Document ID: NHTSA-2010-0112-0001
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Motorcoach Definition; Occupant Crash Protection
Posted Date: 2010-08-18T04:00Z

[Federal Register: August 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 159)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 50958-50982]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18au10-41]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0112]
RIN 2127-AK56

 
 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Motorcoach Definition; 
Occupant Crash Protection

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with NHTSA's 2007 Motorcoach Safety Plan and 
DOT's 2009 Departmental Motorcoach Safety Action Plan, NHTSA is issuing 
this NPRM to propose to amend the Federal motor vehicle safety standard 
(FMVSS) on occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208) to require lap/
shoulder seat belts for each passenger seating position in new 
motorcoaches. This NPRM also proposes to require a lap/shoulder belt 
for the motorcoach and large school bus driver's seating positions, 
which currently are required to have either a lap or a lap/shoulder 
belt. Although motorcoach transportation overall is a safe form of 
transportation in the United States, several motorcoach crashes in 2008 
have illustrated that motorcoach rollover crashes, while a relatively 
rare event, can cause a significant number of fatal or serious injuries 
in a single event. NHTSA's safety research on motorcoach seat belts, 
completed in 2009, shows that the installation of lap/shoulder belts on 
motorcoaches is practicable and effective. We believe that the seat 
belt assemblies that would be installed on motorcoach passenger seats 
pursuant to this rulemaking could reduce the risk of fatal injuries in 
rollover crashes by 77 percent, primarily by preventing occupant 
ejection in a crash.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 18, 2010. 
Proposed compliance date: 3 years after publication of a final rule.

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 am 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. David 
Sutula, Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone: 202-366-0247) 
(fax: 202-366-4921). Mr. Sutula's mailing address is National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, NVS-112, 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. Executive Summary
II. Background
III. Safety Need
    a. Rollovers and Ejection
    b. Motorcoach Crash Backgrounds
    c. NTSB Recommendations
IV. Motorcoach Safety Initiatives
    a. NHTSA's 2007 Motorcoach Safety Plan
    b. 2009 Departmental Task Force Action Plan
V. NHTSA Research Results

[[Page 50959]]

    a. Overview
    b. Stage 1: Full Scale Motorcoach Crash Test
    c. Stage 2: Frontal Sled Tests
VI. Proposed Requirements
    a. Adding a Definition of ``Motorcoach'' to 49 CFR 571.3
    b. Requiring Seat Belts at Passenger Seating Positions
    c. Requiring Lap/Shoulder Belts for Driver Position
    d. Meeting FMVSS No. 210
    e. Regulatory Alternatives
VII. Other Issues
    a. FMVSS No. 207, ``Seating Systems''
    b. Energy Absorption Capability of Seat Backs
    c. Retrofitting Used Buses
    d. School Buses
VIII. Lead Time
IX. Overview of Costs and Benefits
X. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
XI. Public Participation

I. Executive Summary

    One of the guiding principles NHTSA considers in determining the 
priorities of our rulemaking projects is to ensure the protection of 
passengers in high-occupancy vehicles. In 2007, NHTSA published a 
comprehensive plan to research improvements to motorcoach safety.\1\ 
This plan was developed in direct response to several National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations and also to address 
several crashes that occurred since the recommendations were issued. 
NHTSA's motorcoach safety plan identified as our highest priorities 
four specific areas where we can most effectively address open NTSB 
recommendations over the next few years, and also improve motorcoach 
safety most expeditiously. The four priority areas are requiring seat 
belts (minimizing passenger and driver ejection from the motorcoach), 
improved roof strength, emergency evacuation, and fire safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2007-28793, NHTSA's Approach to 
Motorcoach Safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This NPRM addresses the first priority area of minimizing passenger 
and driver ejection by proposing the installation of lap/shoulder belts 
for all motorcoach occupants. It results from an extensive test program 
completed in 2009 involving a full-scale frontal 48 kilometers per hour 
(km/h) (30 miles per hour (mph)) barrier crash test with instrumented 
test dummies representing a 50th percentile adult male, a 5th 
percentile adult female, and a 95th percentile adult male, sled testing 
under a range of belted and unbelted conditions, and seat anchorage 
strength testing. In the crash test, NHTSA analyzed the head 
accelerations (head injury criterion, HIC), neck injury (Nij) values, 
and other injury criteria measured by the test dummies, the kinematics 
of the dummies during the crash, and the structural integrity of the 
seats, floor and bus. The sled tests (crash simulations) were conducted 
using a representation of the crash pulse from the barrier test, and 
using a crash pulse from Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) 
Regulation 80. In the sled tests, we evaluated motorcoach seats without 
seat belts, motorcoach seats with lap/shoulder seat belts, and 
motorcoach seats with lap only belts. We tested the seats with 
different size dummies and in frontal and oblique (15[deg]) impact 
configurations and with and without loading by unrestrained occupants 
in the rear seat. The results showed that lap/shoulder belts prevented 
critical head and neck injury values in almost all configurations using 
the crash pulse from the motorcoach barrier test.
    Motorcoach transportation is an overall safe form of 
transportation. Over the ten year period between 1999 and 2008, there 
were 54 fatal motorcoach crashes resulting in 186 fatalities. During 
this period, on average, 16 fatalities have occurred annually to 
occupants of motorcoaches in crash and rollover events, with about 2 of 
these fatalities being drivers and 14 being passengers. However, while 
motorcoach transportation overall is safe, given the high-occupancy of 
motorcoaches, when serious crashes do occur of this vehicle type, they 
can cause a significant number of fatal or serious injuries during a 
single event, particularly when occupants are ejected.
    The goal of this rulemaking is to reduce occupant ejections. Data 
from NHTSA's Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) from 1999-2008 show 
that most (63 percent) fatal motorcoach crashes are single vehicle 
roadside events (e.g., run off the road or hitting roadside objects) or 
rollovers. Ejections account for seventy-eight percent of the 
fatalities in motorcoach rollover crashes and twenty-eight percent of 
the fatalities in non-rollover crashes.
    The risk of ejection can be reduced by seat belts, a simple and 
effective countermeasure. Seat belts are estimated to be 77 percent 
effective \2\ in preventing fatal injuries in rollover crashes, 
primarily by preventing ejection.\3\ This NPRM proposes to require 
passenger seating positions on new motorcoaches to be equipped with 
seat belts. As for the type of seat belt that we should require, we are 
proposing that lap/shoulder belts be installed.\4\ Our test program 
showed that lap/shoulder belts were effective at preventing critical 
head and neck injury values, whereas dummies in lap only belts measured 
HIC and Nij values surpassing critical thresholds. The performance of 
the belts and anchorages would be assessed by testing to FMVSS Nos. 209 
and 210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Estimated based on Kahane, ``Fatality Reduction by Safety 
Belts for Front-Seat Occupants of Cars and Light Trucks,'' December 
2000, Washington, DC, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration.
    \3\ We estimate that even at a minimum seat belt usage rate of 
only 21 percent, the proposed rule will remain cost effective for 
motorcoach passengers. Comments are requested regarding whether 
States would consider adopting mandatory belt use laws for 
motorcoach passengers. Also, should motorcoaches be equipped with 
``buckle up'' signs reminding passengers to use their belts?
    \4\ FMVSS No. 209 uses the term ``Type 2 seat belt assembly'' to 
refer to a lap/shoulder belt system. As defined in that standard, a 
Type 2 seat belt assembly is ``a combination of pelvic and upper 
torso restraints.'' In this preamble, we use the term ``lap/
shoulder'' belt system rather than ``Type 2 seat belt assembly'' for 
plain language purposes. Documents may occasionally refer to lap/
shoulder belts as 3-point belts. Under FMVSS No. 209, a ``Type 1'' 
seat belt assembly is ``a lap belt for pelvic restraint.'' This 
preamble refers to Type 1 belts as ``lap only belts.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The main proposals of this NPRM are to:
     Add a definition of ``motorcoach'' to 49 CFR Part 571.3;
     Amend FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection'' (49 CFR 
571.208) to:

--Require lap/shoulder belts at all passenger seating positions on new 
motorcoaches;
--Require lap/shoulder belts at all driver's seating positions on new 
motorcoaches and large school buses; 5 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This is proposed for the driver's seating position of large 
school buses (buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 
over 4,635 kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds (lb)). Small school buses 
(GVWR less or equal to 4,536 kg) are already required to be equipped 
with lap/shoulder belts for the driver's seating position.
    \6\ This proposal addresses NTSB Safety Recommendation H-90-75 
from 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Require lap/shoulder belt anchorage and attachment hardware at all 
locations for new motorcoaches to meet FMVSS No. 210, ``Seat belt 
assembly anchorages,'' which specifies that they withstand a force of 
13,345 N (3,000 pounds) applied simultaneously to the lap and torso 
portions of the belt assembly; and,
--Require the belt system to meet current provisions for seat belt 
adjustment and fit, so that the seat belts can accommodate a 6-year-old 
child to a 95th-percentile adult male, be lockable for use with a child 
restraint system, and be releasable at a single point and by a 
pushbutton action.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ FMVSS No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209) already applies to ``seat 
belt assemblies for use in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger 
vehicles, trucks, and buses.'' Since motorcoaches are a type of bus, 
any seat belt assembly installed on the vehicle must meet FMVSS No. 
209.

[[Page 50960]]

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

    We estimate that installing lap/shoulder seat belts on new 
motorcoaches would save approximately 1 to 8 lives and prevent 144 to 
794 injuries per year, depending on the usage of lap/shoulder belts in 
motorcoaches (see Table 1 below).\8\ The total cost of adding belts and 
making structural changes to the motorcoach floor would be 
approximately $12,900 per vehicle, with the total cost being $25 
million for the 2,000 new motorcoaches sold per year. Lifetime fuel 
costs due to an increased weight of the motorcoach would be an 
additional cost (estimated below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NHTSA has developed a Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis 
(PRIA) that discusses issues relating to the potential costs, 
benefits and other impacts of this regulatory action. The PRIA is 
available in the docket for this NPRM and may be obtained by 
downloading it or by contacting Docket Management at the address or 
telephone number provided at the beginning of this document. The 
PRIA assumes that the seat belt use rate on motorcoaches would be 
between 15 percent and the percent use in passenger vehicles, which 
was 83 percent in 2008. These annual benefits would accrue when all 
motorcoaches in the fleet have lap/shoulder belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cost of installing lap/shoulder belts on new motorcoaches is 
estimated as follows (see Table 2 below). The incremental cost of 
adding passenger seats with lap/shoulder belts on a 54 passenger 
motorcoach is approximately $9,900. The cost to change the seat 
anchorages and to reinforce the floor is approximately $3,000. We 
estimate that total cost of adding belts, changing the anchorages and 
reinforcing the floor is approximately $12,900. The agency has also 
estimated increased costs in fuel usage. The increased fuel costs 
depend on added weight (estimated to be 161 lbs or 269 lbs \9\) and the 
discount rate used. NHTSA estimates the increased costs in fuel usage 
for added weight and discounts the additional fuel used over the 
lifetime of the motorcoach using a 3 percent and 7 percent discount 
rate. See the PRIA for more details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See PRIA for this NPRM. This estimate is based on 
preliminary results from a NHTSA contractor conducting cost/weight 
teardown studies of motorcoach seats. The weight added by 3-point 
lap/shoulder belts ranged from 5.96 to 9.95 pounds per 2-person 
seat. This is the weight only of the seat belt assembly itself and 
does not include changing the design of the seat, reinforcing the 
floor, walls or other areas of the motorcoach. The final cost and 
weight results from the study will be placed in the docket for this 
NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cost per equivalent life saved is estimated to be $1.3 million 
to $9.9 million (see Table 3 below). Annualized costs and benefits are 
provided in Table 4.

                       Table 1--Estimated Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities................................  1 to 8.
AIS 1 injuries (Minor)....................  92 to 506.
AIS 2-5 (Moderate to Severe)..............  52 to 288.
                                           -----------------------------
    Total Non-fatal Injuries..............  144 to 794.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Table 2--Estimated Costs
                            [2008 Economics]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Fatalities                             1 to 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Vehicle..........................  $12,900.
Total Fleet..........................  $25.8 million.
Fuel Costs per Vehicle @ 3%..........  $1,085 to $1,812.
Fuel Costs per Vehicle @ 7%..........  $800 to $1,336.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Table 3--Cost per Equivalent Life Saved
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Fatalities                             1 to 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per Equivalent Life Saved:
  15% Belt usage.........................  $7.4 to $9.9 mill.
  83% Belt usage.........................  $1.3 to $1.8 mill.
Breakeven Point in belt usage............  24%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     Table 4--Annualized Costs and Benefits
                                         [In millions of $2008 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Annualized costs      Annualized  benefits           Net benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount Rate...................  $28.0 to 29.4.........  $23.4-129.7...........  -$4.6 to 100.3.
7% Discount Rate...................  $27.4 to 28.5.........  $17.9-99.0............  -$9.5 to 70.5.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are not proposing at this time that used buses be required to be 
retrofitted with the lap/shoulder belt system. The service life of a 
motorcoach can be 20 years or longer. We estimate that the cost of 
retrofitting can vary substantially. We estimate it could cost between 
$6,000 \10\-$34,000 per vehicle to retrofit the vehicle with lap belts 
and with sufficient structure to meet today's proposal. We also 
estimate it could cost $40,000 per vehicle to retrofit it with lap/
shoulder belts and reinforced structure so as to meet FMVSS No. 210 to 
support the loads during a crash.\11\ The existing fleet size is 
estimated to be 29,325 motorcoaches. Hence, the fleet cost of 
retrofitting lap belts is estimated to range from $175,950,000 ($6,000 
x 29,325) to $997,050,000 ($34,000 x 29,325), while the fleet cost of 
retrofitting lap/shoulder belts is estimated to be $1,173,000,000 
($40,000 x 29,325). These costs do not include increased remaining 
lifetime fuel costs incurred by adding weight to the motorcoach. Weight 
would vary depending upon the needed structural changes, and lifetime 
fuel cost would vary depending upon the age of motorcoaches that would 
be retrofitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This assumes that the motorcoach structure is lap belt-
ready, and can accommodate the loads set forth in this proposal.
    \11\ It is noted that, as discussed elsewhere in this preamble, 
NHTSA has determined that the FMVSS No. 210 loads that this NPRM 
proposes for new motorcoach belt anchorages appear to be more 
stringent than ECE R.80 loads and more representative of the 
imparted loads measured at the seat belt anchorages in a motorcoach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Retrofitting used motorcoaches may not be structurally viable for 
many motorcoaches and may not be economically feasible for many 
motorcoach for-hire operators, many of which are small businesses. 
However, we have included a comprehensive set of questions about 
retrofit in this preamble. The answers to those questions will aid us 
in determining whether the agency's initial assessment of cost per 
equivalent lives saved is correct. The comments will help us determine 
whether we should issue a separate supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) to require 
retrofit. If we issue such an SNPRM, we will assess the impact of the 
proposed rule on small entities in accordance with the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and will prepare and publish an 
initial regulatory flexibility analysis if appropriate.

II. Background

    Each year, the motorcoach industry transports millions of people 
between cities, for long and short distance tours, school field trips, 
commuter, and

[[Page 50961]]

entertainment-related trips. According to the American Bus Association 
(ABA), there were approximately 3,400 motorcoach carriers in the United 
States and Canada in 2007.\12\ These motorcoach carriers operated over 
33,000 motorcoaches, they logged nearly 750 million passenger trips, 
and they traveled over 1.8 billion miles yearly. Approximately 3,100 of 
the carriers were chartered U.S. carriers that operated about 29,000 
motorcoaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ``Motorcoach Census 2008, A Benchmarking Study of the Size 
and Activity of the Motorcoach Industry in the United States and 
Canada in 2007.'' Paul Bourquin, Economist and Industry Analyst, 
December 18, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The services provided by motorcoaches in 2007 included charter 
services (46.4 percent of the miles driven), moving people between 
cities or between cities and rural areas (26.5 percent of the miles 
driven), transporting people between home and work (10.3 percent of the 
miles driven), and shuttle services to and from the airport (3.4 
percent of the miles driven). In 2007, each motorcoach was driven an 
average of 56,000 miles. The majority of the motorcoach trips (65 
percent) were made by children and senior citizens.

