15504 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

NHTSA to reflect changes in the titles

of two agency officials. The official

formerly known as the Associate

Administrator for Rulemaking is now

the Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards. The NHTSA

official formerly known as the Associate

Administrator for Enforcement is now

the Associate Administrator for Safety

Assurance.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 24, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dorothy Nakama, Office of the Chief

Counsel, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street,

SW, Room 5219, Washington, DC 20590.

Ms. Nakama’s telephone number is:

(202) 366–2992.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final

rule revises the regulations on the

organization of and delegations of

powers and duties within the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(NHTSA) to reflect changes in the titles

of two agency officials. The official

formerly known as the Associate

Administrator for Rulemaking is now

the Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards. The official

formerly known as the Associate

Administrator for Enforcement is now

the Associate Administrator for Safety

Assurance. Accordingly, all references

in part 501 to ‘‘Associate Administrator

for Rulemaking’’ are revised to read

‘‘Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.’’ All references

in part 501 to ‘‘Associate Administrator

for Enforcement’’ are revised to read

‘‘Associate Administrator for Safety

Assurance.’’

These amendments relate solely to

changes in titles of NHTSA officials,

and have no substantive effect. As

matters relating to agency management,

they are not covered by the notice and

comment or the effective date

requirements of the Administrative

Procedure Act. In addition, they are not

covered by Executive Order 12866 or

the Department of Transportation’s

regulatory policies and procedures.

Notice and the opportunity for comment

are, therefore, not required, and these

amendments are effective immediately

upon publication in the Federal

Register.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 501

Authority, Delegations.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49

CFR 501 is amended as follows:

PART 501—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 501

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. sections 105 and 322;

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

§§ 501.3, 501.4, 501.8 [Amended]

2. In 49 CFR part 501, remove the

words ‘‘Associate Administrator for

Rulemaking’’ and add, in their place,

the words ‘‘Associate Administrator for

Safety Performance Standards’’ in the

following places:

(a) Section 501.3(c)(1) paragraph

heading;

(b) Section 501.4(d);

(c) Section 501.8(f) paragraph

heading; and

(d) Section 501.8(f).

3. In 49 CFR part 501, remove the

words ‘‘Associate Administrator for

Enforcement’’ and add, in their place,

the words ‘‘Associate Administrator for

Safety Assurance’’ in the following

places:

(a) Section 501.3(c)(2) paragraph

heading;

(b) Section 501.4(e);

(c) Section 501.8(f);

(d) Section 501.8(g) paragraph

heading; and

(e) Section 501.8(g).

Issued on: March 20, 1995.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–7349 Filed 3–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 93–78, Notice 02]

RIN No. 2127–AE96

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Designated Seating

Position

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the

definition of ‘‘designated seating

position’’ found in 49 CFR 571.3,

Definitions, to provide that for the sole

purpose of determining the vehicle type

classification of a vehicle sold to

transport school children, any location

in the vehicle intended for securement

of an occupied wheelchair during

vehicle operation will be regarded as 4

designated seating positions. NHTSA is

issuing this rule to ensure that smaller

school buses remain classified as school

buses, and thus subject to the

comprehensive school bus safety

standards, when seats are removed to

install wheelchair securement locations.

This rule will assure that students being

transported in vehicles accommodating

wheelchairs will be afforded the same

level of occupant protection as other

students transported in school buses.

DATES: The amendment promulgated by

this final rule will become effective

March 25, 1996.

Manufacturers may voluntarily

comply with the amendment

promulgated by this final rule on or

after April 24, 1995.

Any petitions for reconsideration

must be received by NHTSA not later

than April 24, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration

should refer to the docket and number

of this document and be submitted to:

Administrator, Room 5220, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington,

D.C., 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Charles Hott, Office of Vehicle

Safety Standards, National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Room 5320,

Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:

(202) 366–0247.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

This rule amends the definition of

‘‘designated seating position’’ found in

49 CFR 571.3, Definitions, to respond to

an issue that arose in a rulemaking

concerning a Federal motor vehicle

safety standard (Standard) applying to

school buses. The rulemaking amended

Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger

Seating and Crash Protection, to require

school buses designed to transport

persons in wheelchairs to have

wheelchair securement devices

(wheelchair restraints) and wheelchair

occupant restraint systems meeting

specified performance requirements (58

FR 4586; January 15, 1993). School bus

manufacturers typically remove seats

from a vehicle to install wheelchair

restraints. Removing seats can affect a

vehicle’s classification and the

standards that apply to it.

