden driving maneuvers. 

Effective since 1977, FMVSS No. 222 

contains occupant protection 

requirements for school bus seating 

positions and restraining barriers. Its 

requirements for school buses with 

GVWR’s of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less 

differ from those set for school buses 

with GVWR’s greater than 4,536 kg 

(10,000 lb), because the ‘‘crash pulse’’ or 

deceleration experienced by the small 

school buses is more severe than that of 

the large buses in similar collisions. For 

the small school buses, the standard 

includes requirements that all seating 

positions must be equipped with 

properly installed lap or lap/shoulder 

seat belt assemblies and anchorages for 

passengers.2 NHTSA decided that seat 

belts were necessary on small school 

buses to provide adequate crash 

protection for the occupants. For the 

large school buses, FMVSS No. 222 

relies on requirements for 

‘‘compartmentalization’’ to provide 

passenger crash protection. 

Investigations of school bus crashes 

prior to issuance of FMVSS No. 222 

found the school bus seat was a 

significant factor in causing injury. 

NHTSA found that the seat failed the 

passengers in three principal respects: 

by being too weak, too low, and too 

hostile (39 FR 27584; July 30, 1974). In 

response to this finding, NHTSA 

developed a set of requirements which 

comprise the ‘‘compartmentalization’’

approach. 

Compartmentalization ensures that 

passengers are cushioned and contained 

by the seats in the event of a school bus 

crash by requiring school bus seats to be 

positioned in a manner that provides a 

compact, protected area surrounding 

each seat. If a seat is not 

compartmentalized by a seat back in 

front of it, compartmentalization must 

be provided by a padded and protective 

restraining barrier. The seats and 

restraining barriers must be strong 

enough to maintain their integrity in a 

crash yet flexible enough to be capable 

of deflecting in a manner which absorbs 

the energy of the occupant. They must 

meet specified height requirements and 

be constructed, by use of substantial 

padding or other means, so that they 

provide protection when they are 

impacted by the head and legs of a 

passenger. Compartmentalization 

minimizes the hostility of the crash 

environment and limits the range of 

movement of an occupant. The 

compartmentalization approach ensures 

that high levels of crash protection are 

provided to each passenger independent 

of any action on the part of the 

occupant. 

III. The Issue of Seat Belts on Large 

School Buses 

NHTSA has considered the question 

of whether seat belts should be required 

on large school buses from the inception 

of compartmentalization and the school 

bus safety standards. NHTSA has been 

repeatedly asked to require belts on 

buses, and has repeatedly concluded 

that compartmentalization provides a 

high level of safety protection that 

obviates the safety need for a Federal 

requirement necessitating the 

installation of seat belts. Further, the 

agency has been acutely aware that a 

decision on requiring seat belts in large 

school buses cannot ignore the 

implications of such a requirement on 

pupil transportation costs. The agency 

has been attentive to the fact that, as a 

result of requiring belts on large school 

buses, school bus purchasers would 

have to buy belt-equipped vehicles 

regardless of whether seat belts would 

be appropriate for their needs. NHTSA 

has concluded that those costs should 

not be imposed on all purchasers of 

school buses when large school buses 

are currently very safe. In the area of 

school transportation especially, where 

a number of needs are competing for 

limited funds, persons responsible for 

school transportation might want to 

consider other alternative investments 

to improve their pupil transportation 

programs which can be more effective at 

reducing fatalities and injuries than seat 

belts on large school buses, such as by 

acquiring additional new school buses 

to add to their fleet, or implementing 

improved pupil pedestrian and driver 

education programs. Since each of these 

efforts competes for limited funds, the 

agency has maintained that those 

administrators should decide how their 

funds should be allocated. 

IV. Studies 

Nonetheless, throughout the past 30 

years that compartmentalization and the 

school bus safety standards have been in 

effect, the agency has openly and 

continuously considered the merits of a 

seat belt requirement for large school 

buses.3 The issue has been closely 

analyzed by other parties as well, such 

as the National Transportation Safety 

Board, and the National Academy of 

Sciences. Various reports have been 

issued, the most significant of which are 

described below. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 65511 

4NHTSA also received written comments to 

docket 28103. We will address all relevant issues 

raised in those comments in today’s NPRM and in 

a final rule or other rulemaking document following 

today’s NPRM. 

5A transcript of the July 11, 2007 public meeting 

is available in docket 28103. 

Studies 

• National Transportation Safety 

Board, 1987 

In 1987, the National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB) reported on a 

study of forty-three post-standard school 

bus crashes investigated by the Safety 

Board. NTSB concluded 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 

would not have prevented those injuries 

and fatalities. (NTSB/SS–87/01, Safety 

Study, Crashworthiness of Large Poststandard School Buses, March 1987, 

National Transportation Safety Board.) 

• National Academy of Sciences, 

1989 

A 1989 National Academy of Sciences 

(NAS) study concluded that the overall 

potential benefits of requiring seat belts 

on large school buses were insufficient 

to justify a Federal mandate for 

installation. The NAS also stated that 

funds used to purchase and maintain 

seat belts might be better spent on other 

school bus safety programs with the 

potential to save more lives and reduce 

more injuries. (Special Report 222, 

Improving School Bus Safety, National 

Academy of Sciences, Transportation 

Research Board, Washington, DC, 1989.) 

• National Transportation Safety 

Board, 1999 

In 1999, NTSB reported on six school 

bus crashes it investigated in which 

passenger fatalities or serious injuries 

occurred away from the area of vehicle 

impact. NTSB found 

compartmentalization to be an effective 

means of protecting passengers in 

school bus crashes. However, because 

many of those passengers injured in the 

six crashes were believed to have been 

thrown from their compartments, NTSB 

believed other means of occupant 

protection should be examined. (NTSB/ 

SIR–99/04, Highway Safety Report, Bus 

Crashworthiness Issues, September 

1999, National Transportation Safety 

Board.) 

• National Academy of Science, 2002 

In 2002, NAS published a study that 

analyzed the safety of various 

transportation modes used by school 

children to get to and from school and 

school-related activities. The report 

concluded that each year there are 

approximately 815 school transportation 

fatal injuries per year. Two percent were 

school bus-related, compared to 22 

percent due to walking/bicycling, and 

75 percent from passenger car crashes, 

especially those with teen drivers. The 

report stated that changes in any one 

characteristic of school travel can lead 

to dramatic changes in the overall risk 

to the student population. Thus, NAS 

concluded, it is important for school 

transportation decisions to take into 

account all potential aspects of changes 

to requirements to school 

transportation. (Special Report 269, 

‘‘The Relative Risks of School Travel: A 

National Perspective and Guidance for 

Local Community Risk Assessment,’’

Transportation Research Board of the 

National Academies, 2002.) 

• National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 2002 

In 2002, NHTSA issued a 

Congressional Report that detailed 

occupant safety on school buses and 

analyzed options for improving 

occupant safety. NHTSA concluded that 

compartmentalization effectively 

lowered injury measures by distributing 

crash forces with the padded seating 

surface. Lap belts showed little to no 

benefit in reducing serious/fatal 

injuries. The agency determined that 

properly used combination lap and 

shoulder belts have the potential to be 

effective in reducing fatalities and 

injuries for not only frontal collisions, 

but also rollover crashes where belt 

systems are particularly effective in 

reducing ejection. However, the 

addition of lap/shoulder belts on buses 

would increase capital costs and reduce 

seating capacity on the buses. (‘‘Report 

to Congress, School Bus Safety: 

Crashworthiness Research, April 2002,’’

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/ 

departments/nrd-11/SchoolBus/ 

SBReportFINAL.pdf.) 

V. Federal Guidance on Belts on Large 

Buses 

This document provides guidance to 

state and local jurisdictions on the 

subject of installing seat belts on large 

school buses and asks for comments on 

the agency’s consideration of ‘‘best 

practices’’ concerning the belts on the 

large buses. 

This guidance is provided in response 

to the information that the agency 

received at its July 11, 2007 public 

meeting in Washington, DC on seat belts 

on school buses (notice of public 

meeting, 72 FR 30739, June 4, 2007, 

Docket 28103).4 In this meeting, NHTSA 

brought together a roundtable of State 

and local government policymakers, 

school bus and seat manufacturers, 

pupil transportation associations, and 

consumer groups to address: State and 

local policy perspectives regarding 

whether to require seat belts on school 

buses; information on the type of seat 

belt system designs that are currently 

being offered on large school buses; the 

economic impact that implementation 

of seat belt requirements for school 

buses (including purchase and 

maintenance of belts) have on States 

and local school districts; and the 

experience of schools and States in 

training and educating children, parents 

and drivers to use seat belts on large 

school buses.5 At the meeting, 

participants requested that NHTSA 

provide up-to-date Federal guidance on 

whether seat belts should be provided 

on school buses, and whether lap belts 

should or should not be installed. 

The agency has considered all of the 

comments made at the meeting. NHTSA 

found the following views particularly 

helpful: 

• Mr. Charles Hood of the Florida 

Department of Education related the 

State of Florida’s experience with lap 

belts on school buses. Informally, Mr. 

Hood estimated that the lap belt usage 

rate in Florida was about 70 percent for 

elementary school students, 35 percent 

for middle school students, and 25 

percent for high school students. Mr. 

Hood reported that vandalism and 

maintenance of the seat belts were not 

major concerns. Mr. Hood estimated 

that the annual charge to equip all of 

Florida’s 1399 school buses with lap/ 

shoulder belts would be about $14 

million. 

• Mr. Hood believed that the key 

point of the debate is whether the three 

point belts will: Improve overall safety 

through the crash protection 

improvements that they provide, or 

reduce overall safety by potentially 

reducing the number of children who 

ride in school buses. Mr. Hood stated 

that States that require lap belts need 

Federal guidance as to whether they 

may or should continue to specify lap 

belts in their school buses. 

• Ms. Ann Roy Moore of the 

Huntsville, Alabama City Schools 

recommended that national agencies 

come up with some standards that could 

be used to address the issue of school 

bus safety generally and seat belt safety 

in particular. 

• Mr. Ken Hedgecock of Thomas Built 

Buses stated that two-point belts are on 

27 percent of the school buses Thomas 

Built manufactures, and three-point 

belts are on 2 percent the school buses 

that it manufactures. Mr. Hedgecock 

said that the greatest concern relating to 

seat belts pertains to capacity and cost 

issues of the three-point belt system. 

The reduction in capacity and 

incremental costs of the three-point 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

65512 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

6HIC15, Chest G, and Nij values are used to 

predict injury risk in frontal crashes. HIC15 is a 

measure of the risk of head injury, Chest G is a 

measure of chest injury risk, and Nij is a measure 

of neck injury risk. The reference values for these 

measurements are the thresholds for compliance 

used to assess new motor vehicles with regard to 

frontal occupant protection during crash tests, 

FMVSS No. 208. For HIC15, a score of 700 is 

equivalent to a 30 percent risk of a serious head 

injury (skull fracture and concussion onset). In a 

similar fashion, Chest G of 60 equates to a 20 

percent risk of a serious chest injury and Nij of 1 

equates to a 22 percent risk of a serious neck injury. 

For all these measurements, higher scores indicate 

a higher likelihood of risk. For example, a Nij of 2 

equates to a 67 percent risk of serious neck injury 

while a Nij of 4 equates to a 99 percent risk. More 

information regarding these injury measures can be 

found at NHTSA’s Web site (http://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-11/airbags/ 

rev_criteria.pdf). 

7Unbelted occupants in the aft seat will affect the 

kinematics of belted occupants in the fore seat due 

to seat back deformation. Similarly, belted occupant 

loading of the fore seat back thru the torso belt will 

affect the compartmentalization for unbelted 

occupants in the aft seat. 

8Override means an occupant’s head or torso 

translates forward beyond the forward seat back 

providing compartmentalization. 

system may have the unintended 

consequence of transporting fewer 

children on the yellow school bus, thus 

negatively affecting the safety of our 

nation’s children. Mr. Hedgecock 

recommended the following as it 

pertains to seat belts: Clarification is 

needed on the use of two-point belt 

systems versus three-point belt systems 

in school buses; clarification is needed 

on the designated seating position as it 

pertains to a seat with seat belts; and 

there is a need for clear performance 

standards for the integration of all 

systems: the school bus, the seat, and 

the belts. 

• Mr. Steve Wallen of Safeguard, a 

division of Indiana Mills Manufacturing 

Inc. (IMMI), stated that its testing shows 

that compartmentalization does well in 

front and rear impact crashes, but not 

particularly well in rollovers. Mr. 

Wallen recommends the FMVSSs 

should be amended so as to allow for 

lap/shoulder belts while maintaining 

compartmentalization to protect 

unbelted occupants. Mr. Wallen 

suggested that the FMVSSs specify 

requirements such that a school bus seat 

can withstand a crash with a student 

wearing a seat belt and one behind not 

wearing a seat belt at the same time. Mr. 

Wallen noted that retrofitting school 

buses is substantially more expensive 

and difficult than installing seats in new 

buses. 

• Ms. Robin Leeds of the National 

School Transportation Association 

(NSTA) stated that a Federal mandate is 

not appropriate because of the costs. 

NSTA believes States and local school 

districts are in a better position to 

determine the best use of their resources 

than the Federal government. In the 

NSTA’s view, the only way any safety 

belt program can be successful is if it 

has the full commitment of the school 

administration and of parents to make 

them work. NSTA also recommended 

that NHTSA develop standards for 

voluntarily-installed lap/shoulder belt 

systems so that ‘‘everybody knows what 

system to use when they do install those 

systems.’’

a. NHTSA School Bus Research Results 

Our guidance about seat belts on 

school buses also takes into account the 

agency’s research findings assessing the 

efficacy of existing safety measures 

employed on school buses and possible 

improvements to school bus occupant 

protection. 

The Transportation Equity Act for the 

21st Century (TEA–21) directed NHTSA 

to study and assess school bus occupant 

safety and analyze options for 

improvement. In response, the agency 

developed a research program to 

determine the real-world effectiveness 

of FMVSS No. 222 requirements for 

school bus passenger crash protection, 

evaluate alternative passenger crash 

protection systems in controlled 

laboratory tests, and provide findings to 

support rulemaking activities to upgrade 

the passenger crash protection for 

school bus passengers. 

The research program consisted of 

NHTSA first conducting a full-scale 

school bus crash test to determine a 

representative crash pulse. The crash 

test was conducted by frontally 

impacting a conventional style school 

bus (Type C) into a rigid barrier at 30 

mph (48.3 km/h). The impact speed was 

chosen to ensure that sufficient energy 

would be imparted to the occupants in 

order to evaluate the protective 

capability of compartmentalization, plus 

provide a level at which other methods 

for occupant injury mitigation could be 

evaluated during sled testing. A 30 mph 

(48 km/h) impact into the rigid barrier 

is also equivalent to two vehicles of 

similar size impacting at a closing speed 

of approximately 60 mph (96 km/h), 

which was found to be prevalent in the 

crash database files. 