III. Safety Need

    NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data files were 
examined to understand different aspects of motorcoach fatal 
crashes.\13\ The FARS contains data on a census of fatal traffic 
crashes within the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto 
Rico. To be included in FARS, a crash must involve a motor vehicle 
traveling on a traffic way customarily open to the public, and must 
result in the death of an occupant of a vehicle or a non-occupant 
within 30 days of the crash. Motorcoaches are identified in FARS as 
``cross-country intercity buses'' in the body type variable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The following discussion is also set forth in the DOT 2009 
Motorcoach Action Plan, http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/
reports/HS811177.pdf.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18AU10.000

    FARS data of motorcoach driver and passenger fatalities for the 
period 1991-2008 show there were fewer than 10 motorcoach fatalities 
annually between 1991-1997 while there were more than 10 motorcoach 
fatalities for the years 1998, 1999, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2008 
(Figure 1).
    The increased fatalities for the years 1999, 2004, and 2005 each 
resulted from a single event with a large number of fatalities. In 
1999, the majority of fatalities resulted from a crash outside of New 
Orleans, Louisiana, in which a motorcoach struck a guardrail, jumped a 
ravine, and struck the embankment at a high speed. There was no 
rollover involved in this event. This crash resulted in 22 fatalities, 
all of which were passengers. The majority of fatalities in 2004 
resulted from a crash in Arkansas, which involved a motorcoach hitting 
a highway signpost and subsequently rolling over. This crash resulted 
in 15 fatalities, including the driver. All 14 passengers who died in 
this crash were ejected; the driver was not ejected. In 2005, the 
majority of the fatalities resulted from a motorcoach fire in Wilmer, 
Texas. This bus was carrying evacuees from a nursing home during the 
Hurricane Rita evacuation. The 23 fatalities, all of which were 
passengers, resulted from a tire fire that subsequently carried into 
the passenger compartment of the bus. The 41 motorcoach passenger 
fatalities in 2008 were mainly a result of 3 events which included a 
rollover crash in Mexican Hat, Utah, where 9 passengers were killed, a 
crash in Sherman, Texas, where 17 passengers were killed, and a 
rollover crash near Williams, California, where 9 passengers were 
killed.

a. Rollovers and Ejection

    Over the ten-year period between 1999 and 2008, there were 54 fatal 
motorcoach crashes resulting in 186 fatalities. During this period, on 
average, 16 fatalities have occurred annually to occupants of 
motorcoaches in crash and rollover events, with about 2 of these 
fatalities being drivers and 14 being passengers.
    Figure 2 shows motorcoach crashes by most harmful event for the 
period 1999-2008. Multi-vehicle crashes and impacts with roadside 
objects account for 33 percent and 19 percent of all motorcoach fatal 
events, respectively, while motorcoach rollovers account for 44 percent 
of motorcoach fatal events.

[[Page 50962]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18AU10.001

    Figure 3 shows the motorcoach fatalities by most harmful event. 
Motorcoach rollover was the most common ``most harmful event,'' 
accounting for 52 percent of the fatalities. Running off the road and 
striking a roadside object was the second most common event, leading to 
23 percent of the fatalities.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18AU10.002

    Figure 4 shows driver and passenger fatality distribution by 
ejection mode and type of harmful event. The highest fatality count 
(74) corresponds to ejected motorcoach passengers due to a rollover 
event. Vehicles in road side

[[Page 50963]]

events (running off road, hitting roadside objects) account for 20 
fatalities of non-ejected passengers. For the driver, the highest 
number of fatalities occurs in multi-vehicle crashes. Driver fatalities 
without ejections are more common than those with ejections. This is 
likely because the driver's seat is equipped with seat belts (lap or 
lap/shoulder belts) which help keep the driver in the seat.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18AU10.003

    Figure 5 shows distribution of fatalities in motorcoach rollover 
crashes. For the ten year period from 1999 to 2008, there were 24 fatal 
motorcoach rollover events resulting in 97 fatalities. In these 
rollover events, 76 percent of the fatalities were motorcoach 
passengers who were ejected. Two drivers (2 percent) involved in 
rollover crashes were ejected.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18AU10.004

    Figure 6 shows the distribution of driver and passenger fatalities 
in motorcoach non-rollover events by ejection status. Among non-
rollover events, 2 events (coded as ``other'' in Figure 2) were 
motorcoach fires that

[[Page 50964]]

resulted in 24 passenger fatalities. These 24 fatalities were not 
considered in the counts of fatalities in non-rollover crashes. 
Therefore, there were 28 non-rollover motorcoach crashes (excluding the 
2 fire events) that resulted in 65 driver and passenger fatalities. In 
these non-rollover events, the percentage of passenger fatalities as a 
result of ejection is 23 percent, which is a significantly lower 
proportion than that observed in rollover events.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18AU10.005

b. Motorcoach Crash Backgrounds

    The following are summarized descriptions of the motorcoach crashes 
occurring in 1999, 2004, and 2008, and a rollover crash in 2009.
New Orleans, Louisiana
    On May 9, 1999, a motorcoach carrying 44 occupants departed the 
right side of Interstate 610 outside of New Orleans, Louisiana. The 
motorcoach crossed the shoulder and went onto the grassy side slope 
alongside the shoulder. The motorcoach continued forward, struck the 
terminal end of a guardrail, traveled through a chain-link fence, 
vaulted over a paved golf cart path, and collided with the far side of 
a dirt embankment before coming to rest. There were 9 ejections, 22 
fatalities and 16 serious injuries. The NTSB report found that use of 
three-point seat belts would have helped minimize the injuries 
sustained by the occupants.
Turrell, Arkansas
    On October 9, 2004, a 47-passenger motorcoach was southbound on 
Interstate 55 (I-55) near Turrell, Arkansas, transporting 29 passengers 
to a casino in Tunica, Mississippi. At the exit interchange, the 
motorcoach veered to the right and entered the grassy area between the 
exit ramp and the entrance ramp and rolled over. The rollover and 
partial detachment of the roof resulted in the ejection of all 30 
occupants. The motorcoach driver was not wearing his seat belt. In 
total, 14 passengers and the driver were killed; 6 of the fatally 
injured occupants had been trapped under the roof. Thirteen passengers 
were seriously injured, one of whom had been trapped under the roof; 
and two passengers received minor injuries.
Mexican Hat, Utah
    On January 2, 2008, a 56-passenger motorcoach with a driver and 52 
passengers on board was descending a 5.6-percent grade leading to a 
curve to the left, on U.S. Route 163 near Mexican Hat, Utah. After 
entering the curve, the motorcoach departed the right side of the 
roadway at a shallow angle, striking the guardrail with the right-rear 
wheel and lower coach body. The motorcoach rotated in a 
counterclockwise direction as it descended an embankment, overturned, 
struck several rocks in a drainage ditch bed at the bottom of the 
embankment, and came to rest on its wheels. During the 360-degree 
rollover sequence, the roof of the motorcoach separated from the body, 
and 50 of the 53 occupants were ejected. Nine passengers were fatally 
injured, and 43 passengers and the driver received minor to serious 
injuries. The NTSB found that, among other things, the absence of an 
adequate motorcoach occupant protection system contributed to the 
crash's severity.
Sherman, Texas
    On August 8, 2008, a motorcoach carrying 54 passengers traveling on 
U.S. 75 near Sherman, Texas departed the right side of the roadway and 
smashed into a guard rail on a bridge about 15 feet above a creek. The 
motorcoach then rolled onto its side, killing 17 people and injuring 38 
of the 54 passengers. According to the NTSB investigation,\14\ a blown 
right front tire caused the bus to smash into the guard rail. The bus 
came to a rest on its right side, partly on the northbound lane of the 
freeway and partly on the grass. The NTSB found that the lack of an 
adequate occupant protection system contributed to the severity of the 
passenger injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2009/HAR0902.htm.

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

[[Page 50965]]

Williams, California
    On October 5, 2008, a motorcoach heading from Sacramento to a rural 
Northern California casino flipped and rolled into a ditch, killing 10 
people and injuring more than 30 others. According to a media 
report,\15\ 30 to 38 people suffered critical injuries, while the rest 
of the passengers received moderate to minor injuries. About a dozen 
were ejected from the motorcoach. The NTSB has not completed its 
investigation of this crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ http://www.kcra.com/news/17630435/detail.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dolan Springs, Arizona
    On January 30, 2009, a 29-passenger tour bus returning from a visit 
to the Grand Canyon overturned on a highway near the Hoover Dam, 
killing seven occupants and injuring 10 others. The bus, occupied by 
the driver and 16 passengers, was traveling north on U.S. 93 when it 
moved left out of its lane. The driver steered sharply back to the 
right then overcorrected to the left across the median. The bus rolled 
1.25 times before stopping. During the rollover, 15 of the 17 occupants 
were fully or partially ejected. The NTSB determined that the bus 
driver was distracted by the driver's side door, causing the vehicle to 
drift leftward, which triggered the subsequent accident sequence.

c. NTSB Recommendations

    The following NTSB recommendations pertain to this NPRM. They 
relate to seat belts on motorcoaches or to the seat anchorages.
H-90-75, H-99-47, H-99-48, H-05-01
    On August 22, 1990, the NTSB recommended that NHTSA mandate lap/
shoulder belts for the driver position in all buses. This 
recommendation was based on a school bus crash in Alton, Texas. The 
Safety Board stated that it was unable to determine if a lap/shoulder 
belt would have prevented the minor injury \16\ sustained by the 
driver; however, it believed that all buses should have lap/shoulder 
belts installed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The NTSB stated, ``The school bus was not equipped with a 
lap shoulder belt for the driver. The Safety Board is unable to 
determine if this type of restraint system, because of the low speed 
of the collision, would have prevented the minor injury sustained by 
the driver. However, the Safety Board believes that lap shoulder 
belts are beneficial to drivers in higher speed accidents, and, 
therefore, school buses should be equipped with lap shoulder belts 
at the driver position.''

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

    The following two safety recommendations were issued in conjunction 
with a 1999 NTSB Highway Special Investigation Report.\17\ NTSB 
initiated this special investigation to determine whether additional 
measures should be taken to better protect bus occupants. It examined 
motorcoach crashworthiness issues through the analysis of 40 bus 
crashes and through information gathered at NTSB's August 12, 1998 
public meeting on bus crashworthiness. Only the safety recommendations 
that deal with passenger crash protection in motorcoaches are included 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ National Transportation Safety Board, 1999, Bus 
Crashworthiness Issues, Highway Special Investigation Report NTSB/
SIR-99/04, Washington, DC.

     H-99-47 (``Most Wanted''): In 2 years, develop 
performance standards for motorcoach occupant protection systems 
that account for frontal impact collisions, side impact collisions, 
rear impact collisions, and rollovers.
     H-99-48: Once pertinent standards have been developed 
for motorcoach occupant protection systems, require newly 
manufactured motorcoaches to have an occupant crash protection 
system that meets the newly developed performance standards and 
retains passengers, including those in child safety restraint 
systems, within the seating compartment throughout the accident 
sequence for all accident scenarios.

    The next safety recommendation resulted from an October 13, 2003 
crash outside of Tallulah, Louisiana. Eight motorcoach passengers 
sustained fatal injuries. The driver and six of the fourteen passengers 
received serious injuries. Failure of the motorcoach seat anchorages 
contributed to the severity of the injuries.

     H-05-01: Develop performance standards for passenger 
seat anchorages in motorcoaches.
Response to H-90-75, H-99-47, H-99-48, H-05-01
    Today's NPRM addresses the above NTSB recommendations. It should be 
noted that at the time the NTSB recommendations were issued, there were 
no crash test data or countermeasure studies available. Today, the 
testing NHTSA conducted as part of our 2007 Motorcoach Safety Plan 
provides extensive data upon which the agency has assessed the 
practicability of installing lap/shoulder belt systems on motorcoaches 
and the potential effectiveness of the belts at passenger seating 
positions.
    Today's NPRM addresses H-90-75, which recommended that we amend 
FMVSS No. 208 to require that lap/shoulder belt systems for the driver 
position be installed in all newly manufactured buses. We explain in a 
later section of this preamble that we are proposing a lap/shoulder 
belt requirement for the driver's position of motorcoaches and of 
school buses. Comments are requested on whether the requirement should 
apply to other types of buses (e.g., transit buses), and the extent to 
which the shoulder belt portion of the belt system is already 
voluntarily installed in buses as a class.
    Today's NPRM responds to H-99-47 and H-99-48, which requested us to 
develop performance standards for motorcoach occupant protection 
systems that account for frontal impact collisions, side impact 
collisions, rear impact collisions, and rollovers, and apply those 
standards to new motorcoaches. Today's NPRM would require lap/shoulder 
belts at each passenger seating position. In the NHTSA motorcoach test 
program that was conducted as part of the agency's motorcoach safety 
plan, lap/shoulder belts were found to prevent elevated head and neck 
injury values and provided enhanced occupant protection compared to lap 
belts.
    We are applying the effectiveness of lap/shoulder belts in rear 
outboard seating positions of passenger cars as a proxy measure for the 
effectiveness of lap/shoulder belts in motorcoaches, since we have no 
experience with lap/shoulder belts in motorcoaches in our crash data. 
The lap/shoulder belt effectiveness estimates NHTSA is using for 
motorcoaches for fatalities is 29 percent in frontal crashes, 42 
percent in side crashes, and 77 percent in rollovers; for injuries of 
AIS 2-5 severity level, it is 34 percent in frontal crashes, 47 percent 
in side crashes, and 82 percent in rollovers; and for all AIS 1 
injuries, it is 10 percent.
    Further, this NPRM would require the lap/shoulder belts on 
motorcoach passenger seating positions to meet FMVSS No. 208's 
``lockability'' requirement (S7.1.1.5, 49 CFR 571.208) that currently 
applies to vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,635 
kg or less (10,000 pounds (lb) or less). The requirement is for the lap 
belt to be lockable so as to secure child restraint systems tightly, 
without the need to attach a clip or any other device to the vehicle's 
seat belt webbing. Child restraint systems are currently required to be 
capable of being installed on a vehicle seat using the vehicle's lap 
belt (49 CFR 571.213). This NPRM would thus ensure that child 
restraints would

