in Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563, and has made decisions
consistent with those orders. Fatalities and injuries in transit buses
and in mid-size buses (between 10,000 and 26,000 lb GVWR) were also
examined by NHTSA after receiving the comments, to obtain a higher-
level view of the occupant protection provided by buses generally. The
FRIA provides these analyses for informational purposes.\62\ Although
it appears that the likely cost per equivalent life saved for mid-size
buses will be much greater than the $6.3 million value of a statistical
life guideline in ($2008) at least for the present and near future, we
would like to continue to examine the need for seat belts on these
buses in a future context that will allow more time to conduct this
examination than that provided by the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act
for this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ For the FRIA analysis, we estimate that there are
approximately 14,600 mid-size buses (between 10,000 and 26,000 lb
GVWR) produced and sold annually for purposes other than school
transportation and transit services. We assume for purposes of our
analysis that the average mid-size bus has 24 passenger seats. The
average per vehicle costs are estimated at $7.54 for the driver
position and $937.68 for the passenger positions. The total fleet
cost to install lap/shoulder belts on these vehicles is estimated to
be $13.8 million and the additional fuel costs would be
approximately $6.9 to $9.4 million. We estimate that 0.02 to 0.2
driver lives (1 to 12 injuries) and 0.3 to 1.71 passenger lives (28
to 153 injuries) would be saved annually (0.67 to 4.96 total
equivalent lives) by a seat belt requirement applying to mid-size
buses, assuming the effectiveness of belts on mid-size buses is
equal to that we estimate for belts on buses with a GVWR greater
than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). The cost per equivalent life saved is
estimated to range between $0.3 to $1.2 million for drivers, $4.6 to
$35.5 million for passengers and $4.2 to $33.7 for all occupants
(assuming a seat belt use rate of 50 percent to 83 percent for
drivers and 15 percent to 83 percent for passengers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, as we have shown in this section, in developing this
final rule, we are applying this rule to high-occupancy buses that have
a high involvement in fatal crashes, generally, and in fatal rollover
crashes involving ejection, particularly--i.e., buses with a GVWR
greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). In doing so, we are mitigating the
vast majority of fatalities Congress intended to address in the
Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, and which NHTSA has targeted in the
2007 ``NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach Safety'' plan, in a focused and
expedited manner.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ This final rule does not prohibit the voluntary
installation of passenger seat belts in buses with a GVWR between
4,536 kg and 11,793 kg (10,000 lb to 26,000 lb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Sixteen Designated Seating Positions

    The proposed ``motorcoach'' definition included a provision that
one of the attributes of a motorcoach is that it has 16 or more DSPs.
This reference was to make the definition similar to FMCSA's definition
of a ``commercial motor vehicle,'' for purposes of FMCSA's commercial
driver's license (CDL) requirements.
Comments
    Some commenters (e.g., Freedman Seating Company, and MCI)
recommended that the number of DSPs be reduced to fewer than 16.
Freedman and MCI's comments were related to their suggestion that the
rule should be applied to smaller buses. Turtle Top's comment
highlighted the increased complexity and possible confusion that a ``16
or more DSPs'' provision could create in specifying vehicle types.
Agency Response
    Under FMCSA's regulations, buses with a GVWR greater than 11,739 kg
(26,000 lb) are commercial motor vehicles under the CDL regulation,

regardless of the number of DSPs.\64\ Since this final rule does not
lower the GVWR criterion, the number of DSPs on a bus with a GVWR
greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) is of no consequence for purposes of
CDL requirements. Thus, the comments are moot, and the ``16 or more
DSPs'' provision is unnecessary and may only add confusion regarding
the requirements for buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000
lb), especially those with only 10 to 15 DSPs. We have deleted the
provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Pursuant to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration's Commercial Driver's License Standards at 49 CFR
383.3, persons are required to obtain and hold a CDL if they operate
in interstate, foreign or intrastate commerce if they operate a
vehicle that meets any of the classifications of a ``commercial
motor vehicle'' (CMV) where CMV is defined at 49 CFR 383.5 as
follows:
    ``Commercial motor vehicle (CMV) means a motor vehicle or
combination of motor vehicles used in commerce to transport
passengers or property if the motor vehicle--
    (1) Has a gross combination weight rating or gross combination
weight of 11,794 kilograms or more (26,001 pounds or more),
whichever is greater, inclusive of a towed unit(s) with a gross
vehicle weight rating or gross vehicle weight of more than 4,536
kilograms (10,000 pounds), whichever is greater; or
    (2) Has a gross vehicle weight rating or gross vehicle weight of
11,794 or more kilograms (26,001 pounds or more), whichever is
greater; or
    (3) Is designed to transport 16 or more passengers, including
the driver; or
    (4) Is of any size and is used in the transportation of
hazardous materials as defined in this section.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. At Least 2 Rows of Forward-Facing Seats Rearward of the Driver's
Seat