In the crash test, we used Hybrid III 

50th percentile adult male dummies 

(representing adult and large teenage 

occupants), 5th percentile adult female 

(representing an average 12-year-old 

(12YO) occupant), and a 6-year-old 

child dummy (representing an average 

6-year-old (6YO) occupant). The 

dummies were seated so that they were 

as upright as possible and as rearmost 

on the seat cushion as possible. The 

agency evaluated the risk of head injury 

recorded by the dummies (Head Injury 

Criterion (HIC15)), as well as the risk of 

chest (chest G’s) and neck injury (Nij),6

as specified in FMVSS No. 208 

‘‘Occupant crash protection.’’

NHTSA then ran frontal crash test 

simulations at the agency’s Vehicle 

Research and Test Center (VRTC), using 

a test sled to evaluate passenger 

protection systems. Twenty-five sled 

tests using 96 test dummies of various 

sizes utilizing different restraint 

strategies were conducted that 

replicated the acceleration time history 

of the school bus full-scale frontal 

impact test. The goal of the laboratory 

tests was to analyze the dummy injury 

measures to gain a better understanding 

of the effectiveness of the occupant 

crash protection countermeasures. In 

addition to injury measures, dummy 

kinematics and interaction with 

restraints (i.e., seat backs and seat belts, 

as well as each other) were also 

analyzed to provide a fuller picture of 

the important factors contributing to the 

type, mechanism, and potential severity 

of any resulting injury. 

NHTSA studied three different 

restraint strategies: (a) 

compartmentalization; (b) lap belt (with 

compartmentalization); and, (c) fore/aft 

loading.7

Within the context of these restraint 

strategies, various boundary conditions 

were evaluated: (a) Seat spacing—483 

mm (19 inches), 559 mm (22 inches) 

and 610 mm (24 inches); (b) seat back 

height—nominally 508 mm (20 inches) 

and 610 mm (24 inches); and, (c) fore/ 

aft seat occupant loading. Ten dummies 

were tested with misused or out-ofposition (OOP) lap or shoulder 

restraints. The restraints were misused 

by placing the lap belt too high up on 

the waist, placing the lap/shoulder belt 

placed behind the dummy’s back, or 

placing the lap/shoulder belt under the 

dummy’s arm. 

The agency found the following with 

regard to compartmentalization: 

• Low head injury values were 

observed for all dummy sizes, except 

when override 8 occurred. 

• High head injury values or dummyto-dummy contacts beyond the 

biofidelic range of the test dummy were 

produced when the large male dummy 

overrode the seat in front of it, while the 

high-back seats prevented this. 

• Low chest injury values were 

observed for all dummy sizes. 

• Based on dummy motion and 

interaction with each other, 

compartmentalization was sensitive to 

seat back height for the 50th percentile 

male dummy. 

• Compartmentalization of 6YO and 

5th percentile female dummies did not 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 65513 

9School Transportation News, Buyers Guide 

2007. 

10This value was reported by School Bus Fleet 

2007 Fact Book. 

11 ‘‘Traffic Safety Facts—School Transportation 

Related Crashes,’’ NHTSA, DOT HS 810 626. The 

data in this publication account for all school 

transportation-related deaths in transporting 

students to and from school and school related 

activities. This includes non-school buses used for 

this purpose when these vehicles are involved in 

a fatal crash. 

12For the crashes resulting in the 11 annual 

school bus occupant fatalities, 51 percent of the 

fatalities and 52 percent of the crashes were from 

frontal collisions. Traffic Safety Facts 2005, School 

Transportation-Related Crashes, DOT HS 810 626. 

13Traffic Safety Facts 2005, DOT HS 810 631. 

14The TEA–21 research program did not study 

whether belts could enhance the protection of 

compartmentalization in side crashes and rollovers. 

Most school bus fatalities occur in a crash involving 

a rollover, and the side crash fatalities are about as 

frequent as front crash fatalities. 

appear to be sensitive to rear loading 

conditions. 

• Compartmentalization of the 50th 

percentile male dummy did not appear 

to be sensitive to seat spacing for the 

50th percentile male dummy. 

The agency found the following with 

regard to lap belts on large school buses: 

• Head and chest injury values were 

low for all dummy sizes. 

• The average neck injury value was 

above the injury assessment reference 

value (IARV) for all test dummies, and 

was 70 percent above for the 5th 

percentile female dummy. 

• Neck injury values increased for the 

5th percentile female dummy when the 

seat spacing was increased from 483 

mm (19 inches) to 559 mm (22 inches). 

The agency found the following with 

regard to properly worn lap/shoulder 

belts on school buses: 

• Head, chest and neck injury values 

were low for all size dummies and 

below those seen in the 

compartmentalization and lap belt 

results. 

• Average head injury values were, at 

most, about half those seen in the 

compartmentalization and lap belt 

results. 

• Neck injury values increased with 

application of rear loading for the 6YO 

and 5th percentile female dummies. 

• Lap/shoulder belt systems would 

require approximately 15 inches seat 

width per passenger seating position. 

The standard school bus bench seat is 

39 inches wide, and is considered a 

three-passenger seat. If the width of the 

seat bench were increased to 45 inches 

for both seats on the left and right side 

of the school bus, the aisle width would 

be reduced to an unacceptable level. 

NHTSA found that, for improperly 

worn lap/shoulder belts: 

• Placing the shoulder belt behind the 

dummy’s back resulted in dummy 

motion and average dummy injury 

values similar to lap belt restraint. 

• Placing the shoulder belt under the 

dummy’s arm provided more restraint 

on dummy torso motions than when the 

belt is placed behind the back. Average 

dummy injury values for the 6YO were 

about the same as seen with lap/ 

shoulder belts and 5th percentile female 

dummy injury values were between 

those seen in lap/shoulder belts and lap 

belts. 

b. Agency Recommended Best Practices 

School buses are one of the safest 

forms of transportation in the U.S. Every 

year, approximately 474,000 public 

school buses, transporting 25.1 million 

children to and from school and schoolrelated activities,9 travel an estimated 

4.8 billion route miles.10 Over the 11 

years ending in 2005, there was an 

annual average of 26 school 

transportation related fatalities (11 

school bus occupants (including drivers 

and passengers) and 15 pedestrians).11

The bus occupant fatalities were 

comprised of six school-age children, 

with the remaining being adult drivers 

and passengers.12 On average, there 

were 9 crashes per year in which an 

occupant was killed. The school bus 

occupant fatality rate of 0.23 fatalities 

per 100 million vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT) is more than six times lower than 

the overall rate for motor vehicles of 1.5 

per 100 million VMT.13

The agency’s school bus research 

results indicated that lap/shoulder belts 

could enhance the safety of large school 

buses, such that a child who has a seat 

on the school bus and who is belted 

with a lap/shoulder belt on the bus 

would have an even lower risk of head 

and neck injury than on current large 

school buses.14 Thus, if ample funds 

were available for pupil transportation, 

and pupil transportation providers 

could order and purchase a sufficient 

number of school buses needed to 

provide school bus transportation to all 

children, we would recommend that 

pupil transportation providers consider 

installing lap/shoulder belts on large 

school buses because of the 

enhancements that lap/shoulder belts 

could make to school buses. 

Realistically, however, we recognize 

that funds provided for pupil 

transportation are limited, and that the 

monies spent on lap/shoulder belts on 

large school buses would usually draw 

from the monies spent on other crucial 

aspects of school transportation, such as 

purchasing new school buses to ensure 

that as many children as possible are 

provided school bus transportation, on 

driver and pupil training on safe 

transportation practices, and on upkeep 

and maintenance of school buses and 

school bus equipment. Bearing these 

considerations in mind, we recommend 

that pupil transportation providers 

consider lap/shoulder belts on large 

school buses only if there would be no 

reduction in the number of children that 

are transported to or from school or 

related events on large school buses. 

Reducing bus ridership would likely 

result in more student fatalities, since 

walking and private vehicles are less 

safe than riding a large school bus 

without seat belts. 

Our best practices recommendation 

seeks to reflect real world 

considerations about the safety record of 

school buses, the economic impact on 

school systems incurred by the costs of 

seat belts and the impact that lap/ 

shoulder belts have on the seating 

capacity of large school buses. Our 

laboratory test results indicate that our 

test dummies measured better head 

protection performance when lap/ 

shoulder belts were properly used with 

compartmentalization than compared to 

compartmentalization alone. However, 

best practices compel us to acknowledge 

that installation of lap/shoulder belts, as 

currently designed, reduce the number 

of seats offered to students, resulting in 

fewer children riding school buses, 

exposing more children to higher safety 

risks in alternative forms of transport to 

or from school or related events, and a 

probable overall net safety disbenefit 

due to their installation. 

Best practices compel us to encourage 

pupil transportation providers to make 

a comprehensive analysis of their needs 

and determine how lap/shoulder belts 

on large school buses accord with those 

needs. The best practices approach we 

have developed allows States the 

leeway to decide whether to require seat 

belts on large school buses, and whether 

lap only or lap/shoulder belts should be 

ordered. Given the tradeoff noted above, 

States should be permitted the 

flexibility of deciding whether to order 

large school buses with the seat belt 

safety enhancements after considering 

the excellent safety record of large 

school buses with 

compartmentalization, the benefits of 

allocating resources to belts as opposed 

to alternative safety measures, and the 

means available to ensure that the belts 

would be used. If a State were to 

determine that lap/shoulder belts are in 

its best interest, NHTSA encourages the 

State to install those systems. Today’s 

document proposes performance 

requirements for the lap/shoulder belts, 

to ensure they will work well in a crash 

even if voluntarily installed. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

65514 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

15See the results of NHTSA’s school bus research 

program (Report to Congress, School Bus Safety: 

Crashworthiness Research, supra). In addition, a 

1985 study by Transport Canada provided data 

comparing the reaction of three belted and three 

unbelted 5th percentile adult female 

anthropomorphic test dummies in a 48 km/h (30 

mph) frontal collision of a large school bus meeting 

compartmentalization requirements. The results 

indicated that the belted dummies experienced 

higher head accelerations, lower chest accelerations 

and more severe neck extension than did the 

unbelted ones. Accordingly, the study concluded 

that the use of a lap belt system in a school bus 

‘‘may result in more severe head and neck injuries 

for a belted occupant than an unbelted one, in a 

severe frontal collision.’’ (School Bus Safety Study, 

January 1985). After analyzing the Transport 

Canada study, NHTSA could not conclude from the 

report’s findings that belts degraded the benefits of 

compartmentalization to the extent that the 

supplemental restraint system rendered inoperative 

the safety of large school buses, but NHTSA 

acknowledged that the possibility exists that the 

occupant kinematics shown in the Canadian tests 

could occur. (Docket No. 85–14; Notice 02, RIN 

2127–AB84, March 22, 1989). 16We reiterate our conclusion that the overall 

potential benefits of requiring lap belts on large 

school buses are insufficient to justify a Federal 

requirement for mandatory installation. NAS has 

also suggested that the funds used for required seat 

belts might be better used in other school bus safety 

programs. Special Report 222 (1989), supra. 

Certain highway safety grant funds 

may continue to be used to fund the 

purchase and installation of seat belts 

(lap or lap/shoulder) on school buses. 

Annually, all States, the District of 

Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, and the U.S. territories 

receive NHTSA Section 402 State and 

Community Highway Safety Formula 

Grant Funds. A wide range of behavioral 

highway safety activities that help 

reduce crashes, deaths, and injuries, 

including seat belt-related activities, 

qualify as eligible costs under the 

Section 402 program. Each State 

determines how to allocate its funds 

based on its own priorities and 

identified highway safety problems as 

described in an annual Highway Safety 

Plan (HSP). 

As with all proposed expenditures of 

Section 402 funds, the purchase and 

installation of seat belts on school buses 

must be identified as a need in the 

State’s HSP and comply with all 

requirements under 23 U.S.C. Part 1200. 

Section 402 funds may not be used to 

purchase the school bus in its entirety, 

but may fund only the incremental 

portion of the bus cost directly related 

to the purchase and installation of seat 

belts. 

We would advise States that are 

considering purchasing seat belts for 

school buses to be guided by the 

proposed standards in this notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

c. Guidance on Lap Belts on Large 

School Buses 

In the July 11, 2007 public meeting, 

some participants asked for guidance on 

whether lap belts should be prohibited 

on large school buses. The question was 

asked in the aftermath of school bus 

research studies that found lap belts 

were associated with increased risk of 

injury on large school buses.15

After considering the data and other 

information on lap belts on large school 

buses, NHTSA does not believe there is 

a need to prohibit lap belts on the buses. 

In its 1999 report on bus 

crashworthiness, the NTSB concluded 

that the compartmentalization 

requirement for school buses in FMVSS 

No. 222 is incomplete in addressing 

school bus occupant protection in 

rollovers and lateral impacts from large 

vehicles, in that in such crashes, 

passengers do not always remain 

completely within the seating 

compartment. Although we have not 

found a safety need exists with respect 

to those non-frontal crashes to warrant 

requiring seat belts on large school 

buses,16 we have always permitted 

States to choose to require the belts over 

and above the Federally required 

compartmentalization in the school 

buses they purchase. 

We realize that laboratory research, 

including our own on lap belted 

dummies, shows relatively poor 

performance of lap belts in large school 

buses. However, this research involved 

severe frontal impacts. We cannot make 

a determination, based on the results of 

the limited testing with lap belt 

restraints in a severe frontal crash 

condition, that the addition of lap belts 

in large school buses reduces overall 

occupant protection. Lap belts are 

required in three States (New York 

(1987), New Jersey (1994), Florida 

(2001)), in many other school districts, 

and in special-needs equipped school 

buses. NHTSA has examined in depth 

New York State school bus crash data 

for lap belt equipped and non-belt 

equipped buses, and could not conclude 

that lap belts either helped or hurt 

occupant injury outcomes. 

VI. Proposed Upgrades to Occupant 

Crash Protection 

After considering the findings of 

NHTSA’s school bus research program, 

we have decided to issue this NPRM to 

propose several sets of upgrades to the 

school bus safety requirements. The first 

set of upgrades involves improving the 

compartmentalized school bus interior 

on both small and large school buses. 

Seat back height would be increased 

from 20 inches to 24 inches to reduce 

the potential for passenger override in a 

crash, and school buses with seat 

bottom cushions that are designed to 

flip-up, typically for easy cleaning, 

would need a self-latching mechanism. 