One of the important factors used by

NHTSA in classifying vehicles is seating

capacity. For example, NHTSA

determines whether a vehicle is a ‘‘bus’’

or a ‘‘multipurpose passenger vehicle’’

(MPV) based primarily on passenger

seating capacity. The definition of a bus

is found in title 49 CFR 571.3,

‘‘Definitions.’’ In that section, a bus is

defined as a passenger motor vehicle

designed to carry more than 10 persons

(i.e., 10 or more passengers and a

driver). An MPV is designed to carry 10

or fewer persons.

The agency determines a vehicle’s

seating capacity by counting the number

of ‘‘designated seating positions’’ in the

vehicle. That term is defined in section

571.3 as follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15505

Designated seating position means any

plan view location capable of

accommodating a person at least as large as

a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall

seat configuration and design and vehicle

design is such that the position is likely to

be used as a seating position while the

vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary

seating accommodations such as temporary

or folding jump seats. Any bench or splitbench seat in a passenger car, truck or

multipurpose passenger vehicle with a

GVWR less than 10,000 pounds, having

greater than 50 inches of hip room (measured

in accordance with SAE Standard J1100(a))

shall have not less than three designated

seating positions, unless the seat design or

vehicle design is such that the center

position cannot be used for seating.

NHTSA has interpreted this definition

to mean that each position for securing

a wheelchair is one designated seating

position. This interpretation has a

significant impact on whether some

vehicles are classified as an MPV or as

a school bus.

NHTSA determines whether a vehicle

is a ‘‘school bus’’ by first determining

whether the vehicle is a bus. In 49 CFR

section 571.3, a school bus is defined as

a ‘‘bus’’ that is sold for purposes that

include carrying students to and from

school or related events. When seats are

removed from a bus for any reason,

including placing wheelchair

securement devices on the vehicle, so

that the seating capacity of the vehicle

is reduced to 10 or fewer persons, the

classification of the vehicle changes

from a bus to an MPV. The vehicle

would be an MPV and not a school bus

even if sold for public transportation

purposes, and even if the vehicle had

been originally ‘‘designed’’ as a bus and

outwardly resembled a conventional

bus. Thus, as a result of the seat

removal, the vehicle would be subject to

the standards for MPVs, and not the

standards for school buses.

In the rulemaking that set

performance requirements for

wheelchair restraints, both the NPRM

and final rule for that rulemaking raised

the issue of whether it would be

desirable for a vehicle that was

originally manufactured as a school bus

remain a school bus, even if its seating

capacity were reduced to that of an

MPV. In that NPRM, NHTSA discussed

the decision of the Eleventh National

Conference on School Transportation

(NCST) to answer that issue in the

affirmative. The NCST requires any

vehicle that changes classification from

a school bus to an MPV due to the

installation of wheelchair restraints to

comply with the school bus standards.

The NPRM requested comments on the

issue.

The Washington Superintendent of

Public Instruction (WSPI) submitted the

only comment on the issue (Docket No.

90–05–N03–051). WSPI supported the

idea that the determination of whether

a vehicle should be classified as a

school bus should be based on the

vehicle’s theoretical or design maximum

capacity. In other words, WSPI believed

that a school bus should remain a

school bus even when enough seats are

removed to reduce the seating capacity

to 10 or fewer persons.

In the preamble to the final rule on

wheelchair restraints, NHTSA again

expressed concern about how removing

seats from a bus can change a vehicle’s

classification from a school bus to an

MPV. The agency decided, however, not

to address the issue in that final rule but

to address it in a separate rulemaking

action where it could receive more

focused attention.

Proposal for This Rule

On October 28, 1993, NHTSA

published the NPRM (58 FR 57975) that

provides the basis for today’s rule on

school bus classification. NHTSA

proposed to amend the definition of

‘‘designated seating position’’ in 49 CFR

571.3 to specify that, for the sole

purpose of classifying school vehicles,

any vehicle location intended for

securing an occupied wheelchair during

vehicle operation would be counted as

4 designated seating positions. The

intent of the NPRM was to ensure that

if a vehicle would have been classified

as a school bus had it been fully

equipped with bench seats, it would

still be regarded as a school bus if it

were equipped with fewer bench seats

so that it could transport students in

wheelchairs. ‘‘By requiring [seating

restricted] vehicles to comply with all

school bus standards, NHTSA believes

that all student users of wheelchairs

transported in those vehicles would be

provided the same level of occupant

protection as students transported in

other school buses.’’ Id.