[[Page 50966]]

be capable of being retained within the seating compartment of a 
passenger seating position in a motorcoach.
    This NPRM also addresses H-05-01, which recommended that NHTSA 
develop performance standards for passenger seat anchorages in 
motorcoaches. This NPRM 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 motorcoach floor, sidewall, or roof, which could potentially 
obstruct passengers during emergency egress. This NPRM also proposes 
that the seat belt anchorages on motorcoaches must meet the anchorage 
strength requirements for lap/shoulder belts in FMVSS No. 210. Those 
existing strength requirements specify that each lap/shoulder belt be 
tested with a load of 13,344 Newtons (N) (3,000 pounds) applied 
simultaneously to each belt loop. This proposal is based on test data 
from NHTSA's motorcoach safety research program. We believe that some 
motorcoach manufacturers may have to reinforce the passenger seat 
anchorages and the floor structure to withstand the loads from the 
FMVSS No. 210 test.
New June 2010 NTSB Recommendations
    On June 22, 2010, NTSB issued recommendations to NHTSA resulting 
from NTSB's investigation of the 2009 Dolan Springs, AZ crash. The 
recommendations include ones to NHTSA to require new commercial 
vehicles exceeding 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) to be outfitted with lane 
departure warning systems, stability control systems, and data 
recording systems, and meet requirements for overhead luggage racks. 
NTSB also recommends that NHTSA develop regulatory ``classifications 
and definitions for all bus body types,'' and include all buses above 
10,000 lb, other than school buses, in rulemaking on occupant 
protection, roof strength and window glazing. http://www.ntsb.gov/
Publictn/2010/HAR1001.htm.
    NHTSA is in the process of evaluating the recommendations and will 
be responding to NTSB at a future time. However, this NPRM provides an 
opportunity to consider the NTSB recommendation to include all buses 
above 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) GVWR in this occupant protection rulemaking.
    In this NPRM, NHTSA is proposing a definition of ``motorcoach'' for 
purposes of determining the applicability of FMVSS requirements that 
would specially apply to the vehicle type. Motorcoaches are already 
considered a type of ``bus'' to which the ``bus'' FMVSSs apply. As 
discussed in the agency's 2007 Motorcoach Safety Plan,\18\ NHTSA is 
developing motor vehicle safety standards for motorcoaches to address 
unique safety risks posed by the high-occupancy vehicles that do not 
appear to be currently or sufficiently addressed by the bus FMVSSs. 
These risks include the risks of ejection, prolonged emergency egress 
from the vehicles, and structural vulnerability to torsional loading in 
a rollover event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ ``NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach Safety,'' Docket No. 
NHTSA-2007-28793, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have examined accident data and have been able to identify 
vehicle attributes nearly universally common to vehicles involved in 
motorcoach crashes over the last 10 years. We have proposed a 
definition of a ``motorcoach'' that incorporates these attributes to 
ensure that the FMVSS requirements for motorcoaches meet the need for 
motor vehicle safety \19\ and are appropriate for that vehicle 
type.\20\ Our proposed definition, discussed in Section VI of this 
preamble, uses a GVWR of 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) or more to define the 
``motorcoach'' category. The NTSB recommends using a GVWR of 4,536 kg 
(10,000 lb) or more instead; in NTSB's view all buses (except school 
buses) with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or more should be subject to 
the FMVSSs under development for motorcoaches, including the 
requirements proposed today for passenger seat belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
    \20\ See 49 U.S.C. 30111(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are requesting comment on today's proposed motorcoach 
definition, including the aspect of the definition that would set the 
GVWR criterion at 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) or more. This issue is 
discussed in Section VI of this preamble. The agency seeks data (e.g., 
accident data and cost data) supporting commenters' views as to whether 
the proposed definition should be expanded to include more vehicles or 
narrowed to exclude vehicles that are included in the proposed 
definition.

IV. Motorcoach Safety Initiatives

a. NHTSA's 2007 Motorcoach Safety Plan

    In 2002, NHTSA held a public meeting \21\ to discuss potential 
areas for motorcoach safety improvement, and sought information from 
motorcoach manufacturers, users, and other interested parties, 
including the public, on improving motorcoach passenger crash 
protection regulations. The meeting was widely attended by 
representatives from the motorcoach manufacturing industry, the 
motorcoach transportation community, consumer advocacy groups, and 
private citizens. From that meeting, NHTSA determined that although 
motorcoaches show extremely low injury and fatality rates from crashes, 
ejection of passengers was the biggest safety concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2002-11876.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This public meeting led to a joint research program between NHTSA 
and Transport Canada to investigate improvements in ejection protection 
through the use of advanced glazing.\22\ Although this study developed 
a realistic impact condition for window glazing tests, it was 
determined that considerable further research would be needed prior to 
development of safety regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Subsequent joint research between NHTSA and Transport 
Canada used computer simulation to determine the forces on windows 
and develop a rudimentary procedure to test the effectiveness of 
glazing materials towards prevention of passenger ejections. See 
Docket No. NHTSA-2002-11876-15, Motorcoach Glazing Retention Test 
Development for Occupant Impact During a Rollover, August 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To focus the agency's efforts on safety initiatives that could be 
accomplished in a practical timeframe, NHTSA undertook a comprehensive 
review of motorcoach safety issues and the course of action that the 
agency could pursue to most expeditiously address them. The agency 
considered various prevention, mitigation, and evacuation approaches in 
developing the course of action. Many considerations were factored into 
determining the priorities, including: cost and duration of testing, 
development, and analysis required; likelihood that the effort would 
lead to the desired and successful conclusion; target population and 
possible benefits that might be realized; and anticipated cost of 
implementing the ensuing requirements into the motorcoach fleet.
    The result was NHTSA's 2007 Motorcoach safety plan, NHTSA's 
Approach to Motorcoach Safety, supra, in which we identified the 
following areas as the highest priorities for possible near term 
regulatory action to enhance motorcoach safety: passenger ejection; 
roof strength; fire safety; and emergency egress.
    For passenger ejection, we pursued the incorporation of seat belts 
as the most effective and expeditious way to mitigate ejection. To 
evaluate the effectiveness of seat belts in motorcoaches, NHTSA 
undertook a comprehensive test program (discussed in the next section, 
below). The agency has completed testing, has analyzed the

[[Page 50967]]

data provided by the program and has examined the costs, benefits, 
practicability, and other considerations of various considered 
rulemaking approaches. Today's proposal commences the agency's 
implementation of regulatory action to mitigate passenger ejection in 
motorcoach crashes.

b. 2009 Departmental Task Force Action Plan

    On April 30, 2009, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced a 
full Departmental review of motorcoach safety. The findings from this 
review resulted in a Departmental Motorcoach Safety Action Plan, which 
was released November 16, 2009 (http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/DOT/
NHTSA/reports/HS811177.pdf). The plan outlined the additional steps 
needed to improve motorcoach safety. DOT agencies helping create the 
Action Plan include NHTSA, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration (FMCSA), the Federal Highway Administration and the 
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. The review also 
considered outstanding recommendations to DOT from the NTSB.
    The plan described an integrated DOT strategy to enhance motorcoach 
safety. Accident data show that driver fatigue, vehicle rollover, 
occupant ejection, and operator maintenance issues contribute to the 
majority of motorcoach crashes, fatalities, and injuries. From this, 
DOT developed an integrated strategy addressing a range of issues. 
These include driver errors resulting from fatigue, distraction, 
medical condition, and experience; crash avoidance technologies; 
vehicle maintenance and safety; carrier compliance; and measures to 
protect occupants in the event of a crash such as seat belts, roof 
strength, fire safety, and emergency egress. DOT expects this strategy 
to result in a reduction in the number of motorcoach crashes and 
fatalities and injuries resulting from those crashes.
    Today's NPRM implements the initiative to improve occupant 
protection in the event of a crash by proposing the installation of 
seat belts for passengers. In addition, NHTSA is actively continuing 
its work evaluating and developing strategies on improving roof 
strength, fire safety, emergency egress, and other areas.

V. NHTSA Research Results

a. Overview

    Our research program evaluating the performance of lap and lap/
shoulder belts on motorcoach passenger seats consisted of several 
stages. In the first stage of the program, we conducted a full scale 
frontal 48 km/h (30 mph) barrier crash test of a 45-foot long, 2000 
Model Year (MY) MCI 102EL3 Renaissance motorcoach (passenger capacity 
of 54 passenger seats). In the second stage, we conducted sled tests 
(crash simulations) of motorcoach seats with various test dummies under 
a range of belted and unbelted conditions, with and without loading 
from unbelted rear occupants, using a representation of the crash pulse 
from the barrier test, and using a crash pulse from ECE Regulation 80 
(ECE R.80).\23\ In the sled tests, we tested the seats with different 
size dummies and in frontal and oblique (15[deg]) impact 
configurations. In the third stage, we evaluated different methods of 
assessing the strength of the seat belts and anchorages to determine 
how the performance of the seat belt system should be assessed. Seat 
belt anchorages currently are tested in a static pull test under FMVSS 
No. 210, ``Seat belt assembly anchorages.'' In developing a performance 
standard for lap/shoulder belts, the agency considered the seat belt 
assembly anchorage requirements of FMVSS No. 210, those of ECE R.80 
Amendment 1 (which specifies two test methods), as well as two other 
methods derived from the VRTC sled test data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ UN ECE Regulation No. 80, ``Seats of Large Passenger 
Vehicles and of These Vehicles with Regard to the Strength of the 
Seats and Their Anchorages,'' applies to motorcoaches with occupant 
seating locations for 8 or more passengers and vehicle weights in 
excess of 5 metric tons. The standard requires seat belts to be 
installed at all occupant locations, and specifies the performance 
requirements for both the seat belts and anchorages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the first and second stages of the test program are 
summarized below. The third stage of the program is summarized in this 
document in the section proposing requirements for seat and seat belt 
anchorage performance (section VI.d). NHTSA has prepared a detailed 
report discussing the motorcoach seat belt research program. A copy of 
this report can be found in the docket.

b. Stage 1: Full Scale Motorcoach Crash Test

    The primary objective of the motorcoach crash test was to simulate 
a severe crash condition that would produce realistic, yet high loads 
through the seat belt and seat anchorages. Another objective was to 
obtain the deceleration profile (crash pulse) for use in simulated sled 
tests. Since there have been motorcoach crashes into rigid 
appurtenances along the roadway at highway speeds, NHTSA decided to 
perform a full frontal crash test at 48 km/h (30 mph) into a rigid 
barrier because this speed has been shown to impart enough energy to 
properly assess crash protection and provide a thorough and repeatable 
assessment of the restraint system tested (see 49 CFR 571.208).
    In December 2007, at NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center 
(VRTC), we crash tested the MY 2000 MCI motorcoach at 48 km/h (30 mph). 
Twenty two test dummies were used during the test to generate 
preliminary data on injury risk in various seat types and restraint 
conditions. Test dummies included: the 5th percentile female Hybrid III 
dummy (3 dummies), the 50th percentile male Hybrid III dummy (17 
dummies), and the 95th percentile male Hybrid III dummy (2 dummies). 
The dummies were seated in an upright configuration and were either 
restrained by a lap/shoulder belt, a lap belt, or were unbelted.
    The crash test resulted in a peak deceleration (crash pulse) of 13 
g \24\ at 125 milliseconds (msec). This crash pulse is called the 
``VRTC pulse.'' \25\ The restraint performance of several seating types 
and dummy seating configurations were examined during the crash test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Data filtered to SAE J211 Class 60.
    \25\ Data filtered to 30 Hz to match the response of the test 
sled metering pin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Observations from the crash test indicated that all belted 
(restrained by lap belts or lap/shoulder belts) dummies remained 
securely fastened in their seats. The unbelted dummies did not stay 
within the seating row in which they were placed prior to the crash 
test, and came to rest in the aisle, on the floor, or in the seating 
row directly in front. The unbelted dummies seated next to the aisle 
ended up on the floor in the aisle.
    For most configurations, the dummies did not exhibit high femur or 
chest loading.\26\ The lap belted dummies and some of the unbelted 
dummies exhibited elevated head and neck injury measures. However, the 
unbelted dummies were typically ejected from their seats. The lap/
shoulder belted dummies exhibited the lowest injury measures and 
improved kinematics, with low head and neck injury measures and little 
movement outside the seating row.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ In one case, the 5th percentile female dummy exhibited 
elevated femur loading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Stage 2: Frontal Sled Tests

    Twenty sled tests using various sizes of test dummies were then 
conducted to further study the performance of various seating system 
configurations (i.e., unbelted, lap belts, and lap/shoulder

[[Page 50968]]

belts) available for use on motorcoaches for different-sized occupants. 
The goal of the sled tests was to analyze the dummy injury measures to 
gain a better understanding of the effectiveness of the 
countermeasures, and to directly measure seat and seat belt loading 
that could not be assessed in the full scale crash test. The sled tests 
were also used to establish data for comparison with international 
standards. The sled tests were engineered to replicate the deceleration 
time history of the motorcoach full-scale frontal impact crash test 
performed at VRTC (i.e., the VRTC pulse). In addition to injury 
measures, we analyzed dummy kinematics to identify the important 
factors contributing to the type, mechanism, and potential severity of 
any resulting injury.
    Three types of seats were used in the sled tests. The first type 
was considered ``baseline'' seats, which did not have seat belts. The 
baseline seats were obtained from the MCI tested bus and the seat 
supplier, American Seating Company. The second and third types of seat 
had seat belts, and were supplied by Amaya/Astron Seating of North 
America (Amaya). These seats were designed to meet ECE Regulation 14 
(ECE R.14) and TRANS/WP.29/78/Rev.1/Amend2. The second type of seat was 
designed for vehicles in the M2 category (having more than eight 
seating positions and mass not exceeding 5 metric tons (11,023 lb)). 
The third type of seat was designed for vehicles in the M3 category 
(having more than eight seating positions and mass exceeding 5 metric 
tons (11,023 lb)). The seats in vehicles of M2 and M3 categories are 
required to meet the seat and seat belt anchorage strength requirements 
in ECE R.14, which includes a 10 g inertial seat loading for M2 
vehicles and 6.6 g seat loading for M3 vehicles. Accordingly, the 
second type of seats designed for M2 vehicles are referred to as ``10 g 
seats'' and the third type of seats designed for M3 vehicles are 
referred to as ``7 g seats.''
    In developing this rulemaking initiative on motorcoach seat belts, 
NHTSA sought to ensure that the requirements we adopt would reflect and 
be appropriate for the real-world use of motorcoaches. Thus, we set up 
our test program to obtain data on seat belt and seat anchorage loading 
reflecting the likelihood that in a frontal crash, a passenger seat in 
a motorcoach (``target seat'') could be loaded by the belted passenger 
occupying that target seat, the inertia load of the target seat itself, 
and unbelted passengers rearward of the target seat. Accordingly, the 
sled buck was constructed of three rows of motorcoach seats, each 
containing two seating positions. Each row had a seating configuration 
that represented an aisle and window position. The rows of seats were 
separated by a distance of 86 cm (34 inches), which corresponded to the 
average seat spacing measured on the full scale motorcoach that was 
crash-tested. The target seats were those in the second row. The front 
row seats were left unoccupied in all the tests. In some tests, the 
third row seats were left unoccupied, while in others they were 
occupied by unrestrained dummies of different sizes to represent 
loading on the target seat by unrestrained occupants in the rear seat.
    Fifteen of the twenty sled tests performed were conducted using the 
VRTC pulse. Five other crash tests used the crash pulse specified in 
ECE R.80 (referred to as the ``EU pulse''). The EU pulse is specified 
in Europe for testing motorcoach seats and anchorages used in the 
European market. The EU pulse has a higher peak acceleration and a 
duration approximately half of that of the VRTC crash pulse.
Results of Sled Testing
    The following observations were made for this frontal sled test 
environment. Belt performance in side, rear, or rollover crashes may be 
different. Similarly, restraint performance in frontal crashes of 
higher or lower severity might also differ from what was seen in this 
evaluation.\27\ For these tests, the following dummy injury criteria 
were measured during the full scale crash tests: HIC15, Nij, 
Chest gs, Chest deflection, and Maximum Femur Compressive Force. Table 
5 below shows the Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARVs) for each 
of the injury criteria measured.\28\ For each dummy, the injury 
measures were calculated as specified in FMVSS No. 208 (49 CFR 
571.208).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The performance of newer seats with stiffer seat backs 
could be different from that studied.
    \28\ For the 5th percentile female and the 50th percentile male 
dummies, the injury assessment reference values (IARVs) for these 
measurements are the thresholds used in FMVSS No. 208 to assess 
frontal occupant protection provided by new motor vehicles. (The 
95th percentile male dummy is not used in FMVSS No. 208.) 
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. For HIC15, a score of 700 is equivalent to a 30 
percent risk of a serious head injury (skull fracture and concussion 
onset), Chest g of 60 equates to a 60 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. More information regarding these injury 
measures can be found in NHTSA's technical document, ``Development 
of Improved Injury Criteria for the Assessment of Advanced 
Automotive Restraint Systems--II,'' Docket No. NHTSA-1999-6407-0005, 
1999.