The proposal to raise seat back height 

responds to findings from the agency’s 

school bus research program, while the 

proposal for self-latching mechanisms 

responds to an NTSB recommendation 

to NHTSA (H–84–75). 

The second set of upgrades involves 

specifics about the occupant protection 

requirements required for passengers of 

small school buses (school buses with a 

GVWR of 10,000 lb or less). In response 

to NHTSA’s school bus research 

findings, this NPRM proposes to require 

small school buses to have lap/shoulder 

belts instead of just lap belts. The lap/ 

shoulder belts would have to fit all 

passengers ages 6 through adult, and be 

equipped with retractors. The lap/ 

shoulder belts would have to meet the 

existing anchorage strength 

requirements for lap/shoulder belts in 

FMVSS No. 210 and would be subject 

to new requirements for belt anchor 

location and torso belt adjustability. 

FMVSS No. 207 would also be amended 

to apply to passenger seats in small 

school buses. A newly-developed 

‘‘quasi-static’’ test requirement 

(discussed in the next section of this 

preamble) would be adopted into 

FMVSS No. 222 to test school bus seats 

with lap/shoulder belts, to help ensure 

that seat backs incorporating lap/ 

shoulder belts are strong enough to 

withstand the forward pull of the torso 

belts in a crash and the forces imposed 

on the seat from unbelted passengers to 

the rear of the belted occupants. These 

requirements would add to existing 

compartmentalization requirements for 

seat performance (e.g., seat performance 

forward, S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 222, and 

seat performance rearward, S5.1.4). A 

minimum seat belt width of 15 inches 

would be specified for all school bus 

seats with lap/shoulder belts. 

The third set of upgrades involves 

requirements for voluntarily-installed 

seat belts on large school buses. For 

large school buses with voluntarilyinstalled lap/shoulder belts, the vehicle 

would be subject to the requirements 

described above for lap/shoulder belts 

on small school buses, except FMVSS 

No. 207 would not apply to the 

passenger seats. The quasi-static test 

procedures for small school buses 

would slightly vary from those applying 

to seats on large school buses with 

voluntary lap/shoulder belts, to account 

for crash characteristic differences of 

large school buses versus small school 

buses. (Due to the mass and other 

characteristics of the vehicles, in 

crashes small school buses are subject to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 65515 

17 In Appendix A to this preamble, we list the 

FMVSSs affected by this NPRM and the proposed 

amendments to those standards. 

18NHTSA Technical Analysis to Support 

Upgrading the Passenger Crash Protection in School 

Buses (September 2007). 

higher severity forces than large school 

buses.) 

For large school buses with 

voluntarily-installed lap belts, the 

vehicles would be required to meet 

FMVSS No. 210 requirements of a 

loading force of 22,240 N (5,000 

pounds) per seating position. This 

would be consistent with the existing 

lap belt loading requirement for small 

school buses and light vehicles with lap 

belt only systems. 

These proposed requirements are 

discussed below.17 In addition, NHTSA 

has prepared a Technical Analysis that, 

among other things, presents a detailed 

analysis of data, engineering studies, 

and other information supporting these 

proposals.18 A copy of this Technical 

Analysis will be placed in the docket. 

a. Improving the Compartmentalized 

School Bus Interior of Both Small and 

Large School Buses 

• Seat back height. At present, school 

bus seat back height is specified at 

S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 222 to be at a 

minimum 508 millimeters (mm) (20 

inches (in)). In this NPRM, we propose 

that the minimum seat back height for 

school bus seats be raised to 610 mm (24 

in). 

In NHTSA’s school bus research 

program, when dummies representing 

older students were compartmentalized 

with current 20-inch high seat backs, 

the dummies were much more likely to 

override the seat and make head contact 

with test dummies that were placed in 

seats forward of the dummies. While the 

injury potential of these contacts was 

not quantifiable, dummies overriding 

seats means that the 

compartmentalization was not working. 

The highest HIC 15 value was registered 

when a 50th percentile male dummy 

behind a 20-inch seat back contacted the 

seat back two rows ahead. In cases 

where incidental contact did occur, the 

HIC 15 values tended to be very high. 

In two cases, the HIC 15 values were 

over 2,000 and the third was over 5,000. 

For the 24-inch seat backs, there was 

only dummy interaction between the 

rows of seats if both the forward and 

rearward dummies were 50th percentile 

male dummies. The high seat back seats 

effectively prevented the passengers 

from overriding the seat backs. 

In the past, NHTSA has been 

informed that with the higher seat 

backs, drivers are not able to see and 

supervise the children. However, 

NHTSA is not aware of data showing 

that the higher seat backs result in 

supervision problems. NHTSA notes 

that four states (Illinois, New Jersey, 

New York, and Ohio) plus many other 

school districts require their school bus 

seats to have 24-inch seat backs. These 

states represent about 20 percent of all 

students in public transportation. We 

have received no reports of supervisory 

or safety related issues resulting from 

the higher seat backs from these 

jurisdictions. We request public 

comment on this issue. 

• Restraining barrier height. We 

propose to amend S5.2.2, ‘‘Barrier 

position and rear surface area,’’ to 

specify that the rear surface area of the 

restraining barrier shall be such that in 

the front projected view, the restraining 

barrier’s surface area above the 

horizontal plane that passes through the 

seating reference point, and below the 

horizontal plane 610 mm (24 inches) 

above the seating reference point, shall 

be not less than 90 percent of the seat 

bench width in millimeters multiplied 

by 610 (inches multiplied by 24). We are 

also proposing that restraining barriers 

have a minimum width of 75 percent of 

the seat bottom cushion at the upper 

portion of the restraining barrier. This is 

needed to ensure that the restraining 

barrier has sufficient width and area so 

that it sufficiently restrains passengers. 

Further, we seek to clarify that the 

restraining barrier’s perimeter need not 

coincide with or lie outside of the 

perimeter of the seat back of the seat for 

which it is required if that seat back is 

higher than the minimum required by 

FMVSS No. 222. (Such a position would 

be consistent with an April 8, 1977 

NHTSA interpretation letter to Wayne 

Corporation.) 

• Seat cushion latches. At present, 

FMVSS No. 222 at S5.1.5 requires seat 

bottom cushions to withstand an 

upward force that is five times the 

weight of the seat bottom cushion. 

S5.1.5 specifies that, with all manual 

attachment devices between the seat 

and the seat cushion in the 

manufacturer’s designated position for 

attachment, the seat cushion shall not 

separate from the seat at any attachment 

point when subjected to an upward 

force in Newtons of 5 times the mass of 

the seat cushion in kilograms and 

multiplied by 9.8 m/s2, applied in any 

period of not less than 1 nor more than 

5 seconds, and maintained for 5 

seconds. 

This text of S5.1.5 has remained 

unchanged since 1976. NHTSA notes 

that in order to allow the cushion to be 

removed or flipped up for maintenance, 

some seat cushions have been designed 

to attach to the rear seat frames with 

clips that swivel on and off the frame 

and with stationary clips that slip under 

the front frame member. Such cushion 

designs meet S5.1.5. 

In 1984, the National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB) issued a 

recommendation to NHTSA (H–84–75) 

that seat cushions be attached with a 

fail-safe latching device to ensure that 

the cushions remain in their installed 

position during impacts and rollovers. 

This recommendation was closed based 

on a 1987 survey of NHTSA school bus 

manufacturers which indicated that the 

manufacturers would voluntarily 

implement the NTSB recommendation. 

Data indicate, however, that the school 

bus manufacturers did not voluntarily 

implement the NTSB recommendation. 

NTSB believes there was a safety need 

for a requirement for a latching device 

because a 1987 NTSB study reported 

that seat cushions came loose in 16 of 

44 school bus crashes. In four of the 16 

crashes, all of the seat cushions came 

loose, and minor injuries were caused 

by the loose seat cushions in three of the 

16 crashes. The NTSB concluded that 

seat cushions came free because clips 

were not secured to the seat frame or 

were loose and free to rotate. The 1987 

report indicated the following safety 

concerns associated with loose 

cushions: Flying cushions can strike 

and injure occupants; occupants can fall 

through the opening left by the cushion; 

loose cushions may block exit routes; 

and loose cushions may hide injured 

occupants. 

In the agency’s school bus research 

program, seat cushions became 

detached in the frontal crash of a large 

school bus. To address the safety 

concerns raised by the NTSB, NHTSA is 

proposing to amend S5.1.5 to require 

latching devices for school bus seats 

that have latches that allow them to flip 

up or be removed for easy cleaning. We 

also propose a test procedure that would 

require the latch to activate after a 22 kg 

(48 lb) mass is placed on top of the seat 

at the seat cushion’s center. The 48 lb 

weight is that of an average 6-year-old 

child. The test would ensure that any 

unlatched seat cushion would latch 

when a child occupant sits on the seat. 

b. Additional Occupant Protection 

Requirements for Small School Buses 

(School Buses With a GVWR of 4,536 kg 

(10,000 lb) or Less) 

• The agency proposes that small 

school buses be required to have lap/ 

shoulder belts at all passenger seating 

positions. Since the FMVSSs were first 

promulgated, small school buses 

passenger seats have been required to 

have passenger lap belts (defined as 

Type 1 belts in FMVSS No. 209) as 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

65516 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

19FMVSS No. 208 (S4.4.5) requires buses, other 

than school buses, with a GVWR of 10,000 lb or less 

manufactured on or after September 1, 2007 to have 

lap/shoulder belts (Type 2 belts) at all passenger 

seating positions other than side-facing positions. 

Today’s NPRM would be consistent with that 

requirement for the non-school buses. (We note that 

the heading of S4.4.5 of FMVSS No. 208 should 

specify that the section does not apply to small 

school buses. See http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/ 

pdf89/293807_web.pdf, NHTSA letter February 19, 

2004, explaining the typographical error. Today’s 

NPRM would correct the typographical error in 

S4.4.5.) 

20The typical seating configuration of small 

school buses is based on five rows of 762 mm (30 

inches) two passenger seats. Therefore, the 

installation of lap/shoulder belts into each seating 

position should not result in a reduction in 

capacity. 

21A torso belt anchorage located below the adult 

dummy’s shoulder may increase the spinal 

compression loading in a crash, would increase the 

risk of the dummy sliding under the belt in a crash, 

and would increase the risk of spinal and 

abdominal injuries. The allowable location for the 

shoulder belt is specified in Figure 1 of the current 

FMVSS No. 210. 

specified in FMVSS No. 208, that meet 

the lap belt strength requirements 

specified in FMVSS No. 210. Lap belts 

were required because the ratio of the 

mass of a potential collision partner to 

that of a small school bus is larger than 

for a large school bus. Thus, for vehicleto-vehicle collisions, the deceleration of 

a small school bus will be greater than 

for a large school bus. However, before 

today, we have never sought to require 

lap/shoulder belts for all passenger seats 

in small school buses.19

The primary reason for proposing lap/ 

shoulder belts is the increased level of 

protection that children riding in a 

small school bus gain by having a lap/ 

shoulder belt. Lap/shoulder belts 

provide an increased level of protection 

from lap belts by reducing the potential 

of head and neck injuries in frontal 

impacts. The relatively poor 

performance of lap belted dummies in 

NHTSA’s frontal sled test research is of 

greater concern for small school buses. 

Frontal crashes will tend to be more 

severe for these smaller school buses 

than for large school buses. Properly 

worn lap/shoulder belts will reduce the 

potential negative effects of lap belts in 

severe frontal crashes while maintaining 

and potentially enhancing the 

protection offered in other crash modes. 

In NHTSA’s 2002 Report to Congress, 

School Bus Safety: Crashworthiness 

Research, NHTSA noted that the results 

of the electronic data and video data 

showed that the dummies restrained 

with lap and shoulder belts had a lower 

risk of head and neck injuries than 

unbelted dummies. 

Finally, while installation in large 

school buses could result in a 17 

percent reduction in seating capacity, 

small school buses are already 

configured with seating positions that 

can accommodate lap/shoulder belts 

without a reduction in seating 

capacity.20

• Adjustability of the belt system. 

NHTSA proposes that requirements be 

added to FMVSS No. 210 that would 

ensure that the seat belt anchorages on 

school bus seats are designed so that the 

belt system will properly fit the range of 

children on a school bus: The average 6- 

year-old (represented by the Hybrid III 

6-year-old child dummy (45 inches tall/ 

52 pounds)); the average 12-year-old 

(represented by the Hybrid III 5th 

percentile female dummy (59 inches/ 

108 pounds)) and; the large high school 

student (represented by the 50th 

percentile adult male dummy (69 

inches/172 pounds)). Proper fit for 

children prevents injury and would 

ensure that the system performs 

properly in a crash. In addition, if the 

lap/shoulder seat belts did not fit the 

child occupant properly, there is an 

increased likelihood that the child 

would misuse the lap/shoulder belt 

system by placing the shoulder portion 

under the arm or behind the back. 

NHTSA’s school bus research results 

showed that when the shoulder belt was 

placed behind the back, the restraint 

system functioned like a lap belt. Lap 

belts produced a higher risk of neck 

injury in the testing program. 

In the agency’s school bus research 

program, we saw examples of improper 

seat anchorage location. The first set of 

lap/shoulder belt seats supplied for 

testing in the school bus research 

program did not have the anchorages of 

the lap/shoulder belts located so that 

the seat belts would fit appropriately on 

any of the test dummies. The torso belt 

came across the dummies’ heads and 

necks and the lap belt was high on the 

abdomen instead of on the hips. After 

consultation with the seat manufacturer, 

a second set of lap/shoulder belt 

equipped seats had seat belt anchorages 

such that the seat belts fit all of the test 

dummies (6-year-old to 50th percentile 

male) properly. The torso belt anchorage 

was higher on the seat back to allow for 

proper placement of the torso belt on 

taller people.21 Also, as in the 

previously supplied seats, the shoulder 

belt had an adjustable anchorage that 

slides up and down a second shoulder 

belt so it could properly adjust for the 

sitting height of the typical 6-year-old 

through the adult size passenger. 

NHTSA has tentatively determined 

that design requirements for the seat 

belt anchorages should be specified 

such that the belts would be sure to fit 

occupants ranging in size from the 

average 6-year-old child to the average 

adult male. The anchorage locations 

were determined by placing test 

dummies (6-year-old, 5th percentile 

female and 50th percentile male) into 

the school bus seats. The results are 

reported in NHTSA’s Vehicle Research 

Test Center (VRTC) Test Report, Test 

Methodology for Lap/Shoulder Belts in 

School Buses. NHTSA has tentatively 

decided to apply the location 

requirements of FMVSS No. 210, S4.3.1. 

See Figure 1 of this preamble, below. 