NHTSA selected the 4-to-1 ratio of

designated seating positions to

wheelchair positions based on the

comment that the WSPI submitted to the

rulemaking on wheelchair restraints.

The WSPI submitted information on the

number of wheelchair locations that can

be installed on a bus when a specified

number of bench seats have been

removed to accommodate those

locations. WSPI defined ‘‘bench seats’’

as those with two designated seating

positions, and stated that the average

ratio of seating positions on bench seats

to wheelchairs is 4-to-1 if the

wheelchair is forward-facing or 3-to-1 if

the wheelchair is side-facing. In the

final rule for wheelchair restraints,

NHTSA mandated that wheelchair

restraints be situated so as to secure a

wheelchair in a forward-facing position

(see S5.4.1.2(a) of Standard No. 222).

Given that requirement, NHTSA

proposed the 4-to-1 seats-to-wheelchair

ratio for wheelchair locations.

Evaluation of Comments

Two state agencies (Delaware

Department of Public Instruction,

California Highway Patrol), one trade

association (National School

Transportation Association), one charter

bus company (D.B. Fisher Inc.), and one

school bus manufacturer (Mid Bus Inc.)

commented on the NPRM. Except for

D.B. Fisher, Inc., commenters generally

supported the intent of the NPRM,

although some expressed concern about

how the proposal could affect the use of

school vehicles. Some commenters

made suggestions about issues that were

outside the scope of the NPRM.

Proposed 4-to-1 Ratio

Commenters addressed NHTSA’s

proposal that each location intended to

secure a wheelchair would be counted

as four designed seating positions. Mid

Bus Inc. and the National School

Transportation Association (NSTA)

supported that proposal. The Delaware

and California state agencies expressed

concern about it.

The Delaware Department of Public

Instruction (DDPI) was concerned that

the proposal could unnecessarily

restrict the seating capacity of school

buses. The commenter believed that the

proposal equates a wheelchair position

with too many seating positions, which

would not be space efficient. ‘‘That [4 to

1] ratio is translated into fifty inches

(50′′) per wheelchair space. Several

manufacturers allow that forty-four

inches (44′′) is adequate.’’ DDPI said it

did not want to lose more space than is

necessary. ‘‘Anytime more space per

pupil is required, more school buses are

needed.’’ DDPI suggested that a per-inch

spacing formula would be more spaceefficient than the 4-to-1 or even 3-to-1

ratios.

NHTSA does not agree that this rule

unnecessarily restricts the seating

capacity of school buses. The 4-to-1

ratio of designated seating positions to

wheelchair positions was based on a

finding that, on average, four is the

number of seating positions typically

removed when a single securement

location is installed. However, this rule

does not require four conventional

designating seating positions to be

removed and used for each wheelchair

position. Instead, the rule simply

requires four positions to be counted for
15506 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

each wheelchair position. Since the rule

does not require any specific amount of

space to be devoted to a wheelchair

position, the substitution of a per-inch

approach for this rule’s approach would

have no effect on the amount of space

used for a wheelchair position.

The California Highway Patrol (CHP)

asserted that allowing only 4 designated

seating positions for each wheelchair

location did not go far enough. CHP

stated that the California definition of a

school bus is similar to the Federal

definition, but it also includes a vehicle

transporting 2 or more pupils confined

to wheelchair location as 4 seating

positions would require California to

change its law in that a vehicle with 2

wheelchair positions and a bench seat

with 2 designated seating positions

would, under the Federal criteria, be

classified as an MPV, while, under the

California definition, it would be

classified as a school bus. CHP

suggested, therefore, that NHTSA

amend its definition of a school bus to

include a vehicle designed to carry 2 or

more wheelchair positions or one that

would carry 6 seated passengers and 1

wheelchair passenger.

CHP is mistaken in suggesting that a

school vehicle designed to carry six

seated passengers and one wheelchair

passenger would be classified as an

MPV under today’s rule. Such a vehicle

would be a school bus under today’s

amendment, since its number of

designated seating positions would be

10, plus the driver (a school bus has a

carrying capacity of more than 10

persons).

In any event, CHP’s suggestion that

NHTSA amend the agency’s school bus

definition is outside of the scope of this

rulemaking. NHTSA proposed to amend

the ‘‘designated seating position’’

definition, not the school bus definition.