    The proposed ``motorcoach'' definition included a provision that
one of the attributes of a motorcoach is that it has ``at least 2 rows
of passenger seats, rearward of the driver's seat, that are forward-
facing or can convert to forward-facing without the use of tools.''
This reference was to distinguish ``motorcoaches'' from buses with
perimeter seating, such as those used to transport passengers in
airports between the terminal and locations such as a rental car
facility or long term parking.
    Buses with perimeter seating usually have a single forward-facing
row of seats at the back of the vehicle and seats along one or both
sides of the bus. Passengers sitting along the side of the bus face the
longitudinal centerline of the vehicle, usually with their backs toward
the windows. Buses with perimeter seating are used to carry people for
a relatively short period, typically are meant to transport standees,
and are spacious to accommodate baggage and other carry-on items and to
maximize the speed of passenger boarding and alighting. Passengers are
expected to board and disembark the bus quickly, with large baggage and
other belongings; the buses are on a tight operating schedule. We
proposed to exclude buses with perimeter seating because we believed
that they are used for relatively short rides, and are used on set
routes and are not widely exposed to general traffic. Also, because of
the nature of the transport (frequent and quick loading and unloading
of passengers), and the roads on which they generally travel, passenger
seat belts in such buses are not as needed or likely to be worn by
passengers.
Comments
    Advocates suggested that passenger-carrying commercial motor
vehicles should not be excluded from the ``motorcoach'' definition
simply on the basis of ``the arrangement of designated, forward-facing
seating positions.'' Other commenters supported placing seat belts on
airport shuttles.
    MCI commented changing the criterion from ``at least two rows of
passenger seats'' to ``at least 8 seating positions.''
    Turtle Top thought the motorcoach definition proposed in the NPRM
implied that motorcoaches can have 16 DSPs with only two rows of seats,
requirements it thought were conflictive. IC Bus, American Seating, and
IMMI commented that all seats in motorcoaches should be required to be
forward-facing.
Agency Response
    The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act directs NHTSA to ``prescribe
regulations requiring safety belts to be installed in motorcoaches at
each designed seating position.'' ``Safety belts'' mean lap/shoulder
belts (see section 32702(12) of the Act) and ``motorcoach'' means
``over-the-road bus'' (a bus characterized by an elevated passenger
deck located over a baggage compartment) but does not include a bus
used in public transportation provided by, or on behalf of, a public
transportation agency, or a school bus (see section 32702(6) of the
Act). In response to the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, this final
rule requires lap/shoulder belts at each designated seating position in
over-the-road buses, even if the bus has perimeter seating.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act's mandate to require
seat belts to be installed in over-the-road buses at each designated
seating position applies to niche vehicles, such as a vehicles often
referred to as a ``limo bus'' or ``party bus,'' to the extent that
the ``limo buses'' are based on an ``over-the-road'' bus design.
Another type of niche vehicle is the touring/entertainment bus that
is a modified over-the-road bus, with eating and sleeping
accommodations, used by some celebrities and entertainers when
touring the country. Additional comments and discussion related to
these two niche bus types can be found in section VIII.d.3. To the
extent that these niche vehicles are body-on-frame construction (not
over-the-road buses) they could qualify to be exempted as perimeter-
seating buses. Also, some of these vehicles may not be buses at all
if they have less than 10 passenger DSPs (11 total DSPs, including
the driver).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For buses other than over-the-road buses (typically body-on-frame
construction), we have decided to exclude buses with perimeter seating
for the reasons discussed in the NPRM and summarized above. However, we
are simplifying the language of the standard since the proposed
language describing a bus of this type was not well understood or clear
enough.
    We wish to note, before beginning our discussion, that we received
a comment from the family of a man who was permanently disabled in a
crash of an airport shuttle bus with perimeter seating. The comment
supported having belts on these buses. We have carefully considered the
comment but we are unable to concur with its recommendation to require
seat belts on these buses.\66\ In our decision-making on safety
regulations, our decisions must be practical, fair, reasonable and
necessary. The available accident data indicate that fatalities and
serious injuries in crashes of airport shuttle-type buses of GVWRs
greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) with perimeter seating do not happen
with a frequency that enables us to conclude that the affected buses
with perimeter seating should be required to have seat belts. However,
in the future, if data indicate a need for seat belts, we will be
willing to revisit this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ This discussion assumes that the bus is not an over-the-
road bus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simplified Language
    The following discussion relates to buses other than over-the-road
buses. It does not apply to over-the-road buses. The Motorcoach
Enhanced Safety Act requires over-the-road buses to have safety belts,
so we have therefore defined ``perimeter-seating bus'' as not including
an over-the-road bus.
    The proposed regulatory text that sought to exclude airport
shuttle-type buses with perimeter seating was not well understood by
commenters. To clarify it, we are simplifying the language describing
perimeter-seating buses in two ways. First, we are changing the format
of the regulatory text. As noted above, the NPRM attempted to specify
what a motorcoach has or does not have (as proposed in the NPRM, a
motorcoach had to have at least 2 rows of forward-facing passenger
seats--i.e., a bus with fewer than 2 rows of forward-facing seats was a
perimeter-