In addition, for the reasons discussed 

in the agency’s technical report 

supporting this NPRM, we propose that 

school bus seats with lap/shoulder belts 

have a minimum shoulder belt 

adjustment range between 280 mm (11 

inches) above the seating reference 

point and the school bus torso belt 

anchor point, to ensure that the 

shoulder belt will fit passengers ranging 

in size from a 6-year-old child to a 50th 

percentile adult male. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 65517 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

• The agency also proposes that the 

seat belt anchorages, both torso and lap, 

be required to be integrated into the seat 

structure. NHTSA proposes such 

integration because if we do not, we are 

concerned that some manufacturers 

could incorporate some seat belt 

anchorages into the bus floor, sidewall, 

or roof. Such installation into places 

other than the seat structure could 

potentially injure unbelted school bus 

passengers in a crash, or obstruct 

passengers during emergency egress. 

However, we seek comment on whether 

there are torso and lap belt anchorage 

designs available, other than integrated 

into the seat back, that would not 

impede access to emergency exits or 

become an injury hazard to unbelted 

passengers. 

Improperly designed lap belts include 

those in which the buckle stalk is too 

long and the lap belt portion of the belt 

assembly rides high on the 6-year-old 

child’s abdomen. For a proper fit, the 

lap belt portion must fit low across the 

hips so that the crash loads are 

distributed across the pelvis and not the 

abdominal area. Loading of the 

abdomen rather than the pelvis 

increases the risk of internal injuries 

caused by the seat belt penetration into 

the soft tissue of the abdomen. 

We are aware that lap belts supplied 

to some states have a long buckle end 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALSEP21NO07.000</GPH>
65518 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

22The short buckle length is recommended in 

NHTSA’s pamphlet on the Proper Use of Child 

Safety Restraint Systems in School Buses. http:// 

www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/buses/ 

busseatbelt/index.html. 

23 ‘‘Y’’ would also be used to determine the loads 

to be applied to the shoulder belts for the quasistatic test, discussed below in this preamble. See 

also paragraphs S5.1.6.5.5(a) and (b) of the 

proposed regulatory text. 

24A 991 mm (39 inch) wide C.E. White seat 

weights 34.5 kg (76 pounds). See www.cewhite.com/ 

cr-series-prod_info.html. 

that causes the lap belt to not fit low 

across the hips of the passengers. The 

long buckle end also causes problems 

with securing child restraints.22

However, our understanding is that long 

buckle ends have been provided out of 

a privacy concern about school bus 

personnel fastening lap belts near the 

crotch area of young passengers. 

Comments are requested on whether 

long buckle stalks should be retained on 

lap belts because of the privacy issues, 

even if the long buckle stalks may result 

in misplacement of the lap belt across 

the child’s abdomen and difficulty in 

child restraint attachment. 

• Seat belt anchor strength for lap/ 

shoulder belts. Small school buses have 

been required to have lap belts since the 

issuance of FMVSS No. 222. The 

anchorages for these lap belts have had 

to be certified to FMVSS No. 210. 

Standard No. 210 specifies that for 

multiple seat belts anchored to the same 

seat, the belts are pulled 

simultaneously. 

In today’s proposal to require lap/ 

shoulder belts in small school buses, we 

propose that small school buses should 

meet the existing small school bus 

anchorage strength requirements for lap/ 

shoulder belts in FMVSS No. 210. Those 

existing strength requirements, specified 

in S4.2.2 for lap/shoulder belt 

anchorages, specify that the torso 

portion of the lap/shoulder belt be 

tested simultaneously with the lap belt 

portion at 13,344 N (3,000 pounds) each 

for each belt loop. For example, a threeposition school bus seat is required to 

withstand an 80 kN (18,000 pound) test 

load. The calculation for the seat belt 

anchorage load requirement in a three 

passenger seat is (three times the 

shoulder belt plus three times the lap 

belt applied simultaneously) = ((3 × 

13,344 N) + (3 × 13,344 N)) = 80,064 N 

(18,000 pounds). 

• Seat belt retractors. For school bus 

seat belts, there is at present no 

requirement for seat belt retractors. This 

is because the only seat belt systems 

currently installed in school buses are 

lap belts where retractors are not needed 

for the seat belt system to function 

properly. We propose to add a new 

section of regulatory text (S7.1.5 to 

FMVSS No. 208) to ensure that 

retractors are provided for school bus 

lap/shoulder seat belt assemblies, and 

that the retractors meet the same 

requirements as seat belt retractors for 

passenger cars, trucks and multipurpose 

passenger vehicles. 

• Maximum number of lap/shoulder 

seat belts and minimum seat width. In 

S4.1 of FMVSS No. 222, NHTSA 

currently considers the number of 

seating positions on a bench seat to be 

the width of the bench seat in 

millimeters (W), divided by 381 and 

rounded to the nearest whole number. 

This W value is used to calculate the 

compartmentalization requirements for 

seat backs on all school buses and the 

number of lap belt only seating 

positions that must meet the provisions 

of FMVSS No. 208 and 210 for small 

school buses. The agency will continue 

to consider W to be the number of 

seating positions per bench seat with 

optional provided lap belts on large 

school buses as well as the 

compartmentalization requirements for 

all school buses, except that the divisor 

will be 380 rather than 381. (Using 380 

instead of 381 would just be for 

simplicity.) However, for the seating 

positions on small school buses with 

required lap/shoulder belts and on large 

school buses with optional lap/shoulder 

belts, we are defining the number of 

seating positions (Y) in a slightly 

different way. Y is the total seat width 

in millimeters divided by 380, rounded 

down to the nearest whole number. 

Under the definitions of W and the 

proposed definition of Y, a 1,118 mm 

(44 inch) wide seat would have W = 3 

seating positions for the purposes of 

calculating the magnitude of the 

compartmentalization requirements to 

apply to the seat back, but only Y = 2 

seating positions for determining the 

lap/shoulder belts installed on the 

seat.23 The result of this ‘‘Y’’ calculation 

would be that each passenger seating 

position in a school bus seat with a lap/ 

shoulder belt would have a minimum 

seating width of 380 mm (15 inches). A 

proposed minimum seating position 

width of 15 inches for seats with lap/ 

shoulder belts is needed because school 

buses are typically purchased based on 

maximum seating capacity, and we seek 

to ensure that manufacturers will not 

install lap/shoulder belt anchorages that 

are so narrowly spaced that they would 

only fit the smallest occupants. 

• FMVSS No. 207, Seating Systems. 

At present, FMVSS No. 207 specifically 

excludes all bus passenger seats from its 

general performance requirements. 

FMVSS No. 207 tests the forward 

strength of the seat attachment to the 

vehicle by replicating the load that 

would be applied through the seat 

center of gravity by inertia in a 20 g 

vehicle deceleration. If seat belt anchors 

are attached to the seat, FMVSS No. 207 

requires that the FMVSS No. 210 

anchorage load be applied at the same 

time the FMVSS No. 207 inertial load is 

applied. Both loads are applied 

simultaneously because during a crash, 

the seat with an integrated seat belt 

(such as the seat in a school bus) will 

have to sustain the loading due to both 

the seat mass and the seat belt load from 

the restrained occupant. 

The agency is proposing to apply 

FMVSS No. 207 to small school buses 

with lap/shoulder belts because the load 

imposed by FMVSS No. 207 appears to 

be greater than the load that would be 

imposed by FMVSS No. 222’s seat 

performance requirements (S5.1.3). If 

we assume a seat mass of 35 kg (77 

pounds),24 the FMVSS No. 207 load 

would be 6,867 N (1,544 pounds). For 

a school bus seat with two seating 

positions, the FMVSS No. 210 load 

would be a total of 53,376 N (12,000 

pounds). So if FMVSS No. 207 were 

applied it would add 12 percent 

[((53,376 N + 6,867 N)/53,376 N) ¥ 1)] 

to the total load. This would result in a 

more stringent test procedure. 

Comments are requested on whether 

FMVSS No. 207 should be applied to 

small school bus passenger seats. 

• A newly-developed ‘‘quasi-static’’

test requirement would apply to test 

school bus seats with lap/shoulder belts 

to ensure that the top of the seat back 

incorporating the seat belt anchorage 

does not pull too far forward due to the 

torso belt loading of the belted occupant 

and jeopardize the protection of 

unbelted passengers to the rear of the 

belted occupants. The quasi-static test is 

discussed in the next section. The quasistatic test requirements would be in 

addition to existing 

compartmentalization requirements for 

seat performance (e.g., seat performance 

forward, S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 222, and 

seat performance rearward, S5.1.4), and 

would be in addition to the FMVSS No. 

210 test for the seat belt anchorages, and 

would be in addition to the FMVSS No. 

207 test. A new school bus seat (test 

specimen) would be used for each of 

these tests. 

c. Additional Occupant Protection 

Requirements for Large School Buses 

With Voluntarily-Installed Lap/Shoulder 

Seat Belts 

• Large school buses with 

voluntarily-installed lap/shoulder seat 

belts would be subject to the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 65519 

25The agency does not believe there is a need to 

apply FMVSS No. 207 to large school buses that do 

not have seat belts because the load imposed by 207 

appears to be lower than the load that would be 

imposed by FMVSS No. 222’s seat performance 

requirements (S5.1.3). Under FMVSS No. 222, there 

are two forward forces applied to the seat back, by 

a lower bar and an upper bar. The lower bar force 

has a maximum value of 3,114 N (700 pounds) 

times the number of seating positions. In the seat 

performance (forward strength) test, after its initial 

application, the lower bar load is then reduced by 

half, and then the loading bar is locked in place. 

Following this, the upper loading bar is applied. 

The upper loading bar force must stay in a force 

deflection curve that has a minimum value of 4,448 

N (1,000 pounds) and a maximum of 10,676 N 

(2,400 pounds) once the loading bar displaces more 

than 127 mm (5 inches). If we assume a load in the 

middle of the force/deflection range, the total 

forward force on the seat back is 7,562 N (1,700 

pounds). In comparison, if we assume a seat mass 

of 35 kg (77 pounds), the FMVSS No. 207 inertial 

loading applied to this school bus seat would be 

6,867 N (1,544 pounds). Thus, the FMVSS No. 222 

forward seat strength loads for a large school bus 

are a reasonable substitute for the FMVSS No. 207 

inertial loads. Likewise, the agency does not believe 

there is a need to apply FMVSS No. 207 to large 

school buses that do have seat belts. The agency is 

proposing FMVSS No. 210 seat belt anchorage loads 

for large school buses, and has found that the 

proposed loads are in excess of peak loads that were 

applied to the attachment of the seat to the sled test 

fixture in a 12 to 13 g sled test simulating a large 

school bus barrier crash. Thus, this load 

measurement captured the inertial loading of the 

seat. It can therefore be argued that for large school 

bus seats, the proposed FMVSS No. 210 anchorage 

loading would exceed loading that incorporates the 

seat inertial loading, albeit at a lower deceleration 

level than the 20 g value required by FMVSS No. 

207. 

requirements described above for lap/ 

shoulder belts on small school buses, 

except FMVSS No. 207 would not apply 

to the passenger seats,25 and as 

explained in the next section, the quasistatic test procedures for small school 

buses would slightly vary from those 

applying to seats on large school buses 

with voluntary lap/shoulder belts, to 

account for the relative severity of the 

anticipated frontal crash conditions for 

each school bus type. 

The agency proposes that for large 

school buses with voluntarily installed 

lap/shoulder seat belts, the FMVSS No. 

210 anchorage strength requirement 

should be identical to the requirements 

for passenger seat belt anchorages in 

smaller vehicles. We are not aware of 

any practicability concerns with 

meeting such anchorage strength 

requirements since the proposed level of 

performance for large school buses is 

already required of all other vehicles to 

which FMVSS No. 210 applies. For lap/ 

shoulder belts, the torso and body 

blocks will be pulled at 13,334 N (3,000 

pounds). 

However, the agency recognizes that 

large school bus vehicles experience 

lower crash forces in the passenger 

compartment than do small school 

buses and other passenger motor 

vehicles. Part of the reason for the 

difference in crash deceleration is that 

the large bus body is designed to slide 

relative to the underlying frame as 

observed in the frontal barrier crash test. 

Specifically, the large school bus 

experienced about 12–13 g peak 

deceleration during a 48.3 km/h (30 

mph) frontal crash into a rigid barrier, 

compared to about 25 g for a small 

school bus. In real world vehicle-tovehicle crashes, large school buses will 

also experience lower crash forces than 

would a small school bus in a similar 

crash. This difference is due to the 

greater mass of the large bus and 

consequent lower change in crash 

forces. 

During the development of this 

NPRM, NHTSA measured the dynamic 

loads to the seat belt anchorages on lap/ 

shoulder belt-equipped two-passenger 

school bus seats from C.E. White 

Corporation and IMMI during crash 

simulation sled testing. The forces on 

the seat anchorages were measured 

using load cells attached to the sled 

buck and the attachment locations of the 

seat structure. The test was conducted 

using the 48.3 km/h (30 mph) school 

bus crash pulse that was used in the 

school bus research program. The seats 

had two 50th percentile adult male 

dummies restrained in lap/shoulder 

belts and two unbelted 50th percentile 

adult male dummies that struck the seat 

back. 

The total loads for both seating 

positions transmitted from the lap/ 

shoulder belts, through the seat 

structure and anchorages to the floor for 

each seat are shown in Figures 2 and 3 

for the C.E. White and IMMI seats, 

respectively. The highest loads 

experienced by the C.E. White seats 

revealed that the force was 

approximately 17,500 N (3,934 pounds) 

per seating position. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

65520 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALSEP21NO07.001</GPH> EP21NO07.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 65521 

26A quasi-static test was developed and is being 

proposed instead of a dynamic test because school 

bus manufacturers are familiar with quasi-static 

testing. The existing requirements in FMVSS No. 

222 use a quasi-static test (the current 

compartmentalization seat performance 

requirements in S5.1.3) to assess the capability of 

the school bus seat to provide protection in a frontal 

crash. The agency believes that by using a quasistatic procedure for testing school bus seats, 

manufacturers would be able to test a large number 

of seats and a variety of design configurations 

without incurring the delay and additional cost of 

sending each configuration to an outside testing 

facility. 

27A school bus bench seat has the minimum 

allowed overall width if the total seat width in 

millimeters minus 380Y is 25 mm (1 inch) or less. 

28Based on the assumption of a 5th percentile 

female occupant in a seating position as opposed 

to a 50th percentile male, we tentatively conclude 

that the proposed torso body block pull should be 

reduced in that situation to 3,300 N (750 pounds) 

from 5,000 N (1,124 pounds) or by approximately 

the same percentage as the ratio of the mass of a 

5th percentile female to that of a 50th percentile 

male, i.e., 65 percent [48 kg/74 kg]. 