NHTSA believes there is insufficient

notice for it to adopt the suggestion to

amend the school bus definition at this

time, even if the agency wished to do so.

NHTSA offers the following

observations about CHP’s suggestion. To

the extent that CHP is impliedly

suggesting that each location intended

to secure a wheelchair should be

counted as five designated seating

positions (DSP’s), the commenter did

not provide and NHTSA does not know

of any reason for equating a wheelchair

position with five DSP’s. Accordingly,

NHTSA declines to pursue making the

suggested change.

The agency further notes that NHTSA

is considering an issue related to CHP’s

comment about vehicles designed to

carry only two students in wheelchairs.

As discussed below in the ‘‘Other

issues’’ section of this preamble, some

commenters suggested that a wheelchair

lift should be counted as four DSP’s

since a lift typically uses the space of

four DSP’s. NHTSA is studying this

matter to decide whether an NPRM

should be issued to amend the DSP

definition to incorporate this idea. If the

agency issued the NPRM, the agency

might decide, after notice and comment

on the issue, that a lift ought to be

equated with four DSP’s. If that were to

occur, a vehicle designed to carry two

wheelchair positions and a wheelchair

lift as four, for a total of 12 DSP’s for

passengers.

The D.B. Fisher Charter Bus

Company, Inc. (Fisher) opposed the 4

designated seating positions per

wheelchair location proposal, since it

would result in more vehicles being

designated school buses than is

presently the case. Fisher asserted that

this would convert a ‘‘non-commercial’’

vehicle into a ‘‘commercial’’ vehicle

(Fisher’s terms) required to have

lighting systems to control traffic. Fisher

argued that the extra time it takes to

stop a school bus in the roadway, which

also stops traffic, in order to load and

unload wheelchair passengers would

cause serious traffic delays, especially

in cities. The commenter believed that

that would inconvenience the public

and make them unwilling to stop and

wait for these vehicles. As a result,

Fisher argued, children would be

exposed to increased risk from general

traffic.

NHTSA does not believe that the

amendment adopted in this final rule

would be detrimental to motor vehicle

safety, as Fisher believes. It is true that

crediting each wheelchair location as

being equal to four designated seating

positions could result in a vehicle’s

being classified as a school bus instead

of an MPV as under the current

regulations. It is also true, that since

more vehicles would be school buses,

more vehicles would be required to

have school bus lamps under NHTSA’s

safety standard for vehicle lighting

systems (Standard No. 108, 49 CFR

§ 571.108). However, the requirements

mandating the use of school bus lamps,

and how and where a school bus

operator must maneuver a vehicle in

traffic to load or unload students, are

state law requirements, not those of

NHTSA. There is no Federal

requirement regarding school buses

stopping on public roadways for the

pickup and discharge of children, nor is

there a Federal requirement that traffic

in both directions stop for the loading

and unloading of school buses. Such

requirements are matters of state rather

than Federal authority.

While NHTSA does not have the

authority to regulate the use of school

buses, the agency recognizes that safe

driving practices by motorists around an

operating school bus are crucial to

school bus safety. Accordingly, the

agency has issued Highway Safety

Program Guideline No. 17, ‘‘Pupil

Transportation Safety’’ (23 CFR Part

1204), which recommends that states

develop plans for minimizing highway

use hazards to students, including

providing loading and unloading zones

off the main traveled part of highways,

whenever it is practicable to do so. In

addition, Guideline No. 17 recommends

that states require motorists meeting or

overtaking a school bus that is loading

or unloading passengers and which is

operating red warning lights, to stop

their vehicles before reaching the school

bus and not proceed until the warning

signals are deactivated. Guideline No.

17 is not binding on the states.

Individual states have decided to adopt

some or all of the guideline, as best

serves the needs of their pupil

transportation program. Since Fisher’s

safety concerns relate to the use of the

vehicles, the commenter should address

those concerns to state authorities, who

can best decide which transportation

practices would achieve the highest

level of safety possible for its pupils.

Nevertheless, NHTSA considered

Fisher’s comment to assess perceived

safety effects of the rule. NHTSA

concludes that Fisher’s predictions are

unsupported at this time. Further, the

agency does not anticipate that those

predictions will be borne out. This rule

will only slightly increase the number of

vehicles classified as school buses, and

is thus unlikely to have a significant

effect on the public’s willingness to stop

their vehicles for loading and unloading

students. NHTSA believes the matter

will be ultimately resolved through onroad experience. It will bear out

whether school vehicles accommodating

wheelchairs cause the inordinate traffic

delays and associated problems that

Fisher fears, and whether some action

on NHTSA’s part to address the alleged

problems would be appropriate.