seating bus and not a ``motorcoach''). We have decided it is easier to
define ``perimeter-seating bus,'' and then exclude perimeter-seating
buses from FMVSS No. 208's seat belt requirements.
    Second, we have defined a perimeter-seating bus by referring to the
maximum number of forward-facing DSPs the vehicle may have, rather than
the number of ``rows'' the vehicle may have. This is along the lines
suggested by MCI. We are making this change because we have found it
difficult to define the term ``row'' for purposes of today's amendments
using plain language.
    FMVSS No. 226, ``Ejection mitigation'' (49 CFR 571.226) has a
definition of row, but that definition does not work entirely well with
regard to motorcoach seating configurations.\67\ For example, assuming
the forward-facing seating positions in a bus is divided by an aisle,
the forward-facing seating positions on the left half of the bus may
not align with the seats on the right half. This lack of alignment may
occur when there is a parcel rack, junction box, door, or some other
element of the bus' design that is located on only one side of the bus.
These elements may shift placement of seats on that side of the bus, so
that the seats do not align with seats on the other side (when viewed
from the side of the bus, as specified by FMVSS No. 226).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ We have defined ``row'' in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 226, ``Ejection mitigation.'' (See 49 CFR
Section 571.226. ``Row'' means ``a set of one or more seats whose
seat outlines do not overlap with the seat outline of any other
seats, when all seats are adjusted to their rearmost normal riding
or driving position, when viewed from the side.'') That standard's
definition of row is not suited to our goals for today's rulemaking.
The reason is that ``row'' in FMVSS No. 226 is defined so that any
seats that overlap when viewed from the side are considered to be in
a single row, i.e., a row does not end until there is a clear
separation between seats. This has the effect of minimizing the
number of rows in a vehicle, which works well for FMVSS No. 226
because it maximizes the window area required to be covered with an
ejection mitigation countermeasure. However, for motorcoaches, if
the seats are configured so that when viewed from the side, there is
no separation between any seats, the entire seating of the bus would
be considered one row. Thus, the bus would not be considered to have
two rows of forward-facing seats, and therefore, contrary to the
goal of this rulemaking, would not be a ``motorcoach.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing the comments, we have decided that an easier
approach is to define ``perimeter-seating bus'' by referring to a
maximum number of forward-facing passenger DSPs allowed under the
exclusion. Under the NPRM, a bus that has two or more rows of forward-
facing passenger seats is potentially a ``motorcoach.'' Since there are
typically 4 forward-facing passenger DSPs in a row on a motorcoach,
there are 8 forward-facing DSPs in two rows. Thus, the equivalent of
saying that a motorcoach has at least 2 rows of forward-facing seats is
to say that a motorcoach has at least 8 forward-facing DSPs.
    In other words, to be excluded from the affected class as a
perimeter-seating bus, the bus has to have 7 or fewer forward-facing
passenger DSPs.\68\ This final rule adopts the following term in FMVSS
No. 208 to describe a perimeter-seating bus: A ``perimeter-seating
bus'' is a bus that has 7 or fewer designated seating positions
rearward of the driver's seating position that are forward-facing or
can convert to forward-facing without the use of tools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ The NPRM did not intend to count the driver's seat in
consideration of what is a row. Likewise, we conclude that the
driver's seat does not count toward the 7 forward-facing DSPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The maximum number of forward-facing DSPs that can fit side-by side
in a vehicle 2.6 meters (102.36 inches) \69\ wide is 5. This is
calculated assuming a minimum DSP width of 450 millimeters (17.7
inches, as specified at 49 CFR 571.3). Thus, a ``perimeter-seating
bus'' can have a forward-facing row along the rear wall (5 DSPs) and up
to 2 other forward-facing seats behind the driver. Another example is a
bus that has some side-facing seats and 3 pairs of seats forward-
facing. Under today's rule, as long as the number of forward-facing
passenger DSPs is 7 or fewer, the vehicle is a perimeter-seating bus
and is excluded from the requirements of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ According to the Federal Highway Administration's
regulations at 23 CFR 658.15, the maximum width limit for commercial
motor vehicles (CMVs) operating on the National Network (NN) is 102
inches, or its approximate metric equivalent of 2.6 meters (102.36
inches), except for Hawaii where it is 2.74 meters (108 inches).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We recognize that this approach allows a manufacturer to install up
to 7 individual forward-facing seats (not including the driver's seat)
scattered throughout a bus, and does not require that there be a single
row of 5 forward-facing DSPs along the back of the bus. Nonetheless, in
limiting the number of forward-facing DSPs to 7 for the bus to be
considered a perimeter-seating bus, we believe the definition is
clearer and easier to understand than one referring to rows, and
adequately describes a bus with primarily side-facing (perimeter)
seats.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Some commenters thought that the provision in the proposed
definition referring to ``at least two rows of forward-facing
seats'' was an attempt to require all seats to be forward-facing. We
did not intend to propose such a requirement, nor are we aware of
safety data showing a need for such a requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Treatment of Various Bus Types and Configurations Under the Final
Rule

    We stated in the NPRM that we intended the motorcoach definition to
include buses that are sold for intercity, tour, and commuter bus
service (75 FR at 50970). In an effort to be as clear and
straightforward as possible that buses sold for intercity, tour, and
commuter bus service would be motorcoaches, the proposed regulatory
text for the motorcoach definition included the following statement:
``Motorcoach includes buses sold for intercity, tour, and commuter bus
service. . . .'' We did not exclude shuttle buses generally, but
requested comment on whether shuttle buses should be excluded from the
proposed definition.
1. Shuttle Buses
    We received varied comments on whether ``shuttle buses'' should be
motorcoaches.
    Safe Ride News, Advocates, the National Association of State
Directors of Pupil Transportation Services and some individuals
supported requiring ``shuttle buses'' to have seat belts. They believed
that these vehicles are often in continuous service and can travel on
high speed roads, and can match the risk exposure to ejection risk of
intercity or over-the-road buses.
Agency Response
    The following discussion relates to buses other than over-the-road
buses. It does not apply to over-the-road buses. The Motorcoach
Enhanced Safety Act requires over-the-road buses to have lap/shoulder
belts.
    We have decided that there will not be a general exclusion of
``shuttle buses'' from the coverage of this final rule. Comments and
agency observations indicate that there is not a clear meaning of the
term ``shuttle bus.'' We agree with the United Motorcoach Association
that ``shuttle bus'' covers a potentially broad range of uses and bus
types. The term can apply to a myriad of commercial passenger vehicles
in diverse road and highway exposures. An internet search for buses and
services associated with ``shuttle buses'' resulted in vehicles that
range from vans to over-the-road buses, transporting passengers over
distances of less than a mile to over 100 miles.
    Further, FARS data (2000-2009) indicated that for buses with a GVWR
greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) and having bus body types other than
the excluded categories of transit and school bus, shuttle bus use
constituted 22.5 percent of fatalities. Accordingly, we are not
excluding shuttle buses from today's final rule.