29We note that the total loading applied for a 45 

inch seat under this proposal would be 9,900 N 

(3,300 N × three 5th percentile occupants) as 

compared to 10,000 N if it were tested for two 50th 

percentile occupants. A 30 inch seat would have a 

total load of 6,600 N (3,300 N × two 5th percentile 

occupants) rather than 5,000 N total load if one 50th 

percentile occupant were seated in the seat. 

This testing suggested that the total 

peak dynamic loading sustained by the 

seat belts was about 2⁄3 of that applied 

in FMVSS No. 210. Notwithstanding the 

above data, the agency believes that the 

anchorage strength provided by FMVSS 

No. 210 provides the foundation for seat 

belt performance and there is value in 

maintaining consistency in this 

foundation. We understand that this 

higher factor of safety may result in 

seats and anchorages being constructed 

with heavier materials and may in turn 

increase the weight and cost of 

providing seat belts on large school 

buses. However, it is also possible that 

those putting seat belt anchorages on 

large school buses may use existing 

designs for small school buses that have 

always needed to meet the same 

strength level that is now being 

proposed for large school buses. 

We request comment on the strength 

levels being proposed for large school 

buses in FMVSS No. 210. Would it be 

appropriate to reduce the strength level 

since the crash environment for large 

school buses will likely be less severe 

than for small school buses? How much 

could the load be reduced and still 

provide an appropriate safety margin in 

a variety of crash scenarios? What 

would be the cost and weight savings 

associated with a lesser requirement? 

d. Additional Requirements for Large 

School Buses With Voluntarily-Installed 

Lap Belts 

New large school buses with 

voluntarily-installed lap belts would be 

required to meet the requirements 

described in subsection (a) of this 

section of the preamble, and the 

requirements proposed in this 

paragraph. This NPRM proposes that 

seat belt anchorages would have to meet 

FMVSS No. 210 requirements of a 

loading force of 22,240 N (5,000 

pounds) per seating position. This 

would be consistent with the existing 

lap belt loading requirement for small 

school buses and light vehicles with lap 

belt only systems. 

VII. Quasi-Static Test for Lap/Shoulder 

Belts on Small and Large School Buses 

The agency has developed a quasistatic test procedure for lap/shoulder 

belt-equipped seats in school buses and 

proposes to apply this test to small and 

large school buses equipped with lap/ 

shoulder belts. The test is intended to 

address possible safety problems caused 

by having both belted and unbelted 

passengers on the same school bus. 

School bus seats designed to provide 

compartmentalized protection must 

contain the child between well-padded 

seat backs that provide controlled ridedown in a crash. A school bus seat with 

a lap/shoulder belt would have the torso 

(shoulder) belt attached to the seat back. 

In a crash involving a belted child and 

an unbelted child aft of the belted 

occupant, the seat back would be 

subject to consecutive force applications 

from the belted occupant’s torso loading 

the seat back and the force generated by 

impact of the unbelted passenger. The 

quasi-static test replicates this doubleloading scenario and specifies limits on 

how far forward the seat back may 

displace. The test helps ensure that the 

top of a seat back does not pull too far 

forward and jeopardize the protection of 

compartmentalized passengers to the 

rear of the belted occupants, or diminish 

the torso restraint effectiveness for lap/ 

shoulder belted occupants.26

The agency developed the quasi-static 

test by performing a sled test using the 

same large school bus crash pulse that 

was used in the school bus research 

program. We measured the loads on the 

shoulder belts and both lower parts of 

the lap belt. Two unbelted 50th 

percentile male dummies were 

positioned behind the seat that 

contained two restrained 50th percentile 

male dummies. Visual observation of 

seat kinematics and load cell data 

produced by the shoulder belts from 

this test revealed the following sequence 

of events: 

1. The knees of the unbelted dummy 

to the rear struck the back of the forward 

seat, causing some seat back deflection. 

2. The shoulder belt was loaded by 

the restrained dummy in the forward 

seat. 

3. The shoulder belt load was reduced 

as the seat back to which it was attached 

deflected forward. 

4. The shoulder belt loads reduced to 

approximately zero when the unbelted 

dummies’ chests struck the forward seat 

back. 

5. The forward seat back deflected 

further forward as the energy from the 

unbelted dummies was absorbed. 

This crash scenario is replicated in 

the quasi-static test. The load 

requirement for the quasi-static test is 

dependant upon the number of seating 

positions and also the likely seat 

capacity. A seat that has the minimal 

allowed overall seat width for either a 

two or three occupant seat will have a 

reduced loading requirement from other 

seats.27 The agency is proposing that a 

5,000 N (1,124 pounds) load per 

occupant be applied in the quasi-static 

test; however, seats with a minimal 

allowed overall seat width would have 

a 3,300 N (750 pounds) load per 

occupant applied.28

The reason for the reduced load 

requirement for the minimal width seats 

is that students at the 50th percentile 

male or larger size would not be able to 

simultaneously occupy each of the 

seating positions. For example, a 45 

inch seat would have a seating capacity 

of three, or the minimum allowed 

overall seat width for a three occupant 

seat. However, a common practice used 

for the seating configuration in large 

school buses to be equipped with lap/ 

shoulder belts has been to install a 1,143 

mm (45 inches) three position seat on 

one side of the aisle and a 762 mm (30 

inches) two position seat on the other 

side of the aisle in each row of the bus. 

To accommodate students larger than 

the 5th percentile female, schools 

typically seat two persons in the 1,143 

mm (45 inches) seat and one person in 

the 762 mm (30 inches) seat. Because 

the seat width is not sufficient to 

accommodate the 50th percentile 

occupants at the full seating capacity 

(i.e., three in the 1,143 mm and two in 

the 762 mm seats), we are proposing 

that the quasi-static torso belt test have 

a reduced load.29

We believe that if the seat has the 

minimal allowed overall seat width it is 

reasonable to reduce the total torso belt 

loading applied to the seat in the quasistatic test to a per occupant value below 

the loading applied for larger seating 

width, since larger occupants would not 

occupy those seats to the full seating 

capacity. To estimate the appropriate 

load value, we assume the worst case 

loading condition is approached when 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

65522 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

30Of course, the seat could be used by occupants 

of other sizes and in other combinations. For 

example, two 50th percentile male occupants might 

occupy the outboard seating positions in a three 

position, 1,143 mm (45 inch) seat or a 50th 

percentile male and a smaller child might occupy 

a two seating position, 762 mm (30 inch) seat. 

However, we believe the loading applied by other 

occupant combinations will not result in drastically 

higher loading applied to the seat through the seat 

belts. 

31 VRTC testing determined that the 1,143 mm (45 

inch), three position seat and a 762 mm (30 inch), 

two position seat would collapse during the quasistatic test when a torso body block load of 5,000 N 

(1,124 pounds) at each seating position was used. 

32Research Testing For FMVSS No. 222, School 

Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, Report 

No. 222R–MGA–2007–001, September 2006, MGA 

Research Corporation. 

33The current knee loading test procedure 

requires that initially a force of 3,114 N (700 

pounds) times the number of seating positions in 

the test seat (w) be applied to the seat back within 

5 and not more than 30 seconds, and then the force 

is reduced to 1,557 N (350 pounds) times w. The 

knee loading bar is locked in this position for the 

remainder of the test. The current top loading test 

procedure requires an additional force through the 

top loading bar until 452 joules (4,000 inch-pounds) 

times w of energy is absorbed by the seat back. 

34The agency is considering a rulemaking that 

would replace the torso body block in FMVSS No. 

210 with an updated force application device. If the 

upper torso body block in FMVSS No. 210 is 

changed, the body block discussed in this quasistatic procedure proposed today may be changed to 

the new force application device as well. 35As discussed earlier in this section, these 5,000 

N (1,124 pounds) and 7,500 N (1,686 pounds) 

values would be reduced depending on the width 

of the seat. 36The rational for the load application is 

explained in the agency’s Technical Analysis. 37The derivation of the equation defining this 

displacement limit is explained in the agency’s 

Technical Analysis. 

38A separate FMVSS No. 222 forward loading test 

is still performed on a different test specimen, one 

that was not subjected to the quasi-static test, to 

assure that in a crash, if the seat were not occupied 

by a belted passenger and it were impacted by an 

unbelted rearward passenger, the seat would meet 

the force/deflection corridor. 

every seating position is occupied by a 

child as large as a 5th percentile adult 

female.30

We also believe the proposed loading 

requirements are practicable. Testing at 

NHTSA’s Vehicle Research Test Center 

revealed that existing lap/shoulder belt 

equipped seats could meet a torso body 

block pull of 3,300 N (750 pounds) per 

occupant.31 NHTSA in-vehicle testing at 

MGA Research Corporation of threeposition, 1,143 mm (45 inches) seats 

with lap/shoulder belts in a large school 

bus, also revealed that these seats would 

pass the quasi-static test.32

For small school buses, this NPRM 

proposes that a 7,500 N (1,686 pounds) 

load per occupant be applied in the 

quasi-static test; however, seats with a 

minimal allowed overall seat width 

would have a 5,000 N (1,124 pounds) 

load per occupant applied. As explained 

in NHTSA’s ‘‘Technical Analysis to 

Support Upgrading the Passenger Crash 

Protection in School Buses,’’ the torso 

belt loads are higher than for large 

school buses because small school buses 

experience higher crash accelerations 

than large school buses. 

a. Stage 1: Torso Belt Anchorage 

Displacement 

This part of the quasi-static test 

replicates steps 1 and 2 of the crash 

scenario above. The proposed procedure 

uses the knee and top loading bars that 

are currently specified in S5.1.3 of 

FMVSS No. 222 (seat back strength), 

which replicate a passenger’s knee and 

torso loading the forward seat back 33

and the FMVSS No. 210 upper torso 

body block.34 The test procedure uses 

the bottom loading bar to replicate the 

knee loading by the unbelted rear 

passengers (based on W), then specifies 

a pull test on the shoulder belts at each 

seating position in the seat to replicate 

loading of the shoulder belt by the 

belted passengers (based on Y). Under 

the proposed test procedure, the large 

school bus shoulder belts would be 

pulled using the upper torso body block 

specified in Figure 3 of FMVSS No. 210 

with a force of 5,000 N (1,124 pounds) 

at each seating position for large school 

buses, and a force of 7,500 N (1,686 

pounds) for small school buses.35 The 

proposed rule (S5.1.6.5.4) includes a 

very specific procedure for positioning 

the torso body block. The torso body 

block force would be applied in not less 

than 5 and not more than 30 seconds. 

We found that an applied load of 5,000 

N (1,124 pounds) for large school buses 

was necessary to replicate the torso belt 

loading from the sled test and to get the 

similar seat response observed from 

high speed video. This is slightly higher 

than twice the highest reading of the 

shoulder belt load cell (2,161 N). For 

small school buses, a higher force is 

proposed because the small school bus 

crash pulse has twice the peak 

acceleration of the large school bus, i.e., 

approximately 25 g.36

At this mid-point of the quasi-static 

test when the torso block force is being 

applied, NHTSA would measure 

displacement of the torso belt 

anchorages. The criterion for passing 

this part of the test is that the torso belt 

anchorages must not displace forward 

more than a specified value. The value 

is a function of the vertical location of 

the anchorage and the angle of the seat 

back surface that compartmentalizes the 

occupants rearward of the seat being 

tested, i.e., the posterior surface of the 

seat back. 

Basically, for large school buses, the 

allowable displacement is equivalent to 

the amount of displacement that would 

result from the seat back deflecting 

forward 10 degrees past a vertical 

plane.37 For large school buses, we 

propose that q (theta) in the equation 

below be limited to 10 degrees as shown 

in Figure 9 of the proposed regulatory 

text. Thus, the total allowable forward 

horizontal displacement for large school 

buses would be: 

Large School Bus Displacement Limit = 

(AH + 100)(tanq + 0.174/cosq) mm. 

For small school buses, the 

displacement limit would be equivalent 

to the amount of displacement resulting 

from a seat back deflecting forward 15 

degrees past a vertical plane. The 

displacement limit would be 

determined using the equation: 

Small School Bus Displacement Limit = 

(AH + 100)(tanq + 0.259/cosq) mm. 

The allowed displacement for small 

school buses is greater than the limit for 

large school buses to account for our 

concerns about practicability of small 

school buses meeting the displacement 

criterion. 

As noted above, the goal of the torso 

belt anchorage displacement criterion is 

two-fold. The first goal is to assure that 

the seat back to which the torso belt is 

anchored has sufficient strength to 

restrain and protect the belted occupant 

in a frontal crash. The second goal is to 

assure that the seat back is still in a 

sufficiently upright position to 

compartmentalize unbelted occupants 

to the rear. Thus, we believe that the 

displacement limit should be narrow, to 

ensure that seat backs deviate as little as 

possible from the initial upright 

position. 

b. Stage 2: Energy Absorption Capability 

of the Seat Back 

The quasi-static test continues with 

procedures to replicate steps 3, 4 and 5 

of the crash scenario above. After the 

torso anchorage displacement is 

measured, the torso body block load is 

released. Immediately after this load is 

released, forward load is applied to the 

seat back through the top loading bar. 

The seat back must be able to absorb the 

same amount of energy per seating 

position (452 joules (4,000 in-pounds)) 

as is required of a seat back under the 

compartmentalization requirement. 

However, for this quasi-static test, the 

seat back need not perform such that the 

top loading bar force must stay in the 

force/deflection corridor specified for 

the compartmentalization 

requirement.38 This is because the torso 

body block load may have generated 

stresses in the seat frame that exceed the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 65523 

39NHTSA’s preliminary regulatory evaluation 

(PRE) discusses issues relating to the potential 

costs, benefits and other impacts of this regulatory 

action. The PRE is available in the docket for this 

NPRM and may be obtained by contacting Docket 

Management at the address or telephone number 

provided at the beginning of this document. 

40The agency estimates that a self-latching 

mechanism on flip-up seat bottoms would cost less 

than $3 per seat, or $66 per bus. This cost was not 

included in the estimates given below. Comments 

are requested on the number of school buses and 

school bus seats affected by the seat latching 

requirement. 

elastic limit of the material and result in 

residual strain. The seat back would still 

need to have the capability to absorb 

452 joules of energy from the unbelted 

rear occupant, but the manner of 

absorbing the energy would not be as 

controlled as when impacting a seat 

back that had not been subjected to the 

previous loading from the seat belts. 

c. Request for Comments 

• We note that in the above quasistatic procedure, no load is applied 

through the pelvis body block. This is 

because a visual assessment showed the 

desired seat response could be achieved 

with just the torso body block load. 