Costs

The October 1993 NPRM included a

comprehensive discussion of estimated

costs associated with this rulemaking

action. The agency estimated that

approximately 520 vehicles per year

would be affected by this rulemaking.

This estimate was based on sales data

indicating that 15.2 percent of the

38,000 school buses sold annually are

small buses, and that about 9 percent of

these are lift equipped. The agency

believes that each of those lift-equipped
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15507

buses has one or more wheelchair

positions. The NPRM stated that while

not all these vehicles might have their

seating capacity reduced to that of an

MPV, there will probably be other

vehicles outside this class that will be

affected, such as MPV’s that are not liftequipped. The agency does not know

how many of these vehicles are

currently sold as MPVs, but believes

that the number is probably very small.

DDPI believed NHTSA

underestimated the number of buses

that would be affected by the proposed

change. NHTSA believes that 520 is

valid estimate of the approximate

number of new school buses affected

annually by this amendment. That value

is based on annual sales of small school

buses and the proportion of such buses

that are currently equipped with

wheelchair lifts. Not all these vehicles

would have their seating capacities

reduced to the point of becoming MPVs.

NHTSA believes that DDPI may be

erroneously including existing school

buses in their calculations. This final

rule, as with all NHTSA’s rules, affects

only new vehicles and is effective only

prospectively. There is no requirement

to retrofit existing vehicles.

The NPRM also contained a detailed

analysis of the cost impacts for the

affected vehicles. None of the

commenters discussed those impacts.

The agency is not aware of information

indicating the assumptions underlying

the cost estimates are incorrect.

However, the estimated total cost

savings was inaccurate. Instead of the

$390 to $580 range in the NPRM, the

total cost savings should have been

estimated to be approximately $90 per

vehicle. The cost impacts of this rule are

discussed in detail in the ‘‘Rulemaking

Analyses and Notices’’ section of this

preamble.

Other Issues

Compatibility with compartmentalization. As noted above, DDPI believed

that one wheelchair position should be

equated with fewer than four seating

positions. DDPI was primarily

concerned about unnecessarily

restricting the seating capacity of school

buses. However, DDPI also believed that

excessive space allowed for wheelchair

locations would conflict with the

principles of compartmentalization.

NHTSA emphasizes that this rule

does not require any specific amount of

space to be set aside for each wheelchair

position. This rule only requires that 4

designated seating positions be counted

for each wheelchair position in

determining vehicle classification.

Accordingly, NHTSA believes that the

compartmentalization requirements of

Standard No. 222, School bus passenger

seating and crash protection, will not be

affected by this rulemaking.

Wheelchair lifts. As noted above,

some commenters suggested that, on a

school vehicle, the DSP’s removed for

installation of a wheelchair lift be

counted toward a determination of a

vehicle’s passenger capacity. Mid Bus

and NSTA suggested that if wheelchair

securement positions are installed in a

vehicle, a lift mechanism of some type

must also be present. Therefore, both

suggested that the wheelchair lift also be

credited with 4 designated seating

positions.

The agency neither proposed nor

discussed this issue in the NPRM.

However, NHTSA is studying the

matter. If, after due consideration,

NHTSA decides to propose such an

amendment, it will do so in a separate

rulemaking.

Other methods of transport. CHP

suggested that NHTSA study other

methods of transporting disabled

students, such as gurneys that could be

used to transport prone or supine

passengers. CHP stated that schools are

receiving demands for transportation of

disabled students in other than standard

wheelchairs. Such devices pose

hardships for bus operators, take up

more space than wheelchairs, and

securement/tiedown is difficult. Federal

standards in this area would assist the

school bus industry, increase safety, and

establish uniformity.

The agency is aware that students are

transported in mobility devices other

than wheelchairs. The requirements of

Standard No. 222 mandate forwardfacing wheelchair restraints, but do not

specify how the wheelchair securement

devices should be used. This is an

operational issue that is the

responsibility of the state or local school

district. However, NHTSA has a

Disabilities Working Group that serves

as a clearinghouse for information on

the safe transportation of disabled

persons. The diversity of the mobility

devices available makes it impossible

for a standard tiedown system to

provide adequate securement of all the

different types of mobility aids. There

are many mobility devices that are made

specifically for the individual’s

disability. Parties that are responsible

for the safe transportation of occupants

in mobility devices that are unique

should consult with the restraint

manufacturer, the physician, and a

qualified expert in the field of

transportation for the disabled prior to

transporting such individuals.