                               Table 5--Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARVs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Chest    Chest
                           Dummy size                             HIC15     Nij      (g)      (mm)    Femur (N)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5th Percentile Female..........................................      700     1.00       60       52        6,800
50th Percentile Male...........................................      700     1.00       60       63       10,000
95th Percentile Male...........................................      700     1.00       55       70       12,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the tests, HIC15 and Nij injury measures varied 
depending on the type of restraint used, whereas Chest gs, chest 
deflection and femur forces were generally low for all dummies. 
However, high femur loads were observed in tests with the small female 
dummy. The unbelted dummies and lap belted dummies generally exhibited 
higher injury values than dummies secured with lap/shoulder belts. The 
unbelted dummies seated next to the aisle ended up on the floor in the 
aisle. The dummies secured with lap/shoulder belts generally stayed in 
their seats and exhibited the lowest injury values.
1. Sled Test Results for Unbelted Dummies
     Unbelted dummies were typically ejected out of their 
seating position and displaced into the aisle or adjacent seats. They 
were also more susceptible to hitting other hard structures.
     Average HIC and Nij measures were typically below 80 
percent of the IARVs. However, it should be noted that the dummies used 
were frontal crash test dummies, and hence the injury measures may be 
limited in capturing the severity of loading during

[[Page 50969]]

interaction with interior components when the dummy falls off the seat.
     Elevated HIC values resulted in tests with the 5th 
percentile female dummy due to head contact with the lower, hard part 
of the seat back in front. This observation occurred both in the sled 
tests and full scale crash tests and occurred regardless of the seat 
types evaluated.
     Larger dummies provided more deformation to the seat backs 
positioned in front of them and were less sensitive to the seat back 
type (including stiffer belted seats).
     Injury measures did not appear to be adversely affected by 
rear occupant loading. Any interaction with rear seated dummies 
occurred after the forward dummies' motion was essentially complete.
2. Sled Test Results for Lap-Belted Dummies
     HIC and Nij measures exceeded the IARVs for all the 
dummies tested, except for a 50th percentile male dummy whose HIC was 
696 (99 percent of the IARV limit).
     The poor performance of the lap belt restraint in the sled 
tests was consistent with the lap belt results from the full scale 
motorcoach crash test.
     Compared to the unbelted dummies, the dummy's head 
typically hit the seat back in front at an earlier point in time due to 
the lap belt restraining forward motion and the upper torso pivoting 
about the lap belt.
     Seats in front of lap-belted dummies were not deformed by 
the dummies' femur loading, and consequently, when struck by the upper 
body of the lap-belted dummies, did not yield as much when struck as 
seats in front of unbelted dummies.
     Lap belts were able to retain the dummies in their seating 
positions post-test.
3. Sled Test Results for Lap/Shoulder Belted Dummies
     Average HIC and Nij values were low for all dummy sizes 
and below those seen in unbelted and lap-belted sled tests. This was 
consistent with the lap/shoulder belt results from the full scale crash 
test.
     Lap/shoulder belts retained the dummies in their seating 
positions and were able to mitigate head contact with the seat in 
front.
     Although rear unbelted occupant loading resulted in 
additional forward excursion for the lap/shoulder belted dummies, and 
head contact was made with the seat in front in some cases, the 
resulting average injury measures were still relatively low in most 
cases.
     All of the unbelted dummies in the rear seats that 
impacted middle row seats that were ``preloaded'' by belted occupants 
had low average injury measures that were below 80 percent of the 
IARVs.
     Although test dummies restrained in both the 7 g and 10 g 
lap/shoulder belt-equipped seat types recorded relatively low IARVs, 
seat anchorage loads measured in the tests exceeded the anchorage 
strength requirements of ECE R.14 and ECE R.80.
     The EU pulse generated higher injury numbers in the larger 
dummies than the VRTC pulse due to contact with the seat back in front. 
We attributed the increased injury measures to the higher peak 
acceleration and shorter duration of the EU pulse. The VRTC pulse 
resulted in all average injury measures to be below 80 percent of the 
IARVs.
     Lap/shoulder-belted dummies performed better in the 
oblique sled tests conducted at a 15-degree angle. They had lower 
injury measures and were retained in their seats.
     In the one test where the front and middle row seat backs 
were reclined, the injury measures for the lap/shoulder-belted 
occupants and the unbelted rear row occupants were all below 80 percent 
of the IARVs.

VI. Proposed Requirements

a. Adding a Definition of ``Motorcoach'' to 49 CFR 571.3

    Each FMVSS specifies the vehicle type to which it applies. 
Motorcoaches currently fall under the definition of ``bus'' for the 
purposes of applying the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR 
571.3) and must comply with all the FMVSSs that apply to buses. A 
``bus'' is defined in Sec.  571.3 as ``a motor vehicle with motive 
power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.'' 
Some FMVSSs (and requirements within those standards) apply to buses 
with a GVWR equal to or less than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb), others apply to 
buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb), and some apply to 
``buses'' without distinguishing GVWR.
    This NPRM proposes ejection-prevention countermeasures for 
motorcoaches to address the problem of occupant ejection in motorcoach 
rollover crashes. A definition of ``motorcoach'' is proposed, to define 
the vehicle type to which the proposed requirements apply and to 
distinguish motorcoaches from other bus types. The National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 (Safety Act), requires 
the FMVSSs to be appropriate for the vehicle type to which they apply. 
The agency does not believe that a seat belt requirement would be 
appropriate for all buses, (e.g., urban transit buses) as discussed 
below. Comments are requested on whether other bus types should be 
considered motorcoaches for purposes of applying a passenger seat belt 
requirement.
    When creating a vehicle type classification for the FMVSSs, NHTSA 
typically looks at the construction type and the purpose for which the 
vehicle is being built. NHTSA has a number of major categories of motor 
vehicle types: Passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), 
trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. There are two subcategories 
of buses in 571.3, school bus and multifunction school activity bus. 
For the most part, for purposes of objectivity, the agency defines 
vehicles by their visible attributes and construction features rather 
than by their intended use. The exception is the ``school bus'' 
definition, which is set forth in the Safety Act and in Sec.  571.3, 
Definitions, and which refers to the intended purpose for which the 
vehicle is sold. To make the motorcoach definition as clear as 
possible, we prefer defining ``motorcoach'' using reference to relevant 
visible attributes and construction characteristics rather than by the 
intended use of the vehicles.
    Currently, there is no common Departmental or industry definition 
of ``motorcoach.'' We examined the definition of motorcoach used in 
other countries and the definition used in the Fatality Analysis 
Reporting System (FARS). For countries that have adopted the European 
regulations, including Australia, motorcoaches are defined as Class 
III, M3 vehicles. Class III, M3 vehicles are defined as having occupant 
seating locations for more than 8 passengers, vehicle weights in excess 
of 5 metric tons (11,023 lb) and are not designed to carry standing 
passengers. We consider this ECE definition too broad for us to use as 
a definition of motorcoach, as it captures vehicles that we have 
tentatively concluded ought not to be subject to the proposed 
motorcoach seat belt standards at this time.
    The ECE definition applies to vehicles that are not defined as 
``buses'' in the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The ECE 
definition applies to smaller buses that are not normally used as 
motorcoaches. We are proposing a subset of the bus classifications used 
in the ECE regulations, but have only included buses with a seating 
capacity of 16 or more to remain consistent with other U.S. regulations 
(such as the commercial drivers' license

[[Page 50970]]

requirements administered by FMCSA). NHTSA's data indicate that buses 
with a seating capacity of 16 or more are typically used for motorcoach 
services in the U.S.
    The FARS database uses the following description of a motorcoach, 
``Cross Country/Intercity Bus (e.g., Greyhound).'' Other descriptive 
information about bus use is also collected in a sub-category, i.e., 
commuter, tour, scheduled service, shuttle, etc. For our purposes, this 
FARS definition lacks sufficient specificity and is of limited use in 
determining the applicability of the FMVSS.
    NHTSA also reviewed some pending bills in Congress on motorcoach 
safety that defined the vehicles subject to their terms and the 
operating characteristics of those vehicles, see Transportation Equity 
Act for the 21st Century (Pub. L. 105-178) (TEA-21). Those definitions 
included the following:
     The term ``intercity, fixed-route over-the-road bus 
service'' means regularly scheduled bus service for the general public, 
using an over-the-road bus, that (a) operates with limited stops over 
fixed routes connecting 2 or more urban areas not in close proximity; 
(b) has the capacity for transporting baggage carried by passengers; 
and (c) makes meaningful connections with scheduled intercity bus 
service to more distant points.
     The term ``other over-the-road bus service'' means any 
other transportation using over-the-road buses including local fixed-
route service, commuter service, and charter or tour service (including 
tour or excursion service that includes features in addition to bus 
transportation such as meals, lodging, admission to points of interest 
or special attractions or the services of a tour guide).
     The term ``over-the-road bus'' means a bus characterized 
by an elevated passenger deck located over a baggage compartment.
    As explained below, these definitions were either too narrow for 
our purposes, as many motorcoaches lacked an elevated passenger deck 
over a baggage compartment, or were based on the intended use of the 
vehicle, which might not be known at the time of the manufacture of a 
particular vehicle.
    FMCSA does not have a definition for motorcoach in its regulations. 
The agency's passenger carrier safety information simply states that a 
motorcoach (also called an over-the-road bus) can typically transport 
40 to 50 passengers.
    To develop a motorcoach definition, we examined the type of buses 
involved in motorcoach fatalities, including the construction type and 
various attributes within the vehicle to determine if any one 
characteristic was common to all the buses. We found no such single 
characteristic for motorcoaches to distinguish those vehicles from 
other buses. An elevated passenger deck over a baggage compartment was 
not an element common to all buses involved in motorcoach fatalities. 
Some body-on-chassis models offered a storage compartment for baggage 
and other personal belongings in the rear of the bus. For other 
motorcoaches, the baggage compartment was offered as an option to the 
purchaser. We also determined that a separate storage location was not 
needed for tour services and most tour buses were equipped with an 
overhead location for passengers to store personal belongings.
    We reviewed the underlying chassis structure of various 
motorcoaches. Some motorcoaches have a monocoque \29\ structure with a 
luggage compartment under the passenger deck. We also found 
motorcoaches built on body-on-chassis configurations. These body-on-
chassis configurations are believed to be newer entrants into the 
motorcoach services market and appear to be increasing in number. A 
cursory review of the types of buses being used in the Washington, DC 
area for motorcoach services show that traditional motorcoaches are 
generally used for fixed-route services between major metropolitan 
areas. However, for charter, tour, and commuter transportation from 
outlying areas, many bus types are used. Some are of monocoque 
structure, while others are of body-on-chassis structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Monocoque means a type of vehicular construction in which 
the body is combined with the chassis as a single unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another distinguishing feature we considered was whether the bus 
included a self-contained toilet. We determined that a self-contained 
toilet was only prevalent on long distance travel buses and was not 
present in all tour or commuter buses. Other equipment such as reading 
lights, video displays, ventilation ports and adjustable seat backs 
were also not common to all motorcoach type buses. Accordingly, 
identifying a motorcoach by the presence of a self-contained toilet, or 
by reading lights, video displays and the like could exclude many of 
the buses that have been involved in rollover crashes resulting in 
ejections over the years. (We also wanted to avoid a definition that 
could be easily circumvented by persons seeking to have their buses 
excluded from the motorcoach category. Such a definition would be one 
that specified that a motorcoach is a vehicle with a feature that could 
be readily left off of the vehicle.)
Physical Characteristics Identified
    Yet, we were able to identify some physical features which appear 
to be nearly universally common to all buses performing motorcoach 
services. In our search, we returned to the FARS data to analyze data 
files for the years 1999-2008, to determine the fatality counts in 
buses. We examined GVWR, body type, and how the buses were used 
(transit, school, other). The data available for this 10-year period 
for fatalities of occupants in buses other than transit buses and 
school buses show that only 12 percent of the passenger fatalities were 
in buses with a GVWR less than or equal to 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). We 
also found that among fatalities in these buses (buses other than 
school buses and transit buses) with GVWR greater than 11,793 kg 
(26,000 lb), 87 percent were in tour/intercity buses, 4 percent in 
commuter buses, 7 percent in shuttle buses, 1 percent in buses used for 
school transportation and 1 percent in buses modified for personal use.
    Based on these data, we determined that one practically uniform 
attribute for motorcoaches was that their GVWR was greater than or 
equal to 11,793 kg (26,000 lb).
    Upon further review of the FARS files, we identified 
characteristics that were nearly universally common to all buses 
performing motorcoach services: a GVWR of 11,793 kg (26,000 pounds) or 
greater, 16 or more designated seating positions, and two or more rows 
of forward facing seats that were rearward of the driver's seating 
position. We are thus proposing to define ``motorcoach'' using those 
characteristics. We are proposing to exclude school buses and urban 
transit buses (for reasons explained below) from the definition. We 
intend for the definition to include buses sold for intercity, tour, 
and commuter bus service. The intercity, tour, or commuter bus would be 
a ``motorcoach'' if it has a GVWR of 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) or greater, 
16 or more designated seating positions, and two or more rows of 
forward facing seats that were rearward of the driver's seating 
position.
Exclusions
    We propose excluding urban transit buses from the proposed 
definition of motorcoaches because fatality data for urban transit 
buses differ significantly from that of motorcoaches, and because of 
the stop-and-go manner in which urban transit buses are used. A review

[[Page 50971]]

of FARS data over a ten year period (1999-2008), shows that there were 
31 fatal crashes involving occupants of urban transit buses, resulting 
in a total of 32 fatalities, of which 16 were drivers and 16 were 
passengers. Thus, one fatality occurs per fatal crash, on average. 
Frontal crashes without rollover were identified as the most common 
most harmful event (53 percent of crashes) followed by side crashes 
with no rollover (9 percent), and falling from vehicle (9 percent). 
Four of the 16 transit bus passenger fatalities were ejected (25 
percent), compared to 74 (53 percent) for cross-country/intercity bus 
passengers. In summary, there are far fewer fatalities per crash for 
urban transit buses, a significantly lower percentage of fatalities due 
to ejection compared to cross-country/intercity buses, and thus a 
significantly lower risk of occupant ejection. For these reasons, we 
are not proposing to require seat belts in urban transit buses at this 
time.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The proposed motorcoach definition excludes ``an urban 
transit bus sold for operation as a common carrier in urban 
transportation along a fixed route with frequent stops.'' We request 
comments on whether this use-based definition could be instead based 
on some common physical attribute(s) of urban transit buses that 
could distinguish them from cross-country/intercity/commuter buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motorcoach definition does not exclude ``shuttle buses,'' but 
comments are requested as to whether shuttle buses should be excluded. 
Keep in mind that these shuttle buses would be those buses with a GVWR 
of 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) or greater, 16 or more designated seating 
positions, and two or more rows of forward facing seats that are 
rearward of the driver's seating position. Some shuttle buses of this 
size can traverse substantial distances at highway speeds. On the other 
hand, they may travel on shorter routes. We request comments on whether 
large (GVWR of 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) or greater, 16 or more designated 
seating positions) shuttle buses are used in such a different manner 
than motorcoaches that a requirement for seat belts would be 
inappropriate for the former vehicle type. We also request comments on 
how a shuttle bus could be defined so that it would be distinguishable 
from a motorcoach.
    Comments are also requested on the proposed definition of 
``motorcoach.''
    Comments are requested on the aspect of the proposed definition 
that would use a GVWR criterion of 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) or more. One 
of the NTSB's June 22, 2010 recommendations to NHTSA resulting from the 
Dolan Springs, AZ crash is that NHTSA ``develop regulatory definitions 
and classifications'' and apply this rulemaking on occupant protection 
to all buses above 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) GVWR, except school buses. 
NHTSA has reviewed FARS data from 1999-2008 on passenger fatalities in 
buses coded in FARS as ``motorcoach,'' ``other bus,'' and ``transit'' 
in different GVWR categories. As shown in Table 6 below, there were 
many fewer passenger fatalities in motorcoaches and other buses with a 
GVWR between 4,536 kg and 11,793 kg (10,000 lb and 26,000 lb) in the 
10-year period compared to passenger fatalities in those vehicles with 
a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb).