    Freedman suggested that ``shuttle bus'' should be defined as it is
in FMVSS No. 225 (49 CFR 571.225),'' Child restraint anchorage systems:
``a bus with only one row of forward-facing seating positions rearward
of the driver's seat.'' We note the FMVSS No. 225 definition of
``shuttle bus'' describes a bus that is classified as a ``perimeter-
seating bus'' in today's final rule (see above section).
2. Trolley and Double-Decker Sightseeing Buses
    The NPRM's proposed regulatory text for the motorcoach definition
stated that ``motorcoaches'' included ``buses sold for . . . tour . . .
bus service. . . .''
Comments
    Coach USA commented that sightseeing buses called ``trolleys''
(which are buses designed to look like a trolley car on tires) and
``double-deckers'' (buses with two levels of passenger seating, one
above the other, some with the top level open and some with both levels
enclosed) operate similarly to transit buses and should be excluded
from the definition of ``motorcoach.'' The commenter stated that
``[t]hese buses do not operate with passengers on highways, but rather
the buses transport passengers exclusively on urban streets, do not
exceed about 25 mph, and make frequent stops . . .'' Both Coach USA and
the American Bus Association (ABA) suggested that the motorcoach
definition exclude buses ``sold for urban sightseeing transportation
with frequent stops.'' ABA also recommended that low-floor buses that
are used exclusively within urban areas, such as what the commenter
said were intra-city double-decker sightseeing buses, be excluded from
the motorcoach definition for the same reasons expressed by Coach USA.
Agency Response
    We have decided against excluding trolley-type buses and both open
and closed top double-decker sightseeing buses from the application of
today's final rule.
    Regarding trolley-type buses (trolley buses), the agency is
concerned that the vehicles are manufactured as buses and are fully
capable of being operated at highway speeds. Trolley buses also have
overly-large window openings and can be and are at times operated with
the windows open, which exacerbates the ejection risk. Seat belts for
the passengers will meet a safety need.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ We assume that the trolley buses at issue are not transit
buses. Transit buses are excluded from coverage of today's final
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding closed top double-decker sightseeing buses, no feature of
the vehicle would prevent these buses from being operated in the same
manner as double-decker buses operated on the highways, such as those
operated by Megabus between major metropolitan areas of the Northeast
corridor. Further, Van Hool's distributor advertises Van Hool double-
decker buses for intercity bus service.\72\ The vehicles can and are
being used just like an over-the-road bus for intercity and tour
services. (We note that, if a vehicle meets the definition of an over-
the-road bus, i.e., if there is a baggage compartment under the
elevated passenger deck, the bus must have lap/shoulder belts under the
Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See, http://www.abc-companies.com/models/TD925.asp. Last
accessed July 12, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding open-top double-decker buses, the vehicles are
manufactured as buses and are fully capable of operating at highway
speeds. We have observed these buses on high-speed freeways, with
passengers, as they make their way into Washington, DC. We note that
passengers on the top deck of an open-top double-decker bus face unique
risks compared to other buses. A collision at a relatively low speed or
an unexpected maneuver may expose passengers to an ejection risk. There
is even a risk of injury simply to stand up while the vehicle is in
operation.\73\ (We note again that, if a vehicle meets the definition
of an over-the-road bus, i.e., if there is a baggage compartment under
the elevated passenger deck, the bus must have lap/shoulder belts under
the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ On July 11, 2008, two passengers of an open-top double-
decker bus were killed when they stood as the bus went under an
overpass on an interstate highway in Washington, DC. A similar
incident occurred on May 30, 2009 near Mattoon, IL, which also
killed two passengers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Excluding ``sightseeing buses'' would not be reasonable. ``Sight-
seeing buses'' generally are not distinguishable from over-the-road and
heavy body-on-frame buses. They are manufactured as buses and are
capable of and are used on high speed roads. The sights to which they
travel may be far distances apart. Travelers are often riding on a
particular bus for lengthy tours and may ride the bus over long
distances over highways. The buses may pose unique ejection risks if
they also have overly-large window openings. Seat belts for the
passengers will meet a safety need. (If the bus meets the definition of
an over-the-road bus, i.e., if there is a baggage compartment under the
elevated passenger deck, the bus must have lap/shoulder belts under the
Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act.)
3. Limousine and Entertainment Buses, Buses With Multiple Wheelchair
Positions
    Turtle Top described three bus configurations (GVWR greater than
11,793 kg (26,000 lb)) that may be ordered with fewer than 16 DSPs and
asked whether they would be covered under the then-proposed motorcoach
definition. Two of these bus configurations are the limousine and
touring coach. Our answer is the limousine and touring/entertainment
coaches are subject to today's seat belt requirements if they are over-
the-road buses, regardless of seating capacity and regardless of GVWR,
under the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act. If the buses are not over-
the-road buses, they are subject to the final rule if they have a GVWR
greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), and have 8 or more forward-facing
DSPs rearward of the driver's position. We assume that the vehicles
meet the definition of a ``bus,'' which is defined in the Motorcoach
Enhanced Safety Act and our regulations as ``a motor vehicle with
motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10
persons.'' (See section 32702(2) of the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act
and 49 CFR 571.3.)
    The third bus configuration Turtle Top asked about is ``a coach
that has many wheelchair positions and not many seats.'' The coach is
subject to today's seat belt requirements if it is an over-the-road
bus, regardless of seating capacity and regardless of GVWR, under the
Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act. The designated seating positions on the
bus (not the wheel chair positions) must have lap/shoulder belts.
    If the bus is not an over-the-road bus, the following discussion
applies. NHTSA has interpreted the DSP definition such that wheelchair
seating positions are not DSPs and thus are not required to comply with
Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to DSPs, such as the
requirement in this final rule to have seat belts. However, we have
said that wheelchair positions are counted in determining vehicle
seating capacity for the determination of the type classification of a
vehicle.\74\ Accordingly, a vehicle would be subject to today's seat
belt requirements if it has a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb),
8 or more forward-facing DSPs or wheelchair positions rearward of the
driver's position, and at least 10 passenger DSPs or wheelchair
positions total.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/gm/78/nht78-3.31.html.
    \75\ We assume the bus is not a school bus. There are different
provisions for school buses (see, the DSP definition in 49 CFR
571.3, and FMVSS No. 222).