Wheelchair safety. CHP stated that it

is encountering a wide variety in the

construction, configurations, and sizes

of wheelchairs, and is concerned that

‘‘many of the wheelchairs in the

California (and nationwide) marketplace

may not be capable of withstanding the

forces associated with anchoring an

occupant restraint system to them.’’

NHTSA believes that CHP is referring to

the crashworthiness of wheelchairs.

CHP suggested, therefore, that NHTSA

develop minimum standards for

wheelchairs.

NHTSA addressed this issue in the

final rule of January 15, 1993 (58 FR

4591), in discussing comments

submitted in response to the NPRM of

September 24, 1991. The agency

recognizes now, as then, that some

wheelchairs may not perform as well as

others in a crash situation. However, the

agency still considers it inappropriate to

specify requirements for wheelchairs

and other mobile seating devices that

could be utilized on school buses.

NHTSA’s authority extends only to

issuing performance requirements for

motor vehicles and items of motor

vehicle equipment as defined in 49

U.S.C. 30102 (6) and (7). The agency has

authority to specify performance

requirements for seating devices that are

designed for use in vehicles, such as

child safety seats. Wheelchairs in

general are not designed specifically for

use in motor vehicles. Their use in

motor vehicles is only incidental to

their primary function of providing

mobility. Accordingly, NHTSA may not

regulate in this area.

Agency Decision

After carefully considering the

comments submitted in response to the

NPRM, NHTSA has decided to amend

the definition of ‘‘designated seating

position’’ found in 49 CFR 571.3, as

proposed in the NPRM. NHTSA believes

this rule is needed to ensure that the

vehicles which are used to transport

students in wheelchairs afford the same

protection as identical vehicles which

are equipped with conventional bench

seats and are classified as school buses.

Some commenters expressed concerns

about the impacts of the rule on school

bus usage by increasing transportation

time, causing traffic problems, and

requiring more buses to transport the

same number of children. However,

these comments did not controvert the

safety need for this action nor establish

that the results would not be cost

effective.

Effective Date

49 U.S.C. 30111(d) provides that each

order prescribing a Federal motor

vehicle safety standard may not become

effective before the 180th day or later

than one year after the standard is
15508 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

prescribed unless, for good cause

shown, a different effective date is in

the public interest. NHTSA has

concluded that one year after the date of

publication of this final rule in the

Federal Register is an appropriate

effective date for this amendment in

order to provide manufacturers

adequate time to plan and implement

any necessary design changes to their

vehicles. Manufacturers may, however,

at their opinion, comply with this

amendment at any time after 30 days

following publication of this final rule

in the Federal Register.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This rulemaking document was not

reviewed under E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory

Planning and Review.’’ The agency has

considered the impact of this

rulemaking action under the DOT’s

regulatory policies and procedures and

has determined that it is not

‘‘significant’’ under those policies and

procedures.

The additional costs from having to

comply with school bus safety standards

and the cost savings from not having to

comply with the MPV safety standards

are estimated to result in net additional

costs of a maximum of $2,198 per

vehicle ($2,288 maximum additional

costs, less $90 per vehicle in cost

savings, as discussed below), for a total

maximum of $1,142,960 ($2,198×520).

The agency believes, however, that only

a very small number of vehicles per year

would incur the full additional cost.

Accordingly, the economic effects of

this rulemaking action are so minimal

that a full regulatory evaluation is not

required.

Costs. The primary additional costs of

the rule are estimated to be a maximum

of $2,288 per vehicle, for a total

maximum of $1,189,760 ($2,288 × 520).

Those costs result from equipping each

vehicle with the following school bus

features: red and amber school bus

signal lamps required by Standard No.

108, Lamps, reflective devices, and

associated equipment ($140); school bus

mirrors required by Standard No. 111,

Rearview mirrors (between $22 and

$52); stop signal arms required by

Standard No. 131, School bus

pedestrian safety devices ($205); for

vehicles over 6,000 pounds GVWR, a

reinforced roof and roof pillar structure

required by Standard No. 220, School

bus rollover protection (from $22 to

$1,549); additional rivets and glue for

body panel strength in accordance with

Standard No. 221, School bus body joint

strength ($365); and compartmentalized

passenger seats required by Standard

No. 222, School bus passenger seating

and crash protection ($35 per seat, or

$280 for a vehicle with eight rear seating

positions). NHTSA’s data suggests,

however, that many, if not most,

vehicles used as school buses that have

fewer than 11 designated seating

positions, counting a wheelchair

position as one designated seating

position, already voluntarily comply

with Federal school bus safety

standards. Thus, the average additional

costs for the affected vehicles would be

significantly less than the theoretical

maximum.