                       Table 6--Fatalities in Buses by GVWR and Body Type; FARS 1999-2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Motorcoach       Other bus        Transit
                             GVWR *                              -----------------------------------------------
                                                                  Driver   Pass   Driver   Pass   Driver   Pass
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4,536 kg to 11,793 kg (10,000 lb to 26,000 lb)..................       0       1       6      24       0       3
Greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)..............................      24     161      10      30      16      13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Missing GVWR were imputed based on the distribution of known values.

    Applying this rulemaking to buses with a GVWR of 11,793 kg (26,000 
lb) or greater addresses vehicles that account for 88 percent of all 
fatalities in buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) 
(other than school buses and transit buses) and addresses 89 percent of 
fatal ejections from such vehicles.
    Comments are requested on a GVWR criterion that is less than 11,793 
kg (26,000 lb). Commenters supporting such a criterion should discuss 
the safety need to apply the requirements for motorcoaches to buses 
with a GVWR of less than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) and the cost and other 
impacts on shuttle buses and urban transit buses (assuming these 
vehicles are not excluded from the motorcoach definition).
    Regarding other aspects of the proposed definition, is the 16 or 
more designated seating positions (including the driver) requirement 
reasonable? Is a criterion necessary that a motorcoach must have two or 
more rows of forward facing seats that are rearward of the driver's 
seating position? What other feature(s) of a motorcoach could be 
objectively incorporated into the definition?

b. Requiring Seat Belts at Passenger Seating Positions

    This NPRM proposes to amend FMVSS No. 208 to require the 
installation of seat belts at all passenger seating positions in new 
motorcoaches. Currently for buses, FMVSS No. 208 requires a seat belt 
for only the driver's seat in all buses. As discussed above, the risk 
of ejection on motorcoaches can be reduced by seat belts. Seat belts 
are estimated to be 77 percent effective in preventing fatal injuries 
in rollover crashes, primarily by preventing ejection. As for the type 
of seat belt that we should require, we are proposing that lap/shoulder 
belts be installed at forward-facing seating positions. Our test 
program showed that lap/shoulder belts at forward-facing seating 
positions were effective at preventing critical head and neck injury 
values, whereas dummies in lap only belts measured HIC and Nij values 
surpassing critical thresholds.
    However, for side-facing designated seating positions, we are 
providing manufacturers the option of installing either a lap belt or a 
lap/shoulder belt. This option is consistent with current requirements 
of FMVSS No. 208 (S4.4.5.6), which allow lap belts for side-facing 
seats on buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less. We propose 
to permit lap belts in side-facing seats because we are unaware of any 
demonstrable increase in associated risk. We note that a study 
commissioned by the European Commission regarding side-facing seats on 
minibuses \31\ and motorcoaches found that due to different seat belt 
designs, crash modes and a lack of real world data, it cannot

[[Page 50972]]

be determined whether a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt would be the 
most effective.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Minibus is a European term for buses that are roughly 
equivalent to the range of large passenger vans up to 15 passengers. 
They are limited to ``more than 8 but no more than 16 passengers, 
excluding the driver.''
    \32\ http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive/projects/safety_
consid_long_stg.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Integrated Anchorages
    We propose that the seat belt anchorages, both torso and lap, be 
required to be integrated into the seat structure for motorcoach 
passenger seats, except for the belt anchorages in the last row of the 
motorcoach (if there is no wheelchair position or side emergency door 
behind these seats) and in the driver seating position. We propose 
integral lap/shoulder belts on motorcoaches to ensure that seat belts 
for inboard seat positions, in particular, are not mounted such that 
the belt webbing could impede safe passage through the bus interior 
during emergency egress. This provision would be consistent with that 
of an October 21, 2008 final rule (73 FR 62744, at 62763), in which the 
agency required that small school buses have lap/shoulder belts with 
the seat belt anchorages integrated into the seat structure, except for 
the last row of seats.\33\ We note also that this provision would be 
consistent with ECE R.80, which requires that seat belts be fitted to 
the seat unless there is no seat immediately behind it.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ This provision was established out of concern that some 
manufacturers could incorporate seat belt anchorages into other 
structures in the school bus, potentially obstructing passengers 
during emergency egress.
    \34\ See ECE R.80 Appendix 5: Specifying that all ``fittings 
forming part of the back of the seat or accessories thereto * * * be 
unlikely to cause any bodily injury to a passenger during impact.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA seeks comment on whether there are anchorage designs, other 
than those integrated into the seat back, that would not impede 
emergency evacuation or otherwise cause injury to unbelted passengers.
    The last row would be excluded from the requirement because we have 
less concern about emergency exit access for the last row of seats. We 
believe that the location and style of the last row seats in 
motorcoaches make it possible to place belt anchorages behind or to the 
side of the seat, where the belt webbing would not impede safe travel 
in and out of the seat. Typically the seats in the last row are 
integral with the vehicle body structure anyway, and most commonly, the 
torso restraint retractors at such seats are mounted into the bus body 
structure, and the shoulder belts are routed over the upper edge or 
through the seat back. We believe that restraints mounted in this 
manner will not impede access to emergency exits or become an injury 
hazard to unbelted passengers. However, if the seat plan has a 
wheelchair position located behind the rearmost passenger seat, or a 
side emergency door rearward of it, the rearmost passenger seat must 
have its seat belt assembly anchorages attached to the seat structure 
to reduce the risk of tripping, entanglement or injury.
    The driver's seating position would be excluded from the 
requirement for integral lap/shoulder belts because the driver's 
compartment is usually separated from the passenger compartment by a 
bulkhead or partition and passengers are less likely to be entangled in 
the driver's belt system during egress.
Seat Belt Adjustment, Fit, Lockability, and Other Requirements
    NHTSA proposes that the requirements for lap/shoulder belts include 
provisions for seat belt adjustment and fit as specified in S7.1 of 
FMVSS No. 208. Specifying belt adjustment and fit would ensure that the 
seat belts would be able to accommodate occupants whose dimensions 
range from those of a 50th percentile 6-year-old child to those of a 
95th percentile adult male.
    Furthermore, NHTSA proposes that the upper torso restraint must 
adjust either by means of an emergency-locking retractor that conforms 
to Sec.  571.209, or by a manual adjusting device that conforms to 
Sec.  571.209. In addition, we propose that the seat belt at each 
designated seating position, besides the driver's position, meet FMVSS 
No. 208's lockability requirements. The lap belt portion must be 
lockable so that the seat belt assembly can be used to tightly secure a 
child restraint system without the use of any device that must be 
attached by the consumer to the seat belt webbing, retractor, or any 
other part of the vehicle. The lap belt must be lockable without any 
inverting, twisting or other deformation of the belt webbing.
    Among the requirements proposed by this NPRM are that each seat 
belt assembly must have a latch mechanism with all the latch mechanism 
components accessible to a seated occupant, and that the latch 
mechanism be capable of releasing both the upper torso restraint and 
the lap belt simultaneously at a single point and by a pushbutton 
action. It is noted that FMVSS No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209) currently 
applies to ``seat belt assemblies for use in passenger cars, 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses,'' and so this 
standard would apply to any seat belt assembly installed on a 
motorcoach without any further action by NHTSA.

c. Requiring Lap/Shoulder Belts for Driver Position

    Currently for buses, FMVSS No. 208 requires either a lap or lap/
shoulder seat belt for the driver-seating position in all buses with a 
GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb).\35\ This NPRM proposes to amend 
FMVSS No. 208 to require lap/shoulder belts for the driver seating 
positions in motorcoaches and for the driver's position in large school 
buses.\36\ Similar to seat belt requirements in FMVSS No. 208 for other 
vehicles with GVWRs greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb), the performance 
of the lap/shoulder belt anchorages and attachment hardware on the 
driver's seating position would be assessed through FMVSS No. 210 
rather than through dynamic crash testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ FMVSS No. 208 also currently provides manufacturers the 
option of equipping buses with a complete occupant protection system 
that protects an occupant without any action by the vehicle 
occupant, i.e., a passive occupant protection system such as an air 
bag or automatic belt system. Currently, no bus manufacturer has 
elected to meet FMVSS No. 208 using this option. All bus 
manufacturers have certified compliance by installing seat belts at 
the driver's position.
    \36\ The driver's position in school buses with a GVWR equal to 
or less than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) already is required to have a lap/
shoulder belt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our motorcoach sled tests demonstrated that lap/shoulder belts 
provided superior protection over lap belts. This proposal also accords 
with NTSB Safety Recommendation H-90-75.
    Based on our assessment of the industry, we believe that school bus 
and motorcoach manufacturers are already providing to some degree, or 
moving toward providing, lap/shoulder belts for driver seating 
positions. We estimate approximately 40 percent of new motorcoaches 
sold in 2010 will have lap/shoulder belts at the driver seating 
position, and that these lap/shoulder belts meet the seat belt 
anchorage strength requirements of FMVSS No. 210. We have included in 
the PRIA an estimate of the incremental cost of requiring lap/shoulder 
belts for the driver's position in all motorcoaches and large school 
buses.
    We propose not to require lap/shoulder belts for drivers of transit 
or other buses. These buses are driven in different environments than 
motorcoaches. Motorcoaches are often driven on highways and other high-
speed roads, so the risk of injury is greater for drivers of these 
vehicles. Comments are requested on whether the requirement for lap/
shoulder belts for the driver should apply to transit and other buses.

[[Page 50973]]

d. Anchorage Strength Requirements

    We propose that motorcoach lap/shoulder belts be required to meet 
the anchorage strength requirements of FMVSS No. 210. As noted above, 
we have proposed a requirement that motorcoach passenger lap/shoulder 
belts must be integrated into the seat structure. Thus, a seat belt 
anchorage strength requirement does more than specify the strength of 
the seat belt attachment to the vehicle seat; it actually encompasses 
the attachment of the seat to the bus. A seat belt anchorage strength 
requirement provides the foundation upon which the entire occupant 
protection system is built. If the anchorage fails, the belted occupant 
could be propelled beyond the confines of the occupant seat space, and 
injury or ejection could occur.
    In developing a performance standard for lap/shoulder belt 
anchorages, the agency considered several alternatives, and assessed 
the suitability of the alternatives using seat belt anchorage test data 
obtained in the motorcoach crash test and sled test program. While 
NHTSA believes that the test data support applying FMVSS No. 210 to 
motorcoach passenger seat belt anchorages, we request comments on 
alternatives to FMVSS No. 210.
    In the motorcoach research program, NHTSA evaluated the 
requirements of FMVSS No. 210, ECE R.14, ECE R.80, and two other 
methods we derived using the VRTC sled test data. We studied these 
alternative approaches to FMVSS No. 210 after having found in the 
motorcoach crash test that the vehicle in the 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid 
barrier crash test experienced only a 13 g peak deceleration (crash 
pulse). This is relatively low when compared to the peak deceleration 
levels in light vehicle rigid barrier crash tests. Because the crash 
pulse was low, we were concerned that the FMVSS No. 210 loads might be 
unnecessarily stringent for motorcoach seat belt anchorages. To 
determine how the FMVSS No. 210 and ECE R.14 forces compared to 
motorcoach anchorage forces, we evaluated data from our frontal sled 
test program to determine the magnitude of the forces exerted on the 
seat anchorages.
    We studied five sled tests from the sled test program to determine 
the loads measured at the seat belt anchorages.\37\ These five were 
selected because they represented demanding yet potentially common 
scenarios for the loads we believe will be imparted to seat belt 
anchorages during a motorcoach crash. We identified the loads recorded 
in the sled tests at the seat anchorage points in the second row 
``target seat,'' the loads on the lap/shoulder belts in the target seat 
in which test dummies were restrained, and the loads to the seat back 
of the target seat from the unrestrained dummies in the third row. We 
then compared those loads to the loads that seat belt and seat 
anchorages are required to withstand under FMVSS No. 210, ECE R.14 and 
ECE R.80. In that way, we could determine which performance test best 
appeared to account for the loads to which the motorcoach seat belt 
anchorages would be exposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ As explained above, the seat belt anchorage comprises any 
component involved in transferring seat belts loads to the vehicle 
structure. See S3, FMVSS No. 210. Since the motorcoach seat belts 
are attached to the vehicle seat, the seat belt anchorage includes 
the seat frame and seat pedestal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The five sled tests from the test program consisted of the 
following:
     The 50th percentile male test dummies restrained with lap/
shoulder belts in the middle row with no test dummies in the rear row. 
Data from this test were deemed important because the data represented 
the average seat forces that would be experienced due to belt loading 
from the restrained occupant in the seat without any added seat back 
loading from the rear.
     Two 50th percentile male test dummies restrained with lap/
shoulder belts in the middle row with two unrestrained 50th percentile 
male dummies in the rear row. Data from these tests were deemed 
important because they represented what we believed to be the average 
elevated seat forces that would be experienced due to loading from the 
restrained occupant in the seat and seat back loading from the 
unrestrained occupant in the rear row. One test used a 7 g seat, while 
the other test used a 10 g seat.
     One 5th percentile female test dummy and one 50th 
percentile male dummy restrained with lap/shoulder belts in the middle 
row and two unrestrained 95th percentile male dummies seated in the 
rear row. Data from these tests were deemed important because they 
represented what we believed to be the maximum rear loading seat forces 
that would be experienced by the target seat. One test used a 7 g seat, 
while the other test used a 10 g seat.
    We found that of the five tests, the highest total load experienced 
by the seat belt anchorage was 48,569 N (10,918 lb) (or approximately 
24,285 N (5,460 lb) per seating position). This load resulted from the 
test of the 10 g seat with two restrained 50th percentile male dummies 
and two unrestrained 50th percentile male dummies in the rear row.
    We compared these loads to the loads which motorcoach seats would 
be subjected to under FMVSS No. 210, ECE R.14, and ECE R.80. This 
comparison is discussed below. Based on the comparison and other 
considerations, our preferred alternative is to apply FMVSS No. 210 to 
the motorcoach seat belt anchorages. We prefer FMVSS No. 210 to ECE 
R.14 and ECE R.80 but ask for information that can enable us to make a 
fuller incremental assessment of each alternative's costs and benefits, 
including any related to having harmonized standards between the U.S. 
and the EU.
FMVSS No. 210
    In FMVSS No. 210, lap/shoulder belt anchorages and attachment 
hardware are required to withstand a 13,345 N (3,000 lb) force applied 
simultaneously to the lap and torso portions of the belt assembly for 
10 seconds.\38\ Anchorages, attachment hardware, and attachment bolts 
for seats with multiple designated seating positions are tested 
simultaneously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ The exception is Type 2 lap belts that have detachable 
torso belts. The lap belt anchorages and attachment hardware of 
these belts are required to withstand an applied force of 22,241 N 
(5,000 lb) for 10 seconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the sled test that resulted in the highest total load on the 
seat belt anchorages, a load of 48,569 N (10,918 lb) was measured at 
the seat anchorage (or approximately 24,285 N (5,460 lb) per seating 
position). This value was only slightly lower than the forces applied 
by FMVSS No. 210 (26,688 N (6,000 lb) per seating position). That is, 
the highest total peak dynamic loading recorded by the seat anchorage 
of the tests (48,569 N) was about 91 percent of that applied in FMVSS 
No. 210 (26,688 N per seat, or 53,379 N for a two-person motorcoach 
seat). These data indicate that the FMVSS No. 210 load would account 
for seat belt loads generated by a restrained occupant, seat inertia 
loads, and loading from unbelted occupants in the rear. We believe that 
a motorcoach seat manufactured to meet FMVSS No. 210 would better be 
able to withstand this tri-loading on the seat in a severe yet not 
uncommon motorcoach crash, than a seat that was not manufactured to 
account for the rearward loading. The static load profile in FMVSS No. 
210 provides a factor of safety over the loads experienced in an actual 
crash and would adequately ensure that the anchorages will not fail 
when subjected to the loads of a real-world crash event.

