[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15504-15509]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7350]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
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:

    [[Page 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 split-bench 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 space-efficient 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 [[Page 15506]] 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 Sec. 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 on-road 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 [[Page 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 lift-equipped. 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 compartmental- ization. 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 forward-facing 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 
[[Page 15508]] 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 x 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  x  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  x  $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 
[[Page 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:
Sec. 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 
split-bench 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