Cost savings. The potential cost

savings realized from changing the

classification result from differences

between the occupant restraint

requirements of Standard No. 208,

Occupant crash protection, for MPV’s

and school buses. An MPV with a

GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less is

required to have lap/shoulder belts at all

outboard seating positions and a lap/

shoulder belt for the driver. In contrast,

a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000

pounds or less is required to have a lap/

shoulder belt at the driver’s position

and a lap belt at all other positions.

NHTSA believes that the maximum

number of affected rear outboard seating

positions is six, assuming that a vehicle

with 10 seating positions has two 3-

person bench seats, two single seats, a

wheelchair position, and a driver’s seat.

These six outboard seating positions

would require a lap/shoulder belt for

MPV’s and a lap belt for buses. The

difference in cost between a lap/

shoulder belt and a lap belt is about $15,

or $90 per vehicle.

For vehicles with a GVWR of more

than 10,000 pounds, cost savings will

also result from changing a vehicle from

an MPV to a school bus. If an MPV, the

vehicle is required to have lap belts at

all seating positions, including the

driver’s position. The seats on a school

bus, except for the driver’s position, are

not required to have lap belts. Thus, the

cost savings for a vehicle with eight rear

seating positions will be between $69.00

and $90.00 per vehicle.

The agency does not know the GVWR

distribution of the affected lift-equipped

school buses. In any event, the

maximum cost savings would not

exceed $90 per vehicle for a total

possible maximum of $46,800 (520

buses × $90 each).

Safety Impact. The agency believes

that there will be no significant loss of

safety benefits from requiring vehicles

accommodating wheelchairs to be

classified as school buses. The agency

believes that the school bus accident

avoidance equipment of red and amber

signal lamps, rearview mirrors and stop

signal arms would compensate for any

potential loss of safety benefits from the

difference in safety belt requirements

between MPVs and school buses. Since

it takes slightly longer to mount and

dismount wheelchair occupants, the red

and amber stop signal lamps and stop

signal arms are of even greater

importance for school buses. The agency

recognizes that while outboard seating

positions on MPVs are required to have

lap/shoulder belts, those positions on

small buses (under 10,000 pounds

GVWR) are only required to have lap

belts. NHTSA estimates the fatality

effectiveness of rear seat lap belts to be

32 percent, while the effectiveness of

rear seat lap/shoulder belts is estimated

to be 41 percent. However, because

school buses are involved in so few

potentially fatal crashes due to their

mostly daytime operation and

scheduled routes, the potential loss of

safety benefits is minimal.

For vehicles with a GVWR over

10,000 pounds, school buses are

required to meet the seat

compartmentalization of Standard No.

222, while MPVs must provide lap belts

for the rear seat occupants. The agency

believes that those two restraint

concepts provide equivalent safety for

the heavier vehicles.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has considered the effects of

this regulatory action under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby

certify that the amendment promulgated

by this final rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. As explained

above, NHTSA expects only a very

modest economic impact as a result of

this rulemaking action because of the

small number of affected vehicles

(maximum of 520), and since many such

vehicles already voluntarily meet the

school bus standards. Accordingly, the

agency has not prepared a regulatory

flexibility analysis.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

This rulemaking action has been

analyzed in accordance with the

principles and criteria of Executive

Order 12612, and the agency has

determined that this rule does not have

sufficient federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of a Federalism

assessment.

National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking

action for the purposes of the National

Environmental Policy Act, and has

determined that implementation of this

action will not have any significant
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15509

impact on the quality of the human

environment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980, P.L. 96–511, the

agency notes that there are no

information collection requirements

associated with this rulemaking action.

Civil Justice Reform

This rule does not have any

retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C.

30103(b), whenever a Federal motor

vehicle safety standard is in effect, a

state or political subdivision of a state

may prescribe or continue in effect a

standard applicable to the same aspect

of performance of a motor vehicle only

if the standard is identical to the Federal

standard. However, a state may

prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle

or equipment obtained for its own use

that imposes a higher performance

requirement than the Federal standard.