[[Page 50974]]

ECE R.14 and ECE R.80
    We examined the ECE R.14 and ECE R.80 procedures for relevancy to 
motorcoaches used in the U.S. The ECE R.14 procedure is a static test 
method to evaluate safety belt and seat anchorage strength and the ECE 
R.80 procedures evaluate the seat's anchorage strength and the seat 
back's energy absorption capability for protection to occupants in the 
rear seat.
    The ECE R.14 load does not include the load that rearward unbelted 
occupants would impose on the seat in front of the unbelted occupants. 
ECE R.14 applies a load of 4,500 N to the shoulder belt and 4,500 N to 
the lap belt (total of 9,000 N). In addition, it applies inertial seat 
loading of 6.6g x the weight of the seat. For a 40 kg seat, this is 
1,300 N per seating position. The total seat load is 10,300 N per 
seating position. (For reference, FMVSS No. 210 applies a load of 
26,688 N per seating position). In accounting only for belt loading on 
the seat and the inertial seat loading for 6.6 gs, ECE R.14 does not 
take into account the loading from an unrestrained occupant in the 
rear. In addition, we note also that the lap and shoulder belt loads 
measured in the agency's sled tests exceeded the 4,500 N applied force 
per ECE R.14. In the sled test with two restrained 50th percentile male 
dummies in the target seat and without any dummies in the rear row, the 
total lap and shoulder belt loads exceeded 9,000 N for both dummies.
    The ECE R.80 load does not include the seat belt loads from the 
restrained occupant in the seat and only evaluates anchorage strength 
in terms of the loading of the seat back from unrestrained and 
restrained occupants in the rearward row. The ECE R.80 optional static 
test to evaluate anchorage strength applies a load of 5,000 N to each 
seating position. This load represents about 19 percent of the applied 
load in FMVSS No. 210 and about 20 percent of the seat anchorage loads 
measured in the agency's sled tests. The 5,000 N applied load is also 
lower than the estimated loading on the target seat in the sled tests 
from the unrestrained occupant in the rearward row.
    The ECE R.14 applied belt loads and inertial seat loads result in 
higher seat anchorage loads than the ECE R.80 applied seat loads. 
However, ECE R.14 and ECE R.80 both determine seat belt and seat 
anchorage strength by separately considering the loading from the 
belted occupant in the seat and the loading due to unrestrained 
occupants in the rear row. There is no requirement in ECE regulations 
for the seat anchorages to sustain the combined loads from the 
restrained occupant in the seat and rear occupant loading.
    In developing this proposal to require seat belts on motorcoaches, 
we wanted to ensure protection to the belted occupant in a 48 km/h (30 
mph) crash in reasonably foreseeable situations, including situations 
where an unbelted occupant is in the rear. Our sled tests show the 
importance of accounting for the loads from the unbelted occupants rear 
of the target seat. In the test of the 7 g seat with restrained 50th 
percentile male dummies in the target seat and unrestrained 50th 
percentile male dummies in the rear, we estimated that the total peak 
load on the anchorages from the lap/shoulder belts alone for one 
motorcoach seating position was 11,400 N and that from rear occupant 
loading was 8,150 N. The contribution of anchorage loads in this sled 
test from the seat belt loading alone was greater than the 9,000 N 
applied by ECE R.14 and the loading from rear occupant loading was 
greater than the 5,000 N applied by ECE R.80. Further, we expect that 
the anchorage loads due to seat belt loads would be greater than that 
estimated in this sled test when the seat is occupied by a restrained 
95th percentile male. Similarly, the anchorage loads due to rear 
occupant loading would be greater when the rear seat occupants are 95th 
percentile male.
    Unfortunately, nonuse of the seat belts on motorcoaches by a number 
of occupants is very plausible at this time. Australian data indicate 
that seat belt use on motorcoaches in that country was as low as 20 
percent.\39\ For the reasons explained above, we believe that ECE R.14 
requirements are insufficient to protect the belted occupant in these 
circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ ``Three Point Seat Belts on Coaches--the First Decade in 
Australia'', by Griffiths, Paine, and Moore, Queensland Transport 
Australia, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have examined real world data in the EU for insights into this 
issue but the data were unhelpful. It appears that while the U.S. has 
more fatalities in rollover (due to ejections), the EU has a high 
percent of fatalities in frontal crashes. The European data is a bit 
ambiguous, however, because of the nonuniform classification of buses 
in different countries. In addition, the EU data include transit buses. 
Thus, it is not clear whether the higher percentage of fatalities in 
frontal crashes is due to poor restraint performance or due to 
differences in vehicle classification and how the vehicles are used.
    We do not believe there would be adverse consequences associated 
with applying FMVSS No. 210 to motorcoach seat belt anchorages rather 
than ECE R.14, although comments are requested on the benefits and 
costs of adopting ECE R.14 over FMVSS No. 210. Would motorcoach seats 
have to be significantly heavier to meet the more stringent strength 
requirements of FMVSS No. 210, or made stiffer and more uncomfortable, 
as compared to seats rated by their manufacturer as meeting ECE R.14? 
Would significant changes to meet FMVSS No. 210 requirements lead to 
reduced number of passengers that can be accommodated on buses? We do 
not believe there would be adverse consequences to meeting FMVSS No. 
210 in terms of weight, comfort, or cost, because data from our testing 
program indicate that the Amaya 7 g seats we acquired to evaluate in 
our motorcoach testing program--seats on the market today--appeared to 
have been already made to meet the more stringent requirements of FMVSS 
No. 210.
    In April 2009, VRTC tested existing Amaya lap/shoulder belt seat 
designs to evaluate FMVSS No. 210 performance. The agency sought to 
understand the extent to which changes will be needed to existing 7 g 
and 10 g seat and seat anchorage designs in order to meet the 
performance requirements in FMVSS No. 210. Two static tests were 
performed using the test method in FMVSS No. 210.\40\ For these tests, 
floor and side seat rails removed from the crash tested motorcoach were 
used to anchor the seats being tested to the test fixture to determine 
if current seat mounts would be capable of meeting the loads generated 
through the FMVSS No. 210 procedure. The floor-mounted seat rails 
obtained from the crash tested motorcoach were made of steel and welded 
directly to the test fixture. The side seat rails obtained from the 
crash tested motorcoach were made of aluminum and affixed to the test 
fixture to prevent movement during the static load tests. The subject 
seats were then installed in the test fixture in accordance with the 
manufacturer's installation instructions. (We note that one limiting 
factor of the tests was the fact that the seat rails removed from the 
crash tested motorcoach were mounted directly to the test fixture 
rather than

[[Page 50975]]

the monocoque structure of the motorcoach. We are uncertain of how the 
load response of the monocoque structure differed from the response of 
the test fixture.\41\ However, we believe that the test fixture 
sufficiently emulated the motorcoach structure in determining the 
performance of the seat during the FMVSS No. 210 tests. The test 
fixture incorporated long enough sections of the seat mounting rails 
(mounted in a manner that closely resembled the rail installation in 
the motorcoach) to ensure that any localized forces would be captured 
during the test procedure).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ An additional test was conducted on a 10 g seat because an 
initial FMVSS No. 210 test was conducted on a 10 g seat using the 
same seat mounting rails used during the 7 g seat test. During this 
10 g seat test, the seat failed to meet the FMVSS No. 210 loads. 
However, we determined that this test should be deemed invalid 
because the seat rails were reused. It was unknown to what extent 
the rails were damaged during the previous test, thus affecting the 
results of the subsequent test. The rails were replaced on the test 
fixture and a second test using a 10 g rated seat was performed 
successfully.
    \41\ One possibility is that the monocoque structure would act 
similarly, but would flex more. This flexion could conceivably open 
gaps in the floor rails or side rails near the anchorage hardware, 
which could lead to seat separation from the rail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both the 7 g and 10 g seats were able to meet the FMVSS No. 210 
performance requirements as installed in the test fixture. This not 
only demonstrates the practicability of our proposed FMVSS No. 210 
requirements with current designs, it shows that meeting FMVSS No. 210 
is not likely to adversely affect the weight or comfort of current ``7 
g'' seats.
    Nonetheless, to examine the costs and benefits of the proposed 
amendments, although ECE R.14 might be ineffective in some 
circumstances we would like to explore the regulation as an alternative 
to FMVSS No. 210. NHTSA has been unable to assess how much more costly 
and how much more beneficial in monetized terms would FMVSS No. 210 be 
over the ECE R.14 requirement, in part because we have not been able to 
test 7 g and 10 g motorcoach seats that barely meet the ECE 
requirements and that do not meet FMVSS No. 210. The Amaya seats we 
tested met FMVSS No. 210, so in effect were FMVSS No. 210 seats. We 
could not assess the incremental costs and benefits that would result 
from changing these Amaya seats to meet FMVSS No. 210, since the seats 
already met FMVSS No. 210.
    To help NHTSA examine the costs and benefits of alternatives, NHTSA 
requests information from commenters as to the performance of 
minimally-compliant ECE R.14 seats (i.e., seats that meet ECE R.14 and 
not FMVSS No. 210). What are the incremental costs and benefits of 
meeting ECE R.14? What are the incremental costs and benefits of FMVSS 
No. 210? How does a minimally-compliant seat perform when tested to 
FMVSS No. 210? How does such a seat perform when tested in accordance 
with ECE R.14? How much do these minimally-compliant seats weigh? What 
is their cost? Comments are requested on whether loading from an 
unbelted occupant rearward of the target seat should be included in the 
forces applied to the seat belt anchorages in the FMVSS compliance 
test. Are manufacturers that sell buses in the U.S. and the EU already 
complying with the current ECE. R.14 standard? Are there any advantages 
to harmonizing U.S. standards with EU standards? What are the 
additional costs and benefits for having different standards in the 
U.S.?
VRTC Devised Procedures
    NHTSA also considered in the research program two alternative 
methods to evaluate seat belt anchorage strength but both were deemed 
not sufficiently beneficial to pursue in this NPRM. In the first 
method, ``Method A,'' we evaluated the sum of the seat belt forces from 
the lap/shoulder belt and the rear dummy femur forces to estimate the 
loading experienced by the seat in the sled tests. We found that Method 
A closely replicated the total loads acting on the seat back and seat 
belt portion of the seat but did not capture the full load on the seat 
in the sled test. Method A was deemed to significantly underestimate 
the forces exhibited at the seat anchorage points.
    In the second method, ``Method B,'' we evaluated the sum of the 
peak dynamic forces acting on the seat anchorages to estimate the load 
profile. We found that Method B more closely estimated the dynamic 
anchorage loading profile from the sled tests than the Method A 
profile. However, the loads estimated by Method B were very close to 
the performance requirements specified in FMVSS No. 210. With the 
results being similar, we concluded that it would be appropriate to 
propose to specify FMVSS No. 210 loading in the NPRM rather than 
developing an entirely new performance test method to determine 
anchorage strength.
    For the reasons provided above, we propose our preferred 
alternative of subjecting motorcoach seat belt anchorages to FMVSS No. 
210.

e. Regulatory Alternatives

    NHTSA has examined the benefits and costs of the proposed 
amendments, wishing to adopt only those amendments that contribute to 
improved safety, and mindful of the principles for regulatory 
decisionmaking set forth in Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning 
and Review. In accordance with the Executive Order, NHTSA has analyzed 
an alternative of requiring lap belts for passenger seating positions, 
instead of lap/shoulder belts for these seating positions. NHTSA is 
also considering an alternative regarding the anchorage strength 
requirement that the lap/shoulder belts should meet, i.e., ECE R.14 
anchorage strength requirements, as opposed to FMVSS No. 210 
requirements. These alternatives are addressed below.
Lap Belts
    The agency has examined an alternative of adding a lap belt only as 
a substitute for lap/shoulder belts on motorcoaches. The examination 
has reinforced our preference for lap/shoulder belts.
    Real world data on light vehicles and sled testing with motorcoach 
seats both show that lap/shoulder belts are more effective than lap 
belts in reducing injuries and fatalities. Given the cost estimates and 
effectiveness estimates assumed in NHTSA's analysis, the cost per 
equivalent life saved is essentially the same between lap belts and 
lap/shoulder belts. The breakeven point for lap belt use is 17 percent 
and for lap/shoulder belt use is 24 percent. However, lap/shoulder 
belts are used more often than lap belts. The ratio of this difference 
is essentially the same as was found between lap and lap/shoulder belt 
usage in the rear seat of passenger cars. Assuming that this 
relationship would hold for motorcoaches, the cost per equivalent life 
saved for lap belts is essentially the same as for lap/shoulder belts. 
See the PRIA for more information.
Anchorage Strength Requirements
    In Section VI.d of this preamble, NHTSA discussed its proposal for 
the strength requirements the agency believes motorcoach seat belt 
anchorages (and the seat structure itself) should meet. The preferred 
alternative is our proposal to extend FMVSS No. 210 to motorcoach seat 
belt anchorages. However, as discussed in Section VI.d, we seek comment 
on the alternative of applying the requirements of ECE R.14 rather than 
FMVSS No. 210. Our reasons for preferring FMVSS No. 210 are discussed 
in Section VI.d, as are questions asking for information that could 
enable us to better assess the costs and benefits of ECE R.14 
requirements.
    As the agency does in all its FMVSS rulemaking, in developing this 
proposal NHTSA considered international standards for harmonization 
purposes. The agency thus reviewed regulations issued by Australia and 
Japan. In Australia, buses with 17 or more seats and with GVWRs greater 
than or equal to 7,714 lb must comply with ADR 68 (Occupant Protection 
in Buses). The ADR 68 anchorage test specifies

[[Page 50976]]

simultaneous application of loading from the belted occupant, the 
unbelted occupant in the rear (applied to the seat back), and the 
inertial seat loading from a 20 g crash pulse. We estimate that the ADR 
68 anchorage test would result in significantly greater (1.5 times 
higher) anchorage loads than those measured in our sled tests. In 
addition, the maximum deceleration in our 48 km/h (30 mph) motorcoach 
crash test was only 13 g compared to the 20 g specified for inertial 
seat loading in ADR 68. For these reasons, NHTSA decided not to further 
consider ADR 68. NHTSA decided against further consideration of Japan's 
regulation because Japan requires lap belts, and the performance 
requirements we are seeking are for lap/shoulder belts.