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

4. Military Ambulances
    Blue Bird described a military ambulance bus that it provides to
the General Services Administration (GSA) that is equipped with seats
that fold down to allow transport of litters for the wounded. Blue Bird
asked that the agency exclude this type of bus from the motorcoach
definition and thus from the lap/shoulder seat belt requirements for
passenger seats.
    In response, 49 CFR 571.7(c) specifies that, ``No standard applies
to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly
to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with
contractual specifications.'' It is not clear, but it is possible that
the sale Blue Bird describes is covered under 571.7(c). If the sale is
not covered by 571.7(c) and if the bus is an over-the-road bus, it is
required to have seat belts. If the ambulance bus is not an over-the-
road bus, if the ambulance bus has 7 or fewer forward-facing DSPs
rearward of the driver's position, it is excluded from the requirements
of this final rule.
5. Prison Buses
    MCI, Blue Bird and Turtle Top asked that vehicles designed to
transport prisoners be excluded from the formerly-proposed
``motorcoach'' definition. The commenters stated that these vehicles
are often equipped with small porthole style windows or metal screens
over existing windows, segregation cells, and fiberglass or stainless
steel low-back seats or benches (to optimize supervision and
observation) that are specially designed to be impervious to human
fluids and to have no crevices. The interior of the bus is designed to
provide an enhanced view of detainees by law enforcement officers and
to be free of loose articles that can be used as weapons and tools,
such as a seat belt assembly. Commenters stated that since the
detainees are often in restraints, the use of seat belts is impractical
in most cases. They noted that for reasons related to the unique needs
and purposes of prison buses, prison buses are currently excluded from
emergency exit and other requirements of FMVSS No. 217, ``Bus emergency
exits and window retention and release.''
Agency Response
    The agency agrees with MCI, Blue Bird, and Turtle Top that
passenger seats on buses designed for the transport of passengers under
physical restraint should be excluded from the amended FMVSS No. 208
requirements adopted today. The necessary features of the bus--
fiberglass or stainless steel low-back seats or benches--are
incompatible with installation of seat-mounted lap/shoulder belts.
Further, according to the commenters, lap/shoulder belt equipment pose
hazards as the buckle hardware and belt webbing could cause harm as
weapons or tools. In addition, it is unlikely that the prisoners will
be able to buckle themselves in, as their hands are usually handcuffed.
    Accordingly, this final rule excludes buses other than over-the-
road buses from the requirement to provide passenger seat belts on a
``prison bus'' for the reasons above. This final rule defines ``prison
bus'' as follows: ``Prison bus'' means a bus manufactured for the
purpose of transporting persons subject to involuntary restraint or
confinement and has design features consistent with that purpose. This
definition is based on a definition used in FMVSS No. 217. However,
because these practical reasons do not apply to the driver's seating
position, the driver's seating position is required to have lap/
shoulder belts as proposed in the NPRM. For the same reason, any
passenger seat opposite (not rearward of) the driver's seat is also
required to have a lap/shoulder belt since that seat is not usually
used by a prisoner.
    For over-the-road buses, the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act
requires over-the-road buses to have safety belts at each designated
seating position. The driver's seating position must be equipped with a
lap/shoulder belt. With regard to the passenger seats, we agree that
the seats and safety belts could pose sufficient risk to the safety of
guards and detainees that compliance with the final rule for passenger
seating positions could result in an overall reduced level of safety
compared to prison buses without the belts. Prison bus purchasers
seeking to avoid installation of passenger safety belts due to concerns
about the guards' safety should consider buses other than over-the-road
buses. If an over-the-road bus is a necessity, the bus manufacturer
could apply for an exemption from the requirements of this final rule
under 49 CFR Part 555, presenting information that the applicant is
unable to sell a bus whose overall level of safety is at least equal to
that of a non-exempted vehicle.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ 49 CFR 555.6(d). The number of exempted vehicles sold in
the U.S. in any 12-month period is limited to 2,500 vehicles, 49 CFR
555.6(d)(4). The exemption is limited to a period of 2 years by 49
CFR 555.8(b) but applications for renewal of the exemption are
automatically granted if filed within 60 days before termination of
the exemption and do not terminate until the Administrator grants or
denies the application for renewal. 49 CFR 555.8(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Transit Buses