49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure

for judicial review of final rules

establishing, amending or revoking

Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

A petition for reconsideration or other

administrative proceedings is not

required before parties may file suit in

court.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor

vehicles, Rubber and rubber products,

Tires.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49

CFR Part 571 is amended as follows:

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 571.3 is amended by

revising the definition of ‘‘designated

seating position’’ in Section 571.3(b) to

read as follows:

§ 571.3 Definitions.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

Designated seating position means

any plan view location capable of

accommodating a person at least as large

as a 5th percentile adult female, if the

overall seat configuration and design

and vehicle design is such that the

position is likely to be used as a seating

position while the vehicle is in motion,

except for auxiliary seating

accommodations such as temporary or

folding jump seats. Any bench or splitbench seat in a passenger car, truck or

multipurpose passenger vehicle with a

GVWR less than 4,536 kilograms (10,000

pounds), having greater than 127

centimeters (50 inches) of hip room

(measured in accordance with SAE

Standard J1100(a)) shall have not less

than three designated seating positions,

unless the seat design or vehicle design

is such that the center position cannot

be used for seating. For the sole purpose

of determining the classification of any

vehicle sold or introduced into

interstate commerce for purposes that

include carrying students to and from

school or related events, any location in

such vehicle intended for securement of

an occupied wheelchair during vehicle

operation shall be regarded as four

designated seating positions.

* * * * *

Issued on March 20, 1995.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–7350 Filed 3–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–M

49 CFR Part 582

[Docket No. 94–73; Notice 2]

RIN 2127–AF44

Insurance Cost Information Regulation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In this document, NHTSA

adopts technical amendments to the

insurance cost information regulations.

Among the changes adopted are

postponing, from January until March,

the availability date of the insurance

cost information booklet, and revising

the term ‘‘passenger motor vehicles’’ to

read ‘‘passenger cars, utility vehicles,

light duty trucks, and vans.’’ NHTSA

also adds language making more explicit

the limitations of the collision loss data,

and language recommending that

prospective purchasers contact

insurance agents or insurance

companies for more information. The

amendments are adopted to make the

insurance cost information more

accurate.

DATES: These amendments are effective

April 24, 1995, and will apply to the

insurance cost information to be made

available in March 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Orron Kee, Office of Market Incentives,

NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Kee’s

telephone number is (202) 366–0846.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Insurance Cost Information Regulation

49 U.S.C. 32302(c) states that the

Secretary of Transportation (the

Secretary) shall prescribe regulations

that require passenger motor vehicle

dealers to distribute to prospective

purchasers, information developed by

the Secretary and provided to the

dealer, which compares differences in

insurance costs for different makes and

models of passenger motor vehicles

based upon differences in damage

susceptibility and crashworthiness. By

delegation from the Secretary, NHTSA

has been authorized to carry out the

statute.

On January 31, 1975, NHTSA

published 49 CFR part 582, Insurance

Cost Information Regulation (40 FR

4918). Part 582, as then promulgated,

required that automobile dealers ‘‘make

available to prospective purchasers

information reflecting differences in

insurance costs for different makes and

models of passenger motor vehicles

based upon differences in damage

susceptibility and crashworthiness.’’

Part 582, however, did not specify

information that dealers must provide.

On March 5, 1993 (58 FR 12545),

NHTSA published a final rule amending

part 582. The rule complemented the

1975 rulemaking, and completed

implementation of section 32302(c). The

March 1993 final rule, which became

effective April 5, 1993, requires dealers

of new automobiles to make collision

loss experience data available in

booklets to prospective purchasers. The

information to be provided in the

booklet is specified in section 582.5,

which requires inclusion of a complete

explanatory text and updated data on

auto insurance costs published annually

by NHTSA.

The mandatory text specified by part

582 relates to, among other topics, the

limitations of the auto insurance cost

data as a predictor of differences in

insurance premiums. Essentially, those

limitations result from the fact that most

of the factors that insurance companies

use to establish premiums relate to

driver characteristics and, except for the

vehicle’s value, are not directly related

to the vehicle itself. Thus, as the text

explains, the fact that a vehicle’s

historical claims experience is

somewhat better or worse than that of

other vehicles in its class may not be

reflected in the premium that an

insurance company establishes for that

vehicle. If the claims experience is

reflected, it is likely to have only a small

impact on the premium.