VII. Other Issues

a. FMVSS No. 207, ``Seating systems''

    In formulating this rulemaking, NHTSA also considered whether FMVSS 
No. 207, ``Seating systems,'' should apply to motorcoach passenger 
seats. The standard establishes requirements for seats, their 
attachment assemblies, and their installation to minimize the 
possibility of their failure by forces acting on them as a result of 
vehicle impact. For most vehicles required by FMVSS No. 208 to have 
seat belts, the seat belt anchorages must be certified to the strength 
requirements of FMVSS No. 210 and the seats must be certified to FMVSS 
No. 207. Part of the FMVSS No. 207 requirements tests the forward 
strength of the seat attachment to the vehicle replicating the load 
that would be applied through the seat center of gravity by inertia in 
a 20 g vehicle deceleration.
    If the seat belt anchors are attached to the seat, FMVSS No. 207 
requires that the FMVSS No. 210 anchorage loads be applied at the same 
time the FMVSS No. 207 inertial load is applied. This stems from the 
fact that during a crash, a seat with an integrated seat belt will have 
to sustain the loading due to both the seat mass and the seat belt load 
from the occupant. However, FMVSS No. 207 specifically exempts (at 
S.4.2) all bus passenger seats, including motorcoaches, except for 
small school bus passenger seats.
    As earlier explained, our sled test program found that the forces 
experienced by the seat anchorages of a lap/shoulder belt seat could be 
as much as 48,569 N (10,918 lb). This is approximately 91 percent of 
the forces applied by the FMVSS No. 210 test procedure (53,376 N 
(12,000 lb), for a seat with two seating positions). The forces 
measured at the seat anchorages included the sum of the inertial 
loading from the seat as well as the seat belt loads from the dummy in 
our sled tests. We believe these forces are realistically captured by 
our proposed FMVSS No. 210 requirement, although at a lesser 
deceleration level than that specified by FMVSS No. 207 (10 g versus 20 
g).
    We note that the 20 g multiplier in FMVSS No. 207 for inertial 
loads is appropriate for the deceleration levels experienced by light 
passenger vehicles. However, as evidenced by our full-scale motorcoach 
crash, the motorcoach passenger seats only experience about half of 
this. Therefore, we believe the FMVSS No. 210 requirement that we are 
proposing for motorcoach seats will encompass the necessary 
requirements for ensuring that restraints integrated into seats are 
tested adequately and that the seat attachment is robust. For these 
reasons, we believe that the inertial loads regulated by FMVSS No. 207 
have already been factored into our proposed FMVSS No. 210 loading 
requirements. Thus, additional FMVSS No. 207 requirements for 
motorcoach passenger seats are not needed.

b. Energy Absorption Capability of Seat Backs

    After reviewing the data from the full scale crash test and the 
sled tests, NHTSA seeks comment on the energy absorbing capability of 
the seat backs of current motorcoaches to provide impact protection to 
occupants. Unbelted occupants in the sled tests, primarily 5th 
percentile female dummies, had HIC and Nij values in excess of IARVs 
when they struck the seat back in front of them. Additionally, in some 
sled tests the belted dummies interacted with the forward seat back 
when unbelted dummies in the rear seat struck their seat back, 
resulting in elevated HIC and Nij values to the belted dummies.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The belted dummies in our sled tests did not interact with 
the front seat backs and had lower HIC and Nij values when the dummy 
in the row behind was either restrained or not present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While seat belts provide protection by retaining occupants in their 
seats in various crash scenarios, including rollovers, we would like to 
know whether there may be some potential for seat backs to become 
stiffer to accommodate the additional loads from seat belts. We are 
interested in information on specifications on force-deflection 
characteristics and/or impact deceleration characteristics for seat 
backs, that would help ensure that seat backs provide sufficient energy 
absorbing capability, to mitigate injuries to unbelted occupants while 
maintaining adequate protection to belted occupants. These 
specifications may also enhance protection for the belted occupant in 
the event of interaction with the front seat back. We seek comment on 
manufacturers' current use of padding on seat backs to improve 
protection for occupants aft of the seat back. Do manufacturers now 
design motorcoaches to meet seat back force deflection characteristics 
or padding specifications with occupant protection in mind? \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See, e.g., the seat back force deflection and the impactor 
energy absorption test in ECE R.80 and the impactor test in ADR 68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Retrofitting Used Buses

    NHTSA considered proposing to require buses currently in use to be 
equipped (or retrofitted) with seat belts and seat belt anchorage 
strength required by this NPRM. The Secretary of Transportation has 
authority to promulgate safety standards for ``commercial motor 
vehicles and equipment subsequent to initial manufacture.'' \44\ The 
Office of the Secretary has delegated authority to NHTSA to: 
``promulgate safety standards for commercial motor vehicles and 
equipment subsequent to initial manufacture when the standards are 
based upon and similar to a [FMVSS] promulgated, either simultaneously 
or previously, under chapter 301 of title 49, U.S.C.'' \45\ 
Additionally, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) 
is authorized to enforce the safety standards applicable to commercial 
vehicles operating in the U.S. While this NPRM does not set forth 
proposed regulatory text requiring buses ``subsequent to initial 
manufacture'' to be retrofitted with seat belts for the driver or 
passenger seating positions, we request information on several issues 
relating to retrofitting passenger seating positions on used 
motorcoaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Under Sec. 101(f) of Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act 
of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-159; Dec. 9, 1999).
    \45\ See 49 CFR Section 1.50(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We seek to know more about the technical and economic feasibility 
of a retrofit requirement. Motorcoach buses can have a service life of 
20 years or longer. Based on our testing, we believe that significant 
strengthening of the motorcoach structure would be needed in order to 
accommodate the additional seat belt loading, particularly for those 
buses that have been in service longer. Thus, each motorcoach in 
service would likely require an individual structural assessment.\46\ 
We believe this could be

[[Page 50977]]

a very complex and costly process for some motorcoaches, and in many 
cases, retrofitting with seat belts might not be structurally possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ We note that during our roof strength testing conducted in 
February 2008, the seat anchorages of an older model motorcoach 
failed during an ECE R.66 type test. We believe this to be an 
example of the type of coach that is still in service, but would 
need extensive modifications to meet the seat belt anchorage 
performance requirements. See http://regulations.gov, Docket no. 
NHTSA-2007-28793.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that in August 2009, the American Bus Association (ABA), 
Motor Coach Canada, Trailways Transportation System, Prevost Car 
(U.S.), Setra of North America, and National Seating Company submitted 
a position paper to the agency on the issue of retrofitting in service 
buses.\47\ (In the interest of simplicity, we collectively refer below 
to submitters of this paper as the ``ABA.'') The ABA supported the 
installation of seat belts on newly manufactured motorcoaches, and 
supported a ``voluntary retrofit requirement'' for seat belts on 
existing motorcoaches, provided that, ``(i) existing buses are 
structurally sound enough to support the enhancements that are 
necessary, (ii) the original bus manufacturer and/or other companies 
make viable 2 or 3 point [lap belt or lap/shoulder belt] retrofit kits 
available, and (iii) the cost of retrofitting the bus is within the 
technical and economic reach of many motorcoach operators.'' \48\ The 
ABA further commented that any ``retrofit performance standard'' should 
allow for either lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed. They stated 
that they believe the amount of rebuilding that would be necessary for 
motorcoaches that are already in service to be retrofitted with lap/
shoulder belts would be cost prohibitive for many of the smaller 
motorcoach operating businesses, while lap belts could be integrated 
into existing seats with less difficulty and cost. ABA commented that 
lap belts, in conjunction with ``energy absorbing seats and 
compartmentalization of the seating configuration'' would provide 
significant safety benefits with regard to ejection mitigation and 
restricting occupant movement during a crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See http://regulations.gov, Docket no. NHTSA-2007-28793-
0020.
    \48\ Regarding ABA's ``voluntary retrofit requirement,'' ABA's 
paper appears to suggest that NHTSA should not require motorcoaches 
currently in use to be retrofitted. The paper appears to be saying 
the decision to retrofit a bus should be voluntary on the part of 
industry, and operators that decide to install belts--after having 
considered the structural soundness of the bus, the availability of 
kits, and the cost of retrofitting--should be free to decide to 
install 2 point or 3 point belts. The paper also states that ``a 
voluntary retrofit standard can provide guidance with regard to 
requisite performance levels'' and that ``any retrofit performance 
standard must allow for either 2 or 3 point belts * * * .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ABA estimated that installation costs for retrofitting seat 
belts would range from $6,000 per vehicle for lap belts, to upwards of 
$60,000 per vehicle for lap/shoulder belts. The ABA reported that 
approximately 79 percent of the motorcoach carriers are small 
businesses operating fewer than 10 motorcoaches (with an average fleet 
size of 3 motorcoaches). Hence, we expect that motorcoach for-hire 
operators, many of which are small businesses, and/or operate the more 
structurally challenged motorcoaches, would bear the greatest impact by 
a seat belt retrofit requirement.
    In September 2009, Greyhound Lines, Inc. (Greyhound) submitted 
independent comments on retrofitting seat belts on motorcoaches that 
are already in service, as well as provided their support for seat 
belts on newly manufactured motorcoaches.\49\ Greyhound agreed with the 
ABA that any seat belt retrofitting should occur on a voluntary basis 
to ease the cost burden on the small business operators. However, it 
added that if NHTSA were to adopt a retrofit requirement, that 
requirement should exclusively require lap/shoulder belts and should 
establish a future date by which all motorcoaches operating in the U.S. 
must have seat belts installed that meet the new standards. Greyhound 
supported its view for retrofitting lap/shoulder belts by noting that 
the agency sled test research indicated that dummies restrained by lap 
belts generally exhibited more severe head and neck injuries than the 
unbelted dummies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See http://regulations.gov, Docket no. NHTSA-2007-28793-
0021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the agency's feasibility, cost, and small business concerns, 
and our knowledge that motorcoach structures can vary in construction 
and materials, we are seeking public comment in a number of areas to 
improve our understanding of the impacts of implementing a seat belt 
retrofit requirement on existing motorcoaches. We also include 
questions on enforceability since we are working closely with FMCSA to 
understand how a retrofit requirement might be enforced during periodic 
or routine commercial vehicle safety inspections, including those of 
motorcoaches crossing into the U.S. from Canada and Mexico.
Motorcoach Retrofit Requirements
    1. Please explain why the agency should (or should not) consider a 
retrofit seat belt requirement for existing motorcoaches. Please 
discuss:
    a. Should NHTSA consider developing technical standards for 
voluntarily retrofitting motorcoach passenger seats with seat belts?
    b. In the absence of a requirement, how would the motorcoach 
industry self-regulate to facilitate the voluntary installation of 
belts on existing buses that are structurally sound enough to support 
the enhancements?
    c. Are there other voluntary improvements that motorcoach operators 
would consider in improving occupant crash protection?
    2. If a seat belt retrofit requirement were issued for existing 
motorcoaches, should operators be permitted to install lap belts 
instead of only lap/shoulder belts (i.e., the ABA approach)? As 
explained above, ABA stated that they believe the amount of rebuilding 
necessary for motorcoaches that are already in service to be 
retrofitted with lap/shoulder belts would be cost prohibitive for many 
of the smaller motorcoach operating businesses, while lap belts could 
be integrated into existing seats with less difficulty and cost. ABA 
informed the agency that lap belts, in conjunction with ``energy 
absorbing seats and compartmentalization of the seating configuration'' 
would provide significant safety benefits with regard to ejection 
mitigation and restricting occupant movement during a crash. As noted 
above, Greyhound suggested that if NHTSA were to adopt a retrofit 
requirement, that requirement should exclusively require lap/shoulder 
belts.
    In our test program, the lap belted dummies had elevated head and 
neck injury measures in the test conditions evaluated, compared to 
dummies restrained by lap/shoulder belts. Additionally, the motorcoach 
seats did not demonstrate ``energy absorption'' or 
``compartmentalization'' characteristics during our tests.
    However, lap belts could be effective in mitigating ejections in 
motorcoach rollover crashes, and some motorcoaches already on the road 
may have been originally manufactured such that a lap belt could be 
readily retrofitted to the seat, while a lap/shoulder belt could not be 
without significant structural modification and cost. NHTSA believes 
that lap/shoulder belts would provide superior protection compared to 
lap belts and should be required for new motorcoaches. However, 
considering the costs and other impacts on small businesses of 
retrofitting seat belts on used buses and the effectiveness of lap 
belts in preventing occupant ejection in rollover crashes, we ask for 
comments on whether requiring operators to install lap/shoulder belts 
would be appropriate if it is possible to retrofit lap belts to lap 
belt-ready seats. Comments are

[[Page 50978]]

requested on the associated safety implications.
    3. What are the appropriate performance requirements for a retrofit 
lap belt or lap/shoulder belt approach? How would the strength of the 
anchorages be evaluated to determine if the performance requirements 
were met?
    4. What lead time and phase-in issues should the agency consider 
for a retrofit requirement, and why?
    a. How long would it take (in weeks) to retrofit a motorcoach with 
seat belts?
    b. Should special lead-time and phase-in consideration be given for 
small businesses?
    c. Would a retrofit requirement be more practicable if it were 
limited to only a portion of the fleet of motorcoaches currently in 
use? For example, should a retrofit requirement be applied only to 
vehicles manufactured less than five years prior to the effective date 
of the final rule? The appeal of doing so is that it might limit the 
requirement to motorcoaches encountering only five years worth of wear 
and tear. Further, it would apply a retrofit belt requirement to 
motorcoaches with the greatest amount of useable life ahead of them, as 
compared to the rest of the on-road motorcoach fleet. In addition, 
bounding the time frame would limit the impact of a retrofit 
requirement on small businesses, since such businesses are more likely 
to purchase used motorcoaches than new ones, and may be more likely 
than not to purchase or own motorcoaches that were produced prior to 
the proposed time frame of this example. Therefore, the agency is 
seeking information on the age of motorcoaches in the fleets owned by 
small businesses.
    d. Comments are requested on other options the agency could take to 
identify portions of the on-road fleet to which a retrofit requirement 
should apply. Are there existing seats on motorcoaches that are ``lap-
belt ready,'' to which a lap belt can be attached that require no 
modification to the vehicle structure? How would the agency distinguish 
those seats from seats that are not seat-belt ready?
    5. What are the risks to vehicle occupants in rollover and non-
rollover crashes in the event of an improper retrofit installation?
Motorcoach Seat Anchorages
    6. Do all motorcoach models share a common seat anchorage design? 
Please specify those that share a common design, by year and model.
    7. Will any of the existing seat anchorages meet the FMVSS No. 210 
strength requirements? Please specify which models, by year of 
manufacture.
    8. What are the minimum steps necessary to retrofit a motorcoach 
with seat belts that comply with FMVSS No. 210? What structural changes 
would be necessary to make the seat anchorages accommodate the 
additional strength required for the addition of seat belts? Should 
FMVSS No. 210 strength requirements be reduced in stringency for 
retrofitted seat belts? What should those requirements be and should 
they apply to the retrofitted system?
    9. We note that sometimes vehicle and equipment manufacturers will 
make retrofit kits available to consumers for the purpose of 
retrofitting existing vehicles with new equipment. Is it practical for 
motorcoach manufacturers to provide upgrade kits for each model with 
appropriate instructions so that installers can make the modifications? 
Please explain why or why not.
Cost to Retrofit
    10. What is the total cost of retrofitting a motorcoach with seat 
belts? Please also provide a break-down of the following components:
    a. Cost to modify the motorcoach structure to meet the FMVSS No. 
210 seat anchorage requirements. Please specify by make/model of the 
existing motorcoach.
    b. Cost to modify existing seat structures to accommodate seat 
belts. Please specify in terms of labor-hours, materials, and 
additional weight of the modifications by model and year of 
manufacture.
    c. Cost difference between installing lap belts versus lap/shoulder 
belts.
    d. Cost implications for taking a motorcoach out of service to be 
retrofitted (both for small and large businesses).
    e. Cost of attaching lap belts to ``seat-belt ready'' seats (seats 
that can withstand the load of the occupant without structural 
modifications to the seat or vehicle).
    f. Cost impacts from increased fuel usage for retrofitting lap 
belts or lap/shoulder belts on motorcoaches with and without seat-belt 
ready seats.
    11. In the event that the motorcoach structure is insufficient as 
manufactured or has deteriorated to the extent that it cannot be 
modified to withstand the additional loads imposed by seat belts, what 
is the economic effect of the loss of that bus from the operator's 
fleet?
Enforcement of Retrofit Requirements
    12. How can we assure that the modifications performed would meet 
FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210 requirements?
    13. Would it be reasonable to require that each motorcoach be 
evaluated for structural integrity prior to performing modifications 
necessary for the installation of seat belts? Who would perform the 
structural evaluation? Would this evaluation in itself deteriorate the 
structural integrity?
    14. Would it be reasonable to assess compliance with a retrofit 
requirement by means of only visually inspecting the vehicle? In what 
ways could we reasonably and effectively assess compliance with 
retrofit requirement?

d. School Buses

    This rulemaking action should not be understood to suggest that we 
are considering proposing lap/shoulder belts in large school buses. 
NHTSA has recently decided against requiring seat belts on large school 
buses (over 4,536 kg (10,000 (lb)) GVWR. See 73 FR 62744, October 21, 
2008, supra.
    As discussed in the October 21, 2008 final rule, supra, requiring 
installation of seat belts on large school buses would increase school 
bus costs that the purchaser would have to bear. Those costs could 
result in fewer school buses used to transport children and more 
students having to use alternative, less safe means to get to school. 
Because data indicate that the safety need for seat belts on large 
school buses is low, and because the net effect on safety could be 
negative if the costs of purchasing and maintaining the seat belts and 
ensuring their correct use results in non-implementation or reduced 
efficacy of other pupil transportation programs that affect child 
safety, NHTSA does not believe that passenger seat belts should be 
required on large school buses. Instead, the agency believes that local 
school transportation planners should be given the ability to analyze 
the transportation risks particular to their needs, and to decide 
whether they wish to incur the cost of purchasing large school buses 
equipped with passenger seat belts.