Also, a main focus of the test is to assure 

that the top of the seat back does not 

pull too far forward and jeopardize the 

protection of compartmentalized 

passengers to the rear of the belted 

occupants. The agency seeks comment 

on whether the quasi-static test should 

apply a pelvis block loading. 

• The agency also seeks comment on 

the proposal to have a more rigorous 

quasi-static seat test for small school 

buses than for large school buses. We 

also seek comment on the appropriate 

level of the torso block loading to be 

applied during the test and allowable 

anchorage displacement. Would it be 

appropriate and reasonable to impose 

the same displacement limit as is being 

proposed for large school buses? 

• Comments are requested on the 

validity of the assumption that the 

timing of the seat loading is such that 

the seat belt loading will essentially be 

finished before the upper part of the seat 

back is loaded by the rear 

compartmentalized dummy. 

• The agency also seeks comment on 

the proposed procedure (see S5.1.6.5.4 

of the proposed rule) for positioning the 

torso block. Is the proposed procedure 

sufficiently clear? Are there ways to 

improve the clarity of the test 

procedure? 

VIII. Lead Time 

If the proposed changes in this NPRM 

are made final, NHTSA proposes a one 

year lead time for school bus 

manufacturers to meet the new 

minimum seat back height (24 inches), 

seat cushion test and barrier 

requirements for all school buses, since 

there is limited or no development 

necessary for these changes. 

We note that lap/shoulder belts are 

currently available from two suppliers. 

We are aware of at least one school bus 

manufacturer (Collins) that is already 

manufacturing its own lap/shoulder belt 

seats. We further propose a one year 

lead time for meeting requirements for 

voluntarily installed seat belts in large 

school buses and a three year lead time 

for meeting mandatory installation in 

small school buses. We believe three 

years are necessary for small school 

buses since some design, testing, and 

development will be necessary to certify 

compliance to the new requirements. 

Nothing in this NPRM proposes to 

require that large school buses be fitted 

with seat belt anchorages, with lap belts, 

or lap/shoulder belts. 

If the proposed changes in this NPRM 

are made final, NHTSA proposes that 

optional early compliance be permitted. 

IX. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This rulemaking document was not 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget under E.O. 12866 and is not 

considered to be significant under E.O. 

12866 or the Department’s Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; 

February 26, 1979). NHTSA has 

prepared a preliminary regulatory 

evaluation (PRE) for this NPRM.39

This NPRM proposes: (a) For all 

school buses, to increase seat back 

height from 20 inches to 24 inches, and 

to require a self-latching mechanism for 

seat bottom cushions that are designed 

to flip-up 40; and (b) for small school 

buses (GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or 

less, require lap/shoulder belts instead 

of just lap belts. The belt systems would 

be required to meet specifications for 

retractors, strength, location and 

adjustability. Seat backs with lap/ 

shoulder belts would be subject to a 

quasi-static test so that the seat backs 

are strong enough to withstand the 

forces from a belted passenger and force 

imposed on the seat from unbelted 

passenger seated behind rear the belted 

occupant. This NPRM also proposes: (c) 

Performance requirements for 

voluntarily-installed seat belts on large 

(over 4,536 kg (10,000 lb)) school buses. 

For large school buses with voluntarilyinstalled lap/shoulder belts, the vehicle 

would be subject to the requirements 

described above for lap/shoulder belts 

on small school buses, except that 

applied test forces and performance 

limits would be adjusted so as to be 

representative of those imposed on large 

school buses. Large school buses with 

voluntarily-installed lap belts would be 

required to meet anchorage strength 

requirements. This NPRM does not 

require seat belts to be installed on large 

school buses. The proposed 

performance requirements for seat belts 

on large school buses affect large school 

buses only if purchasers choose to order 

seat belts on their vehicles. 

School Bus Fleet 2007 Fact Book on 

U.S. school bus sales for the sales years 

2001–2005 reports that for each of these 

years on average, approximately 40,000 

school buses were sold. NHTSA 

estimates that of the 40,000 school buses 

sold per year, 2,500 of them were 10,000 

pounds GVWR or under. The other 

37,500 school buses were over 10,000 

pounds GVWR. Four states currently 

require high back seats (Illinois, New 

Jersey, New York, and Ohio). These 

states have 21.7 percent of the sales. 

Thus, the high back seat incremental 

costs apply to 78.3 percent of these sales 

or 1,958 buses that are 10,000 pounds 

GVWR or under and 29,362 buses that 

are over 10,000 pounds GVWR. 

Small School Buses 

NHTSA estimates that the costs of this 

rulemaking would be the incremental 

cost of the higher (24 inch) seat back 

($45 to $64 per small school bus for 78.3 

percent of the fleet) plus the 

incremental cost for lap/shoulder belts 

over lap belts of $1,121 to $2,417. This 

would be a total incremental cost per 

school bus of $1,166 to $2,481 per bus 

for those states without high back seats. 

If it is assumed that in a given year, 

2,500 small school buses are sold, for all 

small school buses, the total 

incremental costs of this rulemaking are 

estimated to be from $2,889,000 ($45 × 

1,958 + $1,121 × 2,500 small school 

buses) to $6,167,000 ($64 × 1,958 + 

$2,417 × 2,500 small school buses). 

The estimated benefits resulting from 

the higher seat backs and lap/shoulder 

belts on small school buses is, per year, 

37.2 fewer injuries, and 0.4 fewer 

fatalities. 

Large School Buses 

Costs of Higher Seat Backs on Large 

School Buses—If this NPRM were made 

final, all large school buses would be 

required to have the higher seat backs of 

24 inches. NHTSA estimates the cost 

per large school bus of the higher seat 

back to be $125. If this NPRM were 

made final, NHTSA estimates that the 

total costs of the higher seat backs on 

large school buses to be $3,680,000 

(29,362 large school buses times 

$125.40). 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

65524 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Benefits of Higher Seat Backs on 

Large School Buses—If this NPRM were 

made final, the benefits from higher seat 

backs on large should buses is estimated 

to be 29.6 fewer injuries per year, and 

0.2 fewer fatalities per year. 

Costs and Benefits of Performance 

Requirements for Voluntarily-Installed 

Belts on Large School Buses—As earlier 

noted, nothing in this rulemaking would 

require any party to install lap or lap/ 

shoulder belts at passenger seating 

positions in large school buses. Instead, 

this rulemaking would specify 

performance requirements that 

voluntarily-installed lap or lap/shoulder 

belts at passenger seating positions must 

meet. Lap or lap/shoulder belts that are 

now installed in large school buses 

would be affected by this rulemaking, in 

that the voluntarily-installed belt 

systems would be subject to the 

performance requirements set forth in 

this NPRM whereas currently the 

systems are not subject to any Federal 

standard. The agency is unable to 

estimate the costs and benefits of this 

part because not enough is known about 

the requirements that state and local 

authorities now specify for the 

performance of seat belt systems on 

large school buses. Comments are 

requested on the added costs that would 

result from the belt systems having to 

meet the performance requirements 

specified in this NPRM. 

Overview of Costs and Benefits 

Costs of High Back Seats and Lap/ 

Shoulder Belts for Small School Buses, 

and of High Back Seats for Large School 

Buses 

Small School Buses: Adding together 

the high back seat incremental cost of 

$45 to $64 to the incremental cost for 

lap/shoulder belts over lap belts of 

$1,121 to $2,417, results in a total 

incremental cost of $1,166 to $2,481 per 

bus. 

Large School Buses: The incremental 

cost for high back seat is estimated to be 

$125 per bus. 

TABLE 1.—TOTAL COSTS (PER BUS AND FOR THE FLEET) 

[$2006] 

Large buses Small buses Small buses 

66 passenger ................................ 14 Passenger ............................... 20 Passenger. 

Per Bus Costs ................................ $125 .............................................. $1,166 ........................................... $2,481. 

Annual Fleet Costs ........................ $3.7 million ................................... $2.9 million ................................... $6.2 million. 

Combined Annual Fleet Costs $6.6 to $9.9 Million.

Benefits of High Back Seats and Lap/ 

Shoulder Belts for Small School Buses, 

and of High Back Seats for Large School 

Buses 

The benefits of the proposal for small 

school buses and large school buses are 

estimated as shown below in Table 2: 

TABLE 2.—TOTAL BENEFITS

Small school bus Large school bus Total 

Injuries Fatalities Injuries Fatalities Injuries Fatalities 

High Back Seat ........................................ Combined below1 30 0.2 30 0.2 

Lap/Shoulder Belts ................................... 37 0.4 n.a. n.a. 37 0.4 

Total .................................................. 37 0.4 30 0.2 67 0.6 

1We did not have test data to allow us to separate out the high back seats from lap/shoulder belts for small school buses; thus, these data 

have been combined. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency is required 

to publish a notice of rulemaking for 

any proposed or final rule, it must 

prepare and make available for public 

comment a regulatory flexibility 

analysis that describes the effect of the 

rule on small entities (i.e., small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions). The 

Small Business Administration’s 

regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a 

small business, in part, as a business 

entity ‘‘which operates primarily within 

the United States.’’ (13 CFR 

§ 121.105(a)). No regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required if the head of an 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The SBREFA amended the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to require Federal 

agencies to provide a statement of the 

factual basis for certifying that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

NHTSA has considered the effects of 

this rulemaking action under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. According to 

13 CFR Section 121.201, the Small 

Business Administration’s size 

standards regulations used to define 

small business concerns, school bus 

manufacturers would fall under North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) No. 336111, 

Automobile Manufacturing, which has a 

size standard of 1,000 employees or 

fewer. Using the size standard of 1,000 

employees or fewer, NHTSA estimates 

that there are two small school bus 

manufacturers in the United States (U.S. 

Bus Corp. and Van-Con). NHTSA 

believes that both U.S. Bus Corp and 

Van-Con manufacture small school 

buses and large school buses. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 65525 

I hereby certify that if made final, this 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

this NPRM were made final, the small 

businesses manufacturing small buses 

would incur incremental costs ranging 

from a low of $1,166 to $2,481 per small 

school bus, out of a total cost of $40,000 

to $50,000 per small school bus. The 

small businesses manufacturing large 

school buses would incur incremental 

costs of $125 per school bus (out of a 

total of more than $70,000) for the costs 

of the higher seat backs. The costs of 

lap/shoulder belts on large school buses 

is not a factor, as nothing in this NPRM 

would require lap/shoulder belts or lap 

belts at passenger seating positions in 

large school buses. 

The relatively minimal additional 

costs outlined above for large and small 

school buses would be passed on to 

school bus purchasers. Those 

purchasers are required to be sold 

school buses if they purchase a new bus, 

and to use school buses. Thus, small 

school bus manufacturers would not 

lose market share if the changes 

proposed in this NPRM were made 

final. While small organizations and 

governmental jurisdictions procuring 

school buses would be affected by this 

rulemaking in that the cost of school 

buses would increase, the agency 

believes the impacts on these entities 

would not be significant. 

Executive Order 13132 

NHTSA has examined today’s NPRM 

pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 

FR 43255, August 10, 1999). On July 11, 

2007, NHTSA held a public meeting 

bringing together a roundtable of state 

and local government policymakers, 

school bus manufacturers, pupil 

transportation associations and 

consumer groups to discuss the safety, 

policy and economic issues related to 

seat belts on school buses (see NHTSA 

Docket 28103). No additional 

consultation with States, local 

governments or their representatives is 

contemplated beyond the rulemaking 

process. Further, the agency has 

concluded that the rulemaking would 

not have federalism implications 

because it would not have ‘‘substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ This proposal 

would specify performance 

requirements for seat belts voluntarily 

installed on large school buses, but does 

not propose to require the belts on the 

large buses. 

Further, no consultation is needed to 

discuss the preemptive effect of today’s 

rulemaking. NHTSA rules can have 

preemptive effect in at least two ways. 

First, the National Traffic and Motor 

Vehicle Safety Act contains an express 

preemptive provision: ‘‘When a motor 

vehicle safety standard is in effect under 

this chapter, a State or a political 

subdivision of a State may prescribe or 

continue in effect a standard applicable 

to the same aspect of performance of a 

motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

equipment only if the standard is 

identical to the standard prescribed 

under this chapter.’’ 49 U.S.C. 

30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command 

that preempts State law, not today’s 

rulemaking, so consultation would be 

inappropriate. 

In addition to the express preemption 

noted above, the Supreme Court has 

also recognized that State requirements 

imposed on motor vehicle 

manufacturers, including sanctions 

imposed by State tort law, can stand as 

an obstacle to the accomplishment and 

execution of a NHTSA safety standard. 

When such a conflict is discerned, the 

Supremacy Clause of the Constitution 

makes their State requirements 

unenforceable. See Geier v. American 

Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). 

NHTSA has not outlined such potential 

State requirements in today’s 

rulemaking, however, in part because 

such conflicts can arise in varied 

contexts, but it is conceivable that such 

a conflict may become clear through 

subsequent experience with today’s 

standard and test regime. NHTSA may 

opine on such conflicts in the future, if 

warranted. See id. at 883–86. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this NPRM for 

the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The agency 

has determined that implementation of 

this action would not have any 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the procedures established by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a 

person is not required to respond to a 

collection of information by a Federal 

agency unless the collection displays a 

valid OMB control number. This NPRM 

would not establish any new 

information collection requirements. 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Under the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA) (Public Law 104–113), ‘‘all 

Federal agencies and departments shall 

use technical standards that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies, using such 

technical standards as a means to carry 

out policy objectives or activities 

determined by the agencies and 

departments.’’ After carefully reviewing 

the available information, NHTSA has 

determined that there are no voluntary 

consensus standards relevant to this 

rulemaking. 

Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of the 

promulgation of a new regulation, 

section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, 

February 7, 1996) requires that 

Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies 

the effect on existing Federal law or 

regulation; (3) provides a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct, while 

promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) clearly specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (7) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. This document is consistent 

with that requirement. Pursuant to this 

Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The 

preemptive effect of this proposed rule 

is discussed above. NHTSA notes 

further that there is no requirement that 

individuals submit a petition for 

reconsideration or pursue other 

administrative proceeding before they 

may file suit in court. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

more than $100 million annually 

(adjusted for inflation with base year of 

1995). This NPRM would not result in 

expenditures by State, local or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector in excess of $100 million 

annually. 

Executive Order 13045 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under E.O. 

12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental, health, or safety risk that 

NHTSA has reason to believe may have 

a disproportionate effect on children. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

65526 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

This rulemaking is not subject to the 

Executive Order because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

E.O. 12866. 

Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 18, 2001) applies to any 

rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be 

economically significant as defined 

under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have 

a significantly adverse effect on the 

supply of, distribution of, or use of 

energy; or (2) that is designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

significant energy action. This 

rulemaking is not subject to E.O. 13211. 