    In the NPRM, based on an analysis of FARS data, we proposed that
``motorcoach'' would not include ``an urban transit bus sold for
operation as a common carrier in urban transportation along a fixed
route with frequent stops.'' Our analysis of FARS data showed that, for
buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), the bus body type
with the fewest fatalities at 8.2 percent was ``transit buses.'' We
tentatively determined that, due to a lack of a safety need, it was
warranted to exclude transit buses from the class of affected vehicles
(motorcoaches) to which the lap/shoulder seat belt requirements would
apply.
Comments
    In general, most of the bus and seat manufacturers commented that
the definition needs to better distinguish between the affected
vehicles and ``transit buses.'' In general, the public transit agencies
described three types of operations that cover most of the major
services they provide.\77\ These were: (a) ``Urban transit'' service,
characterized by fixed route operation with frequent stops; (b)
``express'' service, characterized by fixed route operation that is
similar to, but with less frequent stops than traditional urban transit
service, and with potentially short portions of the route on the
highway; and, (c) ``commuter express'' or ``premium express'' service,
characterized by longer routes with a significant portion on the
highway, with either single or frequent stops at each end of the route,
and no or few intermediate stops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ The public transit agencies also asked use-related
questions, such as whether passengers would be required to wear
their seat belts, how would standing passengers (standees) benefit
from seat belts, and whether standees would be permitted. Since this
final rule does not require belts for transit buses, and because the
NPRM did not broach these issues at all, NHTSA sees no need to
discuss these issues in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) expressed its
concern that the proposed ``motorcoach'' definition may confuse public
transportation agencies, bus manufacturers, and the riding public. APTA
explained that the term ``urban'' in the proposed definition would not
exclude all buses used in fixed route transit service with frequent
stops, ``fixed route'' would not exclude transit buses that are used
for route-deviated services with frequent stops (i.e., service that
conforms to riders' requests,