VIII. Lead Time

    If the proposed changes in this NPRM were made final, NHTSA 
proposes a three year lead time for new bus manufacturers to meet the 
new motorcoach seat belt requirements. We believe three years are 
necessary for the motorcoaches since some design, testing, and 
development will be necessary to certify compliance to the new 
requirements. NHTSA proposes that optional early compliance be 
permitted.
    With regard to a possible retrofit requirement, we request comments 
on the approach of NHTSA's requiring the

[[Page 50979]]

belts be retrofitted on subject vehicles (e.g., vehicles that are 
manufactured five or fewer years prior to the compliance date of the 
final rule) by a set future date (e.g., three years after the 
compliance date of the final rule).
    To illustrate such an approach, assume a final rule is published in 
2011. Such an approach could require new motorcoaches manufactured on 
or after January 1, 2015 (the January 1 of the next year, three years 
after publication of the final rule; the ``compliance date'' of the 
final rule) to meet the requirements for new motorcoaches. The approach 
would require motorcoaches manufactured on or after January 1, 2010 to 
be retrofitted with seat belts, and meet the amendments for retrofitted 
buses, by January 1, 2018. Thus, as of January 1, 2018, all 
motorcoaches built after January 1, 2010 would have restraints.

IX. Overview of Costs and Benefits

    Based on a 10 year average, there were 18.6 fatalities and 7,887 
injuries to motorcoach occupants. We estimate that installing lap/
shoulder seat belts on new motorcoaches would save 1-8 lives and 
prevent 144-794 injuries, depending upon the usage of lap/shoulder 
belts in motorcoaches.\50\ The cost of adding lap/shoulder belts and 
making structural changes to the motorcoach floor would be 
approximately $12,900 per vehicle, with the total cost being $25.8 
million for the 2,000 motorcoaches sold per year. Lifetime fuel costs 
due to an increased weight of the motorcoach would be an additional 
cost (estimated below). The cost per equivalent life saved is estimated 
to be $1.3 million to $9.9 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ The PRIA assumes that the seat belt use rate on 
motorcoaches would be between 15 percent and the percent use in 
passenger vehicles, which was 83 percent in 2008. These annual 
benefits would accrue when all motorcoaches in the fleet have lap/
shoulder belts.

                                Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities................................  1 to 8.
AIS 1 injuries (Minor)....................  92 to 506.
AIS 2-5 (Moderate to Severe)..............  52 to 288.
                                           -----------------------------
    Total Non-fatal Injuries..............  144 to 794.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  Costs
                            [2008 Economics]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Vehicle............................  $12,900.
Total Fleet............................  $25.8 million.
Fuel Costs per Vehicle @ 3%............  $1,085 to $1,812.
Fuel Costs per Vehicle @ 7%............  $800 to $1,336.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Cost Per Equivalent Life Saved
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
15% Belt usage.......................  $7.4 to $9.9 mill.
83% Belt usage.......................  $1.3 to $1.8 mill.
Breakeven Point in belt usage........  24%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cost of installing lap/shoulder belts on new motorcoaches is 
estimated as follows. The incremental cost of adding passenger seats 
with lap/shoulder belts on a 54 passenger motorcoach is approximately 
$9,900. The cost to change the seat anchorages and to reinforce the 
floor is approximately $3,000. We estimate that total cost of adding 
belts, changing the anchorages and reinforcing the floor is 
approximately $12,900. The agency has also estimated increased costs in 
fuel usage. The increased fuel costs depend on added weight (estimated 
to be 161 lbs or 269 lbs \51\) and the discount rate used. NHTSA 
estimates the increased costs in fuel usage for added weight and 
discounts the additional fuel used over the lifetime of the motorcoach 
using a 3 percent and 7 percent discount rate. See the PRIA for more 
details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See PRIA for this NPRM. This estimate is based on 
preliminary results from a NHTSA contractor conducting cost/weight 
teardown studies of motorcoach seats. The weight added by 3-point 
lap/shoulder belts ranged from 5.96 to 9.95 pounds per 2-person 
seat. This is the weight only of the seat belt assembly itself and 
does not include changing the design of the seat, reinforcing the 
floor, walls or other areas of the motorcoach. The final cost and 
weight results from the study will be placed in the docket for this 
NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency has examined an alternative of adding a lap belt only as 
a substitute for lap/shoulder belts on motorcoaches. Real world data on 
light vehicles and sled testing with motorcoach seats both show that 
lap/shoulder belts are more effective than lap belts in reducing 
injuries and fatalities. Given the cost estimates and effectiveness 
estimates assumed, the breakeven point for lap belt use is 17 percent 
and for lap/shoulder belt use is 24 percent (a difference of 7 
percentage points). The agency has found that lap/shoulder belt usage 
is 10 percentage points higher than lap belt usage in the rear seat of 
passenger cars. Assuming that this relationship would hold for 
motorcoaches, if lap/shoulder belt usage is 10 percentage points higher 
than lap belt usage, lap/shoulder belts would be more cost effective 
than lap belts. See the PRIA for more information.
    We are not proposing at this time to require that used buses be 
retrofitted with the lap/shoulder belt system. The service life of a 
motorcoach can be 20 years or longer. We estimate that the cost of 
retrofitting can vary substantially. We estimate it could cost between 
$6,000 \52\-$34,000 per vehicle to retrofit the vehicle with lap belts 
and with sufficient structure to meet today's proposal. We also 
estimate it could cost $40,000 per vehicle to retrofit it with lap/
shoulder belts and reinforced structure so as to meet FMVSS No. 210 to 
support the load of belted occupants during a crash.\53\ The existing 
fleet size is estimated to be 29,325 motorcoaches. Hence, the fleet 
cost of retrofitting lap belts is estimated to range from $175,950,000 
($6,000 x 29,325) to $997,050,000 ($34,000 x 29,325), while the fleet 
cost of retrofitting lap/shoulder belts is estimated to be 
$1,173,000,000 ($40,000 x 29,325). These costs do not include increased 
remaining lifetime fuel costs incurred by adding weight to the 
motorcoach. Weight would vary depending upon the needed structural 
changes and lifetime fuel cost would vary depending upon the age of 
motorcoaches that would be retrofitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ This assumes that the motorcoach structure is lap belt-
ready, and can accommodate the loads set forth in this proposal.
    \53\ As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, NHTSA has 
determined that the FMVSS No. 210 loads that this NPRM proposes for 
new motorcoach belt anchorages appear to be more stringent than ECE 
R.80 loads and more representative of the imparted loads measured at 
the seat belt anchorages in a motorcoach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Retrofitting used motorcoaches may not be structurally viable for 
many motorcoaches and may not be economically feasible for many 
motorcoach for-hire operators, many of which are small businesses. 
However, we have included a comprehensive set of questions about 
retrofit in this preamble. The answers to those questions will aid us 
in determining whether to issue a separate supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) to 
require retrofit. If we issue such an SNPRM, we will assess the impact 
of the proposed rule on small entities in accordance with the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and prepare and 
publish an initial regulatory flexibility analysis if appropriate.

X. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The agency has considered the impact of this rulemaking action 
under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's 
regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979) and 
determined that it is economically ``significant,'' and also a matter 
of Congressional and public interest. Accordingly, the action was 
reviewed

[[Page 50980]]

under the Executive Order. NHTSA has prepared a PRIA for this NPRM.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ NHTSA's PRIA is available in the docket for this NPRM and 
may be obtained by downloading it or by contacting Docket Management 
at the address or telephone number provided at the beginning of this 
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This NPRM proposes: (1) To define the types of buses to which this 
NPRM would apply (i.e., to provide a definition of ``motorcoach''); (2) 
to require lap/shoulder belts for all passenger seating positions in 
motorcoaches; and (3) to require lap/shoulder belts for the driver's 
position on motorcoaches and on large school buses.
    We estimate that installing lap/shoulder seat belts on new 
motorcoaches would save 1-8 lives and prevent 144-794 injuries. The 
total cost of adding seat belts and making structural changes to the 
motorcoach floor, and of lifetime fuel costs, would be approximately 
$27.4 million to $29.4 million. The cost per equivalent life saved is 
estimated to be $1.3 million to $9.9 million. The benefits, costs, and 
other impacts of this rulemaking are discussed at length in the PRIA.

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 121.201, the Small 
Business Administration's size standards regulations used to define 
small business concerns, motorcoach 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 5 large motorcoach manufacturers in the United 
States.
    With regard to the amendments of a final rule applying to new motor 
vehicles, I hereby certify that if made final, this proposed rule would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. None of the U.S. motorcoach manufacturers and motorcoach seat 
manufacturers is a small business.
    With regard to a retrofit requirement applying to a population of 
on-road vehicles, NHTSA is seeking information on the potential effects 
of a retrofit requirement on small businesses, small organizations, and 
small Government jurisdictions. This preamble and the PRIA for this 
NPRM have questions that would assist the agency in analyzing the 
potential impacts of a retrofit requirement on small businesses. An 
estimated 78.8 percent of the 3,137 motorcoach carriers in the United 
States in 2007 (or about 2,470 carriers) have less than 10 motorcoaches 
in their fleet, and an average of three motorcoaches and eleven 
employees. The documents request comments on the merits of applying a 
retrofit requirement to a limited population of on-road vehicles to 
minimize any significant economic impact on small entities, such as 
applying a retrofit requirement to only those motorcoaches manufactured 
after 2010, and/or only to motorcoaches that have seat-belt ready 
passenger seats, etc., and providing extra lead time for the vehicles 
to be retrofitted. Responses to those questions will assist the agency 
in deciding whether to proceed with a proposal to require on-road 
motorcoaches to be retrofitted with seat belts.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's proposed rule pursuant to Executive 
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no 
additional consultation with States, local governments, or their 
representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency 
has concluded that the proposed rule does not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant either consultation with State and 
local officials or preparation of a federalism summary impact 
statement. The proposed rule 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 the 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express 
preemption 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).

    Second, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility, in some 
instances, of implied preemption of State requirements imposed on motor 
vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law. 
That possibility is dependent upon there being an actual conflict 
between a FMVSS and a State requirement. If and when such a conflict 
exists, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes the State 
requirements unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 
U.S. 861 (2000), finding implied preemption of state tort law on the 
basis of a conflict discerned by the court,\55\ not on the basis of an 
intent to preempt asserted by the agency itself.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ The conflict was discerned based upon the nature (e.g., the 
language and structure of the regulatory text) and the safety-
related objectives of FMVSS requirements in question and the impact 
of the State requirements on those objectives.
    \56\ Indeed, in the rulemaking that established the rule at 
issue in this case, the agency did not assert preemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has considered the nature (e.g., the language and structure 
of the regulatory text) and purpose of today's proposed rule and does 
not foresee any potential State requirements that might conflict with 
it. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of 
state law, including state tort law.

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

[[Page 50981]]

agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This 
rulemaking 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) (Pub. L. 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, 
including standards from the European Union, Australia and Japan, NHTSA 
has determined that there are no voluntary consensus standards that we 
will be incorporating into this rulemaking. The reasons the agency has 
decided against adopting the international regulations regarding the 
performance of seat belt anchorages were discussed earlier in this 
preamble.

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 (6) 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 issue of preemption is discussed above in connection with E.O. 
13132. 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. This rulemaking is not subject to 
the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as 
defined in E.O. 12866. However, as previously explained, because 
children make up as much as 27 percent of motorcoach ridership, this 
NPRM, if made final, should have a beneficial safety effect on them.

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).

XI. 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.
    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.

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

[[Page 50982]]

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 a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to the docket 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 received before the close of business 
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent 
possible, we will also consider comments that the docket receives after 
that date. If the docket 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 the docket 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. 
You can arrange with the docket to be notified when others file 
comments in the docket. See www.regulations.gov for more information.

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 571.3 is amended by adding the definition ``Motorcoach'' 
in alphabetical order, to read as follows:

Sec.  571.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Motorcoach means a bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 
11,793 kilograms (26,000 pounds) or greater, 16 or more designated 
seating positions (including the driver), and at least 2 rows of 
passenger seats, rearward of the driver's seating position, that are 
forward-facing or can convert to forward-facing without the use of 
tools. Motorcoach includes buses sold for intercity, tour, and commuter 
bus service, but does not include a school bus, or an urban transit bus 
sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation along a 
fixed route with frequent stops.
* * * * *
    3. Section 571.208 is amended by redesignating the existing 
regulatory text of S4.4.3.1 as paragraph (a), adding paragraphs (b) and 
(c), and adding S7.1.6, to read as follows:

Sec.  571.208  Standard No. 208; Occupant crash protection.

* * * * *
    S4.4.3.1
    (a) * * *
    (b) Each school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 
4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) and each motorcoach, manufactured on or after 
[date 3 years after publication date of rule], must be equipped with a 
Type 2 seat belt assembly at the driver's designated seating position. 
The seat belt assembly must comply with FMVSS No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209) 
and with S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard. The pelvic portion of a dual 
retractor Type 2 belt assembly installed in compliance with this 
requirement must include either an emergency locking retractor or an 
automatic locking retractor. If a seat belt assembly installed in 
compliance with this requirement includes an automatic locking 
retractor for the lap belt portion, that seat belt assembly must comply 
with paragraphs (a) through (c) of S4.4.2.2 of this standard. If a seat 
belt assembly installed in compliance with this requirement 
incorporates any webbing tension-relieving device, the vehicle owner's 
manual must include the information specified in S7.4.2(b) of this 
standard for the tension-relieving device, and the vehicle must comply 
with S7.4.2(c) of this standard.
    (c) Motorcoaches manufactured on or after [date 3 years after 
publication date of rule] must be equipped with a Type 2 seat belt 
assembly that is attached to the seat structure at every designated 
seating position for passengers other than a side-facing position. 
Side-facing designated seating positions must be equipped, at the 
manufacturer's option, with a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly. 
Seats with no other seats behind them, no wheelchair positions behind 
them, or side emergency doors behind them are excluded from the 
requirement that the seat belt anchorages must be attached to the seat 
structure. Seat belt assemblies at all designated seating positions for 
passengers must comply with paragraphs (a) through (c) of S7.1.1.5, 
S7.1.6 and S7.2 of this standard.
* * * * *
    S7.1.6 Motorcoach passenger seats. The seat belt assemblies on 
motorcoach passenger seats will operate by means of any emergency-
locking retractor that conforms to 49 CFR 571.209 to restrain persons 
whose dimensions range from those of a 50th percentile 6-year-old child 
to those of a 95th percentile adult male. The seat belt assemblies will 
operate in this manner with the seat back in any position.
* * * * *

    Issued on: August 12, 2010.
Joseph S. Carra,
Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2010-20375 Filed 8-16-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P