Plain Language 

Executive Order 12866 and the 

President’s memorandum of June 1, 

1998, require each agency to write all 

rules in plain language. Application of 

the principles of plain language 

includes consideration of the following 

questions: 

• Have we organized the material to 

suit the public’s needs? 

• Are the requirements in the rule 

clearly stated? 

• Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that isn’t clear? 

• Would a different format (grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing) make the rule easier to 

understand? 

• Would more (but shorter) sections 

be better? 

• Could we improve clarity by adding 

tables, lists, or diagrams? 

• What else could we do to make the 

rule easier to understand? 

If you have any responses to these 

questions, please include them in your 

comments on this proposal. 

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78). 

X. Public Participation 

How do I prepare and submit 

comments? 

Your comments must be written and 

in English. To ensure that your 

comments are correctly filed in the 

Docket, please include the docket 

number of this document in your 

comments. 

Your comments must not be more 

than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). We 

established this limit to encourage you 

to write your primary comments in a 

concise fashion. However, you may 

attach necessary additional documents 

to your comments. There is no limit on 

the length of the attachments. 

Please submit two copies of your 

comments, including the attachments, 

to Docket Management at the address 

given above under ADDRESSES. 

Comments may also be submitted to 

the docket electronically by logging onto 

the Docket Management System website 

at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Please note that pursuant to the Data 

Quality Act, in order for substantive 

data to be relied upon and used by the 

agency, it must meet the information 

quality standards set forth in the OMB 

and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. 

Accordingly, we encourage you to 

consult the guidelines in preparing your 

comments. OMB’s guidelines may be 

accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT’s 

guidelines may be accessed at 

MACROBUTTON HtmlResAnchor 

http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/ 

DataQualityGuidelines.pdf. 

How can I be sure that my comments 

were received? 

If you wish Docket Management to 

notify you upon its receipt of your 

comments, enclose a self-addressed, 

stamped postcard in the envelope 

containing your comments. Upon 

receiving your comments, Docket 

Management will return the postcard by 

mail. 

How do I submit confidential business 

information? 

If you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, you 

should submit three copies of your 

complete submission, including the 

information you claim to be confidential 

business information, to the Chief 

Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 

above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. In addition, you should 

submit two copies, from which you 

have deleted the claimed confidential 

business information, to Docket 

Management at the address given above 

under ADDRESSES. When you send a 

comment containing information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information, you should include a cover 

letter setting forth the information 

specified in our confidential business 

information regulation. (49 CFR part 

512.) 

Will the agency consider late 

comments? 

We will consider all comments that 

Docket Management receives before the 

close of business on the comment 

closing date indicated above under 

DATES. To the extent possible, we will 

also consider comments that Docket 

Management receives after that date. If 

Docket Management receives a comment 

too late for us to consider in developing 

a final rule (assuming that one is 

issued), we will consider that comment 

as an informal suggestion for future 

rulemaking action. 

How can I read the comments submitted 

by other people? 

You may read the comments received 

by Docket Management at the address 

given above under ADDRESSES. The 

hours of the Docket are indicated above 

in the same location. You may also see 

the comments on the Internet. To read 

the comments on the Internet, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for accessing the 

dockets. 

Please note that even after the 

comment closing date, we will continue 

to file relevant information in the 

Docket as it becomes available. Further, 

some people may submit late comments. 

Accordingly, we recommend that you 

periodically check the Docket for new 

material. 

Appendix A to the Preamble—Proposed 

Amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standards 

For the convenience of the reader and for 

illustration purposes, this appendix generally 

lists the proposed amendments according to 

the affected standard. This NPRM proposes 

to: 

a. Amend 207, Seating Systems, to apply 

it to school buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg 

(10,000 lb) or less (‘‘small school buses’’). 

b. Amend FMVSS No. 208, Occupant 

Crash Protection, to: 

1. Require lap/shoulder belt at all 

passenger-seating positions on small school 

buses. 

2. Correct a typographical error in the 

heading of S4.4.5. 

3. Specify lockability requirements for seat 

belts on school buses. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 65527 

c. Amend FMVSS No. 210, Seat Belt 

Assembly Anchorages, to: 

1. Specify a seat belt anchorage strength 

test of 3,000 pounds each for the torso and 

the lap portion of voluntarily-installed lap/ 

shoulder belt anchorages for passengers in 

large school buses. 

2. Specify a seat belt anchorage strength 

test of 5,000 pounds for voluntarily-installed 

lap belt anchorages in large school buses. 

3. Add a requirement concerning lap/ 

shoulder anchorage locations and 

adjustability so seat belts on school buses 

properly fit passengers from sizes ranging 

from an average 6-year-old through a 50th 

percentile adult male. 

4. Add a requirement that the seat belts be 

anchored to the school bus seat structure. 

d. Amend FMVSS No. 222, School Bus 

Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, to: 

1. Increase seat back height from 20 inches 

to 24 inches above the seating reference 

point, and amend frontal restraining barrier 

requirements to make them consistent with 

the higher seat back heights. 

2. Require lap/shoulder belt restraints 

instead of the current lap belts for small 

school buses. 

3. Require voluntarily-installed lap belts 

and lap/shoulder belt systems in large school 

buses to meet performance requirements. 

4. Add a quasi-static test for all passenger 

seats with lap/shoulder belts, to ensure 

compatibility between compartmentalization 

and lap/shoulder belt systems. 

5. Specify a minimum seat belt width of 15 

inches for all passenger school bus seats with 

lap/shoulder belts. 

6. Require all seat bottom cushions that are 

designed to flip-up to have a self-latching 

mechanism. 

It is noted that this list does not include 

FMVSS No. 209, because that standard 

already applies to seat belt assemblies for use 

in buses, a vehicle class that includes—by 

definition—school buses. (See ‘‘school bus’’

definition in 49 CFR 571.3.) 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor 

vehicles, and Tires. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR Part 

571 as set forth below. 

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

1.The authority citation for Part 571 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

2. Section 571.207 is amended by 

revising the introductory text of S4.2, to 

read as follows: 

§ 571.207 Standard No. 207; Seating 

systems. 

* * * * * 

S4.2. General performance 

requirements. When tested in 

accordance with S5, each occupant seat 

shall withstand the following forces, in 

newtons, except for a side-facing seat, a 

passenger seat on a bus other than a 

school bus, a passenger seat on a school 

bus with a GVWR greater than 4,536 

kilograms (10,000 pounds), and a 

passenger seat on a school bus with a 

GVWR less than or equal to 4,536 kg 

manufactured before [insert compliance 

date of the final rule]. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 571.208 is amended by 

revising S4.4.3.3, adding S7.1.5, and 

revising the heading of S4.4.5 and 

S4.4.5.1, to read as follows: 

§ 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant 

crash protection. 

* * * * * 

S4.4.3.3 School buses with a gross 

vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 

pounds) or less. 

(a) Each school bus with a gross 

vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 

pounds) or less manufactured before 

[compliance date to be inserted] must be 

equipped with an integral Type 2 seat 

belt assembly at the driver’s designated 

seating position and at the right front 

passenger’s designated seating position 

(if any), and with a Type 1 or Type 2 

seat belt assembly at all other 

designated seating positions. Type 2 

seat belt assemblies installed in 

compliance with this requirement must 

comply with Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 

571.209) and with S7.1 and S7.2 of this 

standard. The lap belt portion of a Type 

2 seat belt assembly installed at the 

driver’s designated seating position and 

at the right front passenger’s designated 

seating position (if any) must meet the 

requirements specified in S4.4.3.3(c). 

(b) Each school bus with a gross 

vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 

pounds) or less manufactured on or after 

[compliance date to be inserted] must be 

equipped with an integral Type 2 seat 

belt assembly at all designated seating 

positions. The seat belt assembly at the 

driver’s designated seating position and 

at the right front passenger’s designated 

seating position (if any) shall comply 

with Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209) 

and with S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard. 

The lap belt portion of a Type 2 seat belt 

assembly installed at the driver’s 

designated seating position and at the 

right front passenger’s designated 

seating position (if any) shall meet the 

requirements specified in S4.4.3.3(c). 

Type 2 seat belt assemblies installed on 

the rear seats of school buses must meet 

the requirements of S7.1.1.5, S7.1.5 and 

S7.2 of this standard. 

(c) The lap belt portion of a Type 2 

seat belt assembly installed at the 

driver’s designated seating position and 

at the right front passenger’s designated 

seating position (if any) shall include 

either an emergency locking retractor or 

an automatic locking retractor, which 

retractor shall not retract webbing to the 

next locking position until at least 3⁄4

inch of webbing has moved into the 

retractor. In determining whether an 

automatic locking retractor complies 

with this requirement, the webbing is 

extended to 75 percent of its length and 

the retractor is locked after the initial 

adjustment. If a Type 2 seat belt 

assembly installed in compliance with 

this requirement incorporates any 

webbing tension-relieving device, the 

vehicle owner’s manual shall include 

the information specified in S7.4.2(b) of 

this standard for the tension-relieving 

device, and the vehicle shall comply 

with S7.4.2(c) of this standard. 

* * * * * 

S4.4.5 Buses with a GVWR of 10,000 

lb (4,536 kg) or less, except school 

buses, manufactured on or after 

September 1, 2007. 

S4.4.5.1 Except as provided in 

S4.4.5.2, S4.4.5.3, S4.4.5.4, S4.4.5.5 and 

S4.4.5.6, each bus as with a gross 

vehicle weight rating of 10,000 lb (4,536 

kg) or less, except school buses, shall be 

equipped with a Type 2 seat belt 

assembly at every designated seating 

position other than a side-facing 

position. Type 2 seat belt assemblies 

installed in compliance with this 

requirement shall conform to Standard 

No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209) and with S7.1 

and S7.2 of this standard. If a Type 2 

seat belt assembly installed in 

compliance with this requirement 

incorporates a webbing tension relieving 

device, the vehicle owner’s manual 

shall include the information specified 

in S7.3.1(b) of this standard for the 

tension relieving device, and the vehicle 

shall conform to S7.4.2(c) of this 

standard. Side-facing designated seating 

positions shall be equipped, at the 

manufacturer’s option, with a Type 1 or 

Type 2 seat belt assembly. 

* * * * * 

S7.1.5 The seat belt assembly will 

operate by means of any emergencylocking or automatic-locking retractor 

that conforms to 49 CFR 571.209 to 

restrain persons whose dimensions 

range from those of an average 6-yearold child to those of a 50th percentile 

adult male. The seat back may be in any 

position. 

* * * * * 

4. Section 571.210 is amended by 

revising S2, amending S3 by adding 

definitions for ‘‘school bus torso belt 

adjusted height’’ and ‘‘school bus torso 

belt anchor point,’’ in alphabetical 

order, adding S4.1.3, and S4.1.3.1 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

65528 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

through S4.1.3.5, and adding Figure 4 to 

the end of the section to read as follows: 

§ 571.210 Standard No. 210; Seat belt 

assembly anchorages. 

* * * * * 

S2. Application. This standard 

applies to passenger cars, multipurpose 

passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and 

school buses. 

S3. Definitions. 

* * * * * 

School bus torso belt adjusted height 

means the point at which the torso belt 

deviates more than 10 degrees from the 

horizontal plane when the torso belt is 

pulled away from the seat by a 20 N 

force at a location on the webbing 

approximately 100 mm from the 

adjustment device and the pulled 

portion of the webbing is held in a 

horizontal plane. 

School bus torso belt anchor point 

means the midpoint of the torso belt 

width where the torso belt first contacts 

the torso belt anchorage. 

* * * * * 

S4.1.3 School bus passenger seats. 

S4.1.3.1 Seat belt anchorages on 

school buses manufactured on or after 

[insert compliance date of the final rule] 

must be attached to the school bus seat 

structure and the seat belt shall be Type 

1 or Type 2 as defined in S3 of FMVSS 

No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209). 

S4.1.3.2 Type 2 seat belt anchorages 

on school buses manufactured on or 

after [insert compliance date of the final 

rule] must meet the location 

requirements specified in Figure 4. The 

vertical height of the school bus torso 

belt anchor point must be at least 520 

mm above the seating reference point. 

The school bus torso belt adjusted 

height must be adjustable from the torso 

belt anchor point to within at least 280 

mm of the seating reference point. 

S4.1.3.3 School buses with a GVWR 

less than or equal to 4,536 kg (10,000 

pounds) must meet the requirements of 

S4.1.1 of this standard. 

S4.1.3.4 School buses with a GVWR 

greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) 

manufactured on or after [insert 

compliance date of the final rule], with 

Type 1 seat belt anchorages, must meet 

the strength requirements specified in 

S4.2.1 of this standard. 

S4.1.3.5 School buses with a GVWR 

greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) 

manufactured on or after [insert 

compliance date of the final rule], with 

Type 2 seat belt anchorages, must meet 

the strength requirements specified in 

S4.2.2 of this standard. 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 65529 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

5. Section 571.222 is amended by: 

a. Adding to S4, in alphabetical order, 

a definition of ‘‘seat bench width’’

b. Revising S4.1, paragraphs S5(a) and 

(b), and paragraph S5.1.2; 

c. Redesignating S5.1.5 as S5.1.5(a) 

and adding paragraph S5.1.5(b); 

d. Adding S5.1.6 and S5.1.7; and 

revising S5.2.2; and, 

e. Adding Figure 8 following Figure 7 

at the end of the section. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 571.222 Standard No. 222; School bus 

passenger seating and crash protection. 

* * * * * 

S4. Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Seat bench width means the 

maximum transverse width of the bench 

seat cushion. 

* * * * * 

S4.1 Determination of the number of 

seating positions and seat belt positions 

(a) The number of seating positions 

considered to be in a bench seat for 

vehicles manufactured before [insert 

compliance date here] is expressed by 

the symbol W, and calculated as the seat 

bench width in millimeters divided by 

381 and rounded to the nearest whole 

number. 

(b) The number of seating positions 

and the number of Type 1 seat belt 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALSEP21NO07.003</GPH>
65530 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

positions considered to be in a bench 

seat for vehicles manufactured on or 

after [insert compliance date here] is 

expressed by the symbol W, and 

calculated as the seat bench width in 

millimeters divided by 380 and rounded 

to the nearest whole number. 

(c) The number of seat belt positions 

in a bench seat equipped with Type 2 

seat belts for vehicles manufactured on 

or after [insert compliance date here] is 

expressed by the symbol Y, and 

calculated as the seat bench width in 

millimeters divided by 380 and rounded 

to the next lowest whole number. The 

minimum seat bench width for a seat 

equipped with a Type 2 belt is 380 mm. 