although still operating with frequent stops), and ``frequent stops''
may be interpreted to exclude express service (i.e., urban transit
service with less frequent stops, although still operated on city
streets). APTA suggested that the transit bus exclusion in the proposed
definition be replaced with the following: ``. . . [except] a transit
bus designed and procured for operation in public transportation other
than an over-the-road-bus as defined by the U.S. Department of
Transportation.''
    Turtle Top was concerned that the term ``urban transit bus'' is not
defined in the FMVSSs, and was concerned that a given bus could have
both over-the-road and urban transit applications.
    IC Bus stated that ``to properly exclude `urban transit bus' from
proposed motorcoach bus definition, it is our opinion that it may not
be possible to define a `motorcoach' without including the vehicle's
intended use, or vocation.'' IC Bus followed this statement by
presenting to the agency an option to define motorcoach based solely on
vehicle attributes and features. The features IC Bus presented were
essentially those of an over-the-road bus. The American Bus Association
(ABA) suggested NHTSA refer to the ``low-floor'' feature of urban
transit buses in defining the buses, but did not define ``low floor.''
Gillig, a transit bus manufacturer, and most of the public transit
agencies that commented, recommended that buses sold for or used to
provide public transportation services, regardless of configuration, be
excluded from the ``motorcoach'' definition. Gillig suggested that we
adopt the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) definition of ``urban
bus'' in 40 CFR 86.091-02.
Agency Response
    This final rule excludes transit buses from today's lap/shoulder
seat belt requirements because fatality data for urban transit buses
differ significantly from that of other buses with a GVWR greater than
11,793 kg (26,000 lb). We believe this difference is due in part to the
stop-and-go manner of transit bus operation. Updated FARS data from
2000-2009 continue to show that for all bus body types with a GVWR
greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), transit buses have the fewest
fatalities at 8.2 percent or 23 out of a total of 281. These same data
show that there were 20 fatal crashes involving occupants of urban
transit buses, resulting in fatalities of 11 drivers and 12 were
passengers. Thus, fatal transit bus crashes involve about one fatality,
on average. In summary, there are many fewer total fatalities and
fatalities per crash for transit buses, and thus a significantly lower
risk than in the buses covered by this final rule.
    We have not found a safety need justifying a lap/shoulder seat belt
requirement for transit buses. To the extent commenters believe there
is a safety need, this issue was not explored sufficiently in the NPRM.
We discuss the issue of seat belt requirements for the driver seat of
transit buses in section XIV of this notice.
    Many commenters were troubled that the proposed definition was not
sufficiently clear in distinguishing ``transit buses'' from the buses
that do need lap/shoulder seat belts. We agree and have adjusted the
proposed definition as follows:
     We made the regulatory text clearer in describing a
``transit bus'' by referring to a structural feature (a stop-request
system) that buses must have to be a ``transit bus.'' A ``stop-request
system'' means a vehicle-integrated system for passenger use to signal
to a vehicle operator that a stop is requested.
     We expanded the description of a transit bus by
recognizing that a transit bus could be sold for public transportation
provided not only by, but also on behalf of, a State or local
government, for example, by a contractor.
     We made clearer that over-the-road buses do not qualify as
``transit buses,'' even if the over-the-road bus has a stop-request
system or is sold for public transportation provided by or on behalf of
a State or local government.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act excludes a bus used in
public transportation provided by, or on behalf of, a public
transportation agency from its meaning of ``motorcoach.'' However,
we are applying this final rule to over-the-road buses used for
public transportation based on determinations we have made pursuant
to NHTSA's Vehicle Safety Act authority, 49 U.S.C. 30111, which has
existed and continues to exist prior to and separate from the
Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act provisions. The Motorcoach Enhanced
Safety Act does not indicate an intent by Congress to limit NHTSA's
rulemaking authority under the Vehicle Safety Act to issue
regulations for vehicles not covered by the Motorcoach Enhanced
Safety Act. We believe that the Act provides a minimum ``floor'' for
this regulation's scope, and not a ``ceiling'' to its reach. Thus,
the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act calls out a regulation for
``over-the-road buses'' without limiting our authority under the
Vehicle Safety Act to regulate other buses as appropriate, including
over-the-road buses used in public transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule adopts the following definition of ``transit bus''
and associated terms.
    ``Transit bus'' means a bus sold for public transportation provided
by, or on behalf of a State or local government, that is equipped with
a stop-request system and that is not an over-the-road bus. ``Stop-
request system'' means a vehicle-integrated system for passenger use to
signal to a vehicle operator that they are requesting a stop. ``Over-
the-road bus'' means a bus characterized by an elevated passenger deck
located over a baggage compartment.
    IC Bus suggested that we define motorcoach based solely on vehicle
attributes and features. We support the idea of using vehicle
attributes and features but the features IC Bus presented were
essentially those of an over-the-road bus. We will not adopt an
approach that narrowly limits the applicability of this final rule to
over-the-road buses. In fact, as discussed below, our intent has been
to make sure that over-the-road buses used for transit service do not
get excluded from this rulemaking. We have not adopted the ABA's
suggestion to refer to the ``low-floor'' feature of urban transit buses
in defining the buses. Among other things, there is a lack of
objectivity in the term, ``low-floor.''
    We disagree with Gillig and others suggesting that buses sold for
or used to provide public transportation services, regardless of
configuration, be excluded from coverage of the rule. We have decided
not to use the ``urban bus'' definition in 40 CFR 86.091-02 because
several of its terms are not specific enough for FMVSS purposes.
Moreover, we are concerned that some attributes of the definition would
exclude buses that should be included in this rulemaking, over-the-road
buses. Gillig suggested that we adopt the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) clarification of ``urban bus.'' We have decided not to do
so, because CARB's definition would exclude commuter buses (over-the-
road buses), which we intended to include in the definition of
``motorcoach.''
    It was NHTSA's intent in the NPRM to require lap/shoulder seat
belts on ``over-the-road'' buses operated by transit agencies. Over-
the-road buses used by transit agencies and over-the-road buses used by
private companies for intercity transport both carry large numbers of
passengers over long distances, and at highway speeds. Given the
occurrence of a crash, the risk of fatality is the same for both groups
of buses. It is not uncommon to see commuter express buses traveling on
the highway alongside privately-operated tour and charter buses of
nearly identical construction. We acknowledge that the public transit
agencies' safety record for operating commuter express service is
better than the safety record shown by some private sector operators.
However, given the overall similarity of the buses in construction and
use, we cannot distinguish, from a public safety standpoint, good
reasons for requiring

passenger lap/shoulder seat belts in only privately-operated versions
of the commuter express buses when the risk of rollover in a crash,
risk of fatal or serious injury in a rollover, and risk of fatal or
serious injury in all crashes are the same for both groups of
buses.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ We also note that many commuter express buses are sold to
private operators when the public transit agencies turn over their
fleets. An advantage to having passenger seat belts on the buses is
that when these commuter express buses are eventually turned to
private service, the used buses will have passenger seat belts on
them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address confusion about the transit bus exclusion, in this final
rule we have decided to adopt a more objective, simple description of
``transit bus.'' As suggested by APTA, we removed the terms ``fixed
route'' and ``frequent stops'' since those terms are not sufficiently
clear in meaning. In place of these terms, we have incorporating a
reference to a structural feature which is present for transit
operation along a route that makes frequent stops, a ``stop-request
system.'' The terms are no longer needed since a bus with a ``stop-
request system'' will likely be making frequent stops and thus operated
in a stop-and-go manner.
    We have removed the phrase ``. . . operation as a common carrier .
. .'' and added instead the phrase ``public transportation provided by,
or on behalf of, a State or local government.'' This is similar to
APTA's suggestion, but adds additional, important detail. We have also
added language that makes clear that an ``over-the-road bus'' does not
qualify to be a transit bus, even if it has a stop-request system. We
added text that defines ``over-the-road bus'' as in section 3038(a)(3)
of TEA-21. Section 3038(a)(3) of TEA-21 states that the term ``over-
the-road bus'' means a bus characterized by an elevated passenger deck
located over a baggage compartment.
    Gillig stated that transit buses are ``used interchangeably in
commuter and inter-city service with infrequent stops and on fixed
routes with frequent stops.'' The commenter stated that our proposal
had the effect of ``requir[ing] transit properties to know at the time
they place an order for a bus what specific service the bus will be put
into during its entire 12 year life, so that it can be configured
appropriately.'' We believe that the revised language adopted today
resolves the uncertainty to which Gillig refers. Transit procurers
purchasing a new bus with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)
will know this: (a) If the bus is an over-the-road bus, it will have
passenger lap/shoulder seat belts; (b) if it is not an over-the-road
bus, and the bus lacks a stop-request system, it will have passenger
lap/shoulder seat belts.

f. School Buses

    NHTSA stated in the NPRM that the initiation of rulemaking to
require passenger lap/shoulder seat belts on motorcoaches was not meant
to imply that seat belts are needed in school buses with GVWRs greater
than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) (``large school buses'') (75 FR at 50978).
The preamble referred to an October 21, 2008 Federal Register document
\80\ that had explained NHTSA's decision against requiring seat belts
on large school buses. Nevertheless, a number of commenters suggested
that passenger seat belts be mandated for these buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ 73 FR 62744, October 21, 2008. Response to petitions for
reconsideration, 75 FR 66686, October 29, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 25, 2011, we again addressed this issue in a separate
matter, denying petitions for rulemaking to mandate passenger seat
belts on large school buses (76 FR 53102).
    The issue of seat belts in school buses has been thoroughly
discussed in the two Federal Register documents cited above. This issue
is outside the scope of this rulemaking and will not be further
discussed in today's final rule.

g. Agency Observations

    We reiterate the observation made earlier in this preamble that it
appears that one of the problems with the NPRM regulatory text was that
it proposed a definition of ``motorcoach'' using a traditional term
(``motorcoach'') to describe a nontraditional universe of buses. As a
result, some readers were confused or perplexed that a bus they had
never considered to be a motorcoach would be a motorcoach under the
regulation. Buses can be configured in all sorts of nonconventional
ways to meet a host of functions. After reading the comments, we were
concerned that each new nontraditional bus configuration could yield
ambiguity on the part of the builder and operator--``Is this really a
motorcoach?''--because to some, the traditional term will occasionally
not ``fit'' some nontraditional bus design.
    We also observed that the statement: ``Motorcoach includes buses
sold for intercity, tour, and commuter bus service,'' seemed to confuse
rather than clarify because some commenters were apparently reading it
as inclusive rather than illustrative. Many commenters asked about
motorcoach services not mentioned in the clause, such as ``special
operations'' (e.g., casino services), airport express services,
contract services for business or government, and ``charter'' service,
wondering if these services were excluded. Greyhound pointed out that
the clause was confusing and suggested that NHTSA remove it and instead
limit the motorcoach definition to visible attributes and construction
characteristics, while accommodating the exclusions of transit buses
and school buses.
    We agree with Greyhound on this matter. Rather than causing the
confusion associated with the NPRM's use of the term ``motorcoach,''
this final rule simply extends the FMVSS No. 208 requirements, and the
FMVSS No. 210 requirements which follow from that, to all new over-the-
road buses, and to new non-over-the-road buses with a GVWR greater than
11,793 kg (26,000 lb), except for very few bus types. This approach
simplifies the regulatory text and makes it easier for the public to
understand the applicability of the amended requirements. This accords
with plain language principles.

IX. Requiring Seat Belts at Passenger Seating Positions

    The NPRM proposed to amend FMVSS No. 208 to require the
installation of lap/shoulder seat belts at all passenger seating
positions on buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) (a
class proposed in the NPRM as ``motorcoaches''). NHTSA issued the
proposal to address the risk of ejection on ``motorcoaches,''
particularly in rollover crashes, and to improve occupant crash
protection in all crashes, particularly frontals. Based on the VRTC
examination of the effect that lap/shoulder seat belts had in a full-
scale barrier crash of a motorcoach and in subsequent sled testing,
NHTSA decided to propose requiring lap/shoulder seat belts at all
forward-facing and rear-facing seats. The VRTC frontal crash test
program showed that lap/shoulder belts at forward-facing seating
positions were effective at preventing critical head and neck injury
values from being exceeded, whereas dummies in lap-only belts in
forward-facing seats measured HIC and Nij values surpassing critical
thresholds. The NPRM proposed that the performance of the lap/shoulder
belt anchorages be tested to FMVSS No. 210, as is the case with all
other vehicles where seat belts are required.
    On July 6, 2012, the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act was signed,
directing NHTSA to ``prescribe regulations requiring safety belts to be
installed in motorcoaches at each designed seating position.'' Under
the Act, ``safety belts'' mean lap/shoulder belts (see section
32702(12) of the Act)

and ``motorcoach'' means ``over-the-road bus'' (a bus characterized by
an elevated passenger deck located over a baggage compartment) but does
not include a bus used in public transportation provided by, or on
behalf of, a public transportation agency, or a school bus (see section
32702(6) of the Act).

Comments

    Many commenters soundly supported the proposal to require lap/
shoulder belts for motorcoach passengers. These included: NTSB,
Consumers Union, Advocates for Highway Safety, Center for Auto Safety,
National Association of Bus Crash Families/West Brook Bus Crash
Families, groups representing pediatricians and child passenger safety
advocates, and school bus transportation organizations. Seat suppliers
IMMI and American Seating, and the Automotive Occupant Restraints
Council supported the proposal, as did 31 of approximately 42 private
individuals who commented.
    Motorcoach transportation providers were divided in their reaction
to the proposed requirement for lap/shoulder seat belts for passengers.
The operators of the larger fleets in the industry were generally
supportive of the proposal. As noted below, there were concerns
expressed by providers about costs associated with the upkeep and
maintenance of seat belts and enforcement of belt use.
    Many commenters did not support the proposal.
    The majority of smaller transportation providers opposed having
seat belts for passenger seating