* * * * * 

S5. Requirements. 

(a) Large school buses. 

(1) Each school bus manufactured 

before [insert compliance date] with a 

gross vehicle weight rating of more than 

4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) shall be 

capable of meeting any of the 

requirements set forth under this 

heading when tested under the 

conditions of S6. However, a particular 

school bus passenger seat (i.e., a test 

specimen) in that weight class need not 

meet further requirements after having 

met S5.1.2 and S5.1.5, or having been 

subjected to either S5.1.3, S5.1.4, or 

S5.3. 

(2) Each school bus manufactured on 

or after [insert compliance date] with a 

gross vehicle weight rating of more than 

4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) shall be 

capable of meeting any of the 

requirements set forth under this 

heading when tested under the 

conditions of S6 of this standard or 

§ 571.210. However, a particular school 

bus passenger seat (i.e., a test specimen) 

in that weight class need not meet 

further requirements after having met 

S5.1.2 and S5.1.5, or having been 

subjected to either S5.1.3, S5.1.4, S5.1.6 

(if applicable), or S5.3. Each vehicle 

with voluntarily installed Type 1 seat 

belts and seat belt anchorages at W 

seating positions in a bench seat or Type 

2 seat belts and seat belt anchorages at 

Y seat belt positions in a bench seat 

shall also meet the requirements of: 

(i) 4.4.3.3 of Standard No. 208 (49 

CFR 571.208); 

(ii) Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 

571.209), as they apply to school buses; 

and 

(iii) Standard No. 210 (49 CFR 

§ 571.210) as it applies to school buses 

with a gross vehicle weight rating 

greater than 10,000 pounds. 

(b) Small school buses. Each vehicle 

with a gross vehicle weight rating of 

4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less shall be 

capable of meeting the following 

requirements at all rear seating 

positions: 

(1)(i) In the case of vehicles 

manufactured before September 1, 1991, 

the requirements of §§ 571.208, 571.209, 

and 571.210 as they apply to 

multipurpose passenger vehicles; 

(ii) In the case of vehicles 

manufactured on or after September 1, 

1991, the requirements of S4.4.3.3 of 

§ 571.208 and the requirements of 

§§ 571.209 and 571.210 as they apply to 

school buses with a gross vehicle weight 

rating of 4,536 kg or less; 

(iii) In the case of vehicles 

manufactured on or after [insert 

compliance date of the final rule] the 

requirements of S4.4.3.3(b) of § 571.208 

and the requirements of §§ 571.209 and 

571.210 as they apply to school buses 

with a gross vehicle weight rating of 

4,536 kg or less; and 

(2) The requirements of S5.1.2, S5.1.3, 

S5.1.4, S5.1.5, S5.1.6, S5.3, and S5.4 of 

this standard. However, the 

requirements of §§ 571.208 and 571.210 

shall be met at Y seat belt positions in 

a bench seat, and a particular school bus 

passenger seat (i.e. a test specimen) in 

that weight class need not meet further 

requirements after having met S5.1.2 

and S5.1.5, or after having been 

subjected to either S5.1.3, S5.1.4, S5.1.6, 

or S5.3 of this standard or § 571.210 or 

§ 571.225. 

* * * * * 

S5.1.2 Seat back height, position, 

and surface area. 

(a) For school buses manufactured 

before [compliance date to be inserted], 

each school bus passenger seat must be 

equipped with a seat back that has a 

vertical height of at least 508 mm (20 

inches) above the seating reference 

point. Each school bus passenger seat 

must be equipped with a seat back that, 

in the front projected view, has front 

surface area above the horizontal plane 

that passes through the seating reference 

point, and below the horizontal plane 

508 mm (20 inches) above the seating 

reference point, of not less than 90 

percent of the seat bench width in 

millimeters multiplied by 508. 

(b) For school buses manufactured on 

or after [compliance date to be inserted], 

each school bus passenger seat must be 

equipped with a seat back that has a 

vertical height of at least 610 mm (24 

inches) above the seating reference 

point. The minimum total width of the 

seat back at 610 mm (24 inches) above 

the seating reference point shall be 75 

percent of the maximum width of the 

seat bench. Each school bus passenger 

seat must be equipped with a seat back 

that, in the front projected view, has 

front surface area above the horizontal 

plane that passes through the seating 

reference point, and below the 

horizontal plane 610 mm (24 inches) 

above the seating reference point, of not 

less than 90 percent of the seat bench 

width in millimeters multiplied by 610. 

* * * * * 

S5.1.5 Seat cushion retention. 

* * * * * 

(b) For school buses manufactured on 

or after [compliance date to be inserted], 

school bus passenger seat cushions 

equipped with attachment devices that 

allow for the seat cushion to be 

removable without tools or to flip up 

must have a self-latching mechanism 

that is activated when a 22 kg (48.4 

pound) mass is placed on the center of 

the seat cushion with the seat cushion 

in the down position. 

S5.1.6 Quasi-static test of 

compartmentalization and Type 2 seat 

belt performance. 

S5.1.6.1 This section applies to rear 

passenger seats on school buses 

manufactured on or after [compliance 

date to be inserted] with a gross vehicle 

weight rating of more than 4,536 kg 

(10,000 pounds), and that are equipped 

with Type 2 seat belt assemblies. When 

tested under the conditions of S5.1.6.5.1 

through S5.1.6.5.6, the school bus torso 

belt anchor point must not displace 

horizontally forward more than the 

value in millimeters calculated from the 

following expression: 

(AH + 100) (tanF + 0.174/cosF) mm 

where AH is the height in millimeters 

of the school bus torso belt anchor point 

defined by S4.1.3.2 of FMVSS No. 210 

(49 CFR 571.210) and F is the angle of 

the posterior surface of the seat back 

defined in S5.1.6.3 of this standard. 

S5.1.6.2 This section applies to rear 

passenger seats on school buses 

manufactured on or after [compliance 

date to be inserted] with a gross vehicle 

weight rating less than or equal to 4,536 

kg (10,000 pounds), equipped with Type 

2 seat belt assemblies. When tested 

under the conditions of S5.1.6.5.1 

through 5.1.6.5.6, the school bus torso 

belt anchor point must not displace 

horizontally forward more than the 

value in millimeters calculated from the 

following expression: 

(AH + 100) (tanF + 0.259/cosF) mm 

where AH is the height in millimeters 

of the school bus torso belt anchor point 

defined by S4.1.3.2 of FMVSS No. 210 

(49 CFR 571.210) and F is the angle of 

the posterior surface of the seat back 

defined in S5.1.6.3 of this standard. 

S5.1.6.3 Angle of the posterior 

surface of a seat back. Position the 

loading bar specified in S6.5 of this 

standard so that it is laterally centered 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 65531 

behind the seat back with the bar’s 

longitudinal axis in a transverse plane 

of the vehicle in a horizontal plane 

within ± 6 mm (0.25 inches) of the 

horizontal plane passing through the 

seating reference point and move the bar 

forward against the seat back until a 

force of 44 N (10 pounds) has been 

applied. Position a second loading bar 

as described in S6.5 of this standard so 

that it is laterally centered behind the 

seat back with the bar’s longitudinal 

axis in a transverse plane of the vehicle 

and in the horizontal plane 406 ± 6 mm 

(16 ± 0.25 inches) above the seating 

reference point, and move the bar 

forward against the seat back until a 

force of 44 N (10 pounds) has been 

applied. Determine the angle from 

vertical of a line in the longitudinal 

vehicle plane that passes through the 

geometric center of the cross-section of 

each cylinder, as shown in Figure 8. 

That angle is the angle of the posterior 

surface of the seat back. 

S5.1.6.4 The seat back must absorb 

452W joules of energy when subjected 

to the force specified in S5.1.6.5.7. 

S5.1.6.5 Quasi-static test procedure. 

S5.1.6.5.1 If the seat back inclination 

is adjustable, the seat back is placed in 

the manufacturer’s normal design riding 

position. If such a position is not 

specified, the seat back is positioned so 

it is in the most upright position. 

S5.1.6.5.2 Position the lower loading 

bar specified in S6.5 of this standard so 

that it is laterally centered behind the 

seat back with the bar’s longitudinal 

axis in a transverse plane of the vehicle 

and in any horizontal plane between 

102 mm (4 inches) above and 102 mm 

(4 inches) below the seating reference 

point of the school bus passenger seat 

behind the test specimen. Position the 

upper loading bar described in S6.5 so 

that it is laterally centered behind the 

seat back with the bar’s longitudinal 

axis in a transverse plane of the vehicle 

and in the horizontal plane 406 mm (16 

inches) above the seating reference 

point of the school bus passenger seat 

behind the test specimen. 

S5.1.6.5.3 Apply a force of 3,114W 

N (700W pounds) horizontally in the 

forward direction through the lower 

loading bar specified at S6.5 at the pivot 

attachment point. Reach the specified 

load in not less than 5 and not more 

than 30 seconds. No sooner than 1.0 

second after attaining the required force, 

reduce that force to 1,557W N (350W 

pounds) and maintain the pivot point 

position of the loading bar at the 

position where the 1,557W N (350W 

pounds) is attained until the completion 

of S5.1.6.5.5 and S5.1.6.5.6 of this 

standard. 

S5.1.6.5.4 Position the body block 

specified in Figure 3 of FMVSS No. 210 

(49 CFR 571.210) under each torso belt 

(between the torso belt and the seat 

back) in the passenger seat and apply a 

preload force of 300 N (67 pounds) on 

each body block in a forward direction 

parallel to the longitudinal centerline of 

the vehicle pursuant to the 

specifications of FMVSS No. 210 (49 

CFR 571.210). After preload application 

is complete, the origin of the 203 mm 

body block radius at any point across 

the 102 mm body block thickness shall 

lie within the zone defined by 

S5.1.6.5.3(a) through S5.1.6.5.3(c): 

(a) At or rearward of a transverse 

vertical plane of the vehicle located 100 

mm forward of the seating reference 

point. 

(b) At or above a horizontal plane 

located 195 mm above the seating 

reference point. 

(c) At or below a horizontal plane 

located 345 mm above the seating 

reference point. 

(d) Determination of the seating 

reference point is provided by the 

manufacturer; alternatively, if the 

seating reference point is not provided 

by the manufacturer, NHTSA will make 

its own determination as to the seating 

reference point. 

S5.1.6.5.5 (a) For school buses with 

a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg 

(10,000 pounds) or less, simultaneously 

apply the following force to each body 

block: 

(1) If ((seat bench width in 

mm) ¥ (380Y)) is 25 mm (1 inch) or less, 

apply 5,000 N (1,124 pounds); or 

(2) If ((seat bench width in 

mm) ¥ (380Y)) is greater than 25 mm (1 

inch), apply 7,500 N (1,686 pounds). 

(b) For school buses with a gross 

vehicle weight rating of greater than 

4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) 

simultaneously apply the following 

force to each body block: 

(1) If ((seat bench width in 

mm) ¥ (380Y)) is 25 mm (1 inch) or less, 

apply 3,300 N (742 pounds); or 

(2) If ((seat bench width in 

mm) ¥ (380Y)) is greater than 25 mm (1 

inch), apply 5,000 N (1,124 pounds). 

S5.1.6.5.6 Reach the specified load 

in not less than 5 and not more than 30 

seconds. Measure the torso belt anchor 

point horizontal displacement and then 

remove the body block. 

S5.1.6.5.7 Apply an additional force 

horizontally in the forward direction 

through the upper bar until 452W joules 

of energy have been absorbed in 

deflecting the seat back. The maximum 

travel of the pivot attachment point for 

the upper loading bar shall not exceed 

356 mm as measured from the position 

at which the initial application of 44 N 

of force is attained. Apply the additional 

load in not less than 5 seconds and not 

more than 30 seconds. Maintain the 

pivot attachment point at the maximum 

forward travel position for not less than 

5 seconds, and not more than 10 

seconds and release the load in not less 

than 5 seconds and not more than 30 

seconds. (For the determination of 

S5.1.6.5.7, the energy calculation 

describes only the force applied through 

the upper loading bar, and the forward 

and rearward travel distance of the 

upper loading bar pivot attachment 

point measured from the position at 

which the initial application of 44 N of 

force is attained.) If energy absorption of 

452W joules cannot be obtained by the 

seat back, the test procedure is 

terminated and the seat back is 

determined to have failed to meet 

S5.1.6.4. 

S5.1.7 Minimum seat width. For 

school buses manufactured on or after 

[compliance date to be inserted], each 

passenger seating position with a Type 

2 restraint system shall have a minimum 

seating width and seat belt anchor 

width of 380 mm (15 inches). 

* * * * * 

S5.2.2 Barrier height, position, and 

rear surface area. The position and rear 

surface area of the restraining barrier 

shall be such that, in a front projected 

view of the bus, each point of the 

barrier’s perimeter coincides with or lies 

outside of the perimeter of the 

minimum seat back area required by 

S5.1.2 for the seat immediately rearward 

of the restraining barrier. 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

65532 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Issued on: November 15, 2007. 

Ronald L. Medford, 

Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle 

Safety. 

[FR Doc. 07–5758 Filed 11–19–07; 10:00 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 594 

[Docket No. NHTSA 2007–0037; Notice 1] 

RIN 2127–AK10 

Schedule of Fees Authorized by 49 

U.S.C. 30141 Offer of Cash Deposits or 

Obligations of the United States in Lieu 

of Sureties on DOT Conformance 

Bonds 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This document proposes to 

amend NHTSA’s regulations that 

prescribe fees authorized by 49 U.S.C. 

Sec. 30141 for various functions 

performed by the agency with respect to 

the importation of motor vehicles that 

do not conform to all applicable Federal 

motor vehicle safety and bumper 

standards. An importer must file with 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) a Department of Transportation 

(DOT) conformance bond at the time 

that a nonconforming motor vehicle is 

offered for importation into the United 

States, or in lieu of such a bond, the 

importer may post cash deposits or 

obligations of the United States to 

ensure that the vehicle will be brought 

into conformance with all applicable 

standards within 120 days from the date 

of importation, or will be exported from, 

or abandoned to, the United States. To 

avoid the costs of a DOT conformance 

bond, some importers have sought to 

post cash deposits, which would relieve 

the importers of the bonding costs but 

cause the agency to expend considerable 

resources. To permit the government to 

recover these expenses, this amendment 

would establish a fee for the agency’s 

processing of these cash deposits or 

obligations of the United States that are 

furnished in lieu of a DOT conformance 

bond. 

DATES: You should submit your 

comments early enough to ensure that 

Docket Management receives them not 

later than January 7, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to 

the docket and notice numbers above 

and be submitted by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALSEP21NO07.004</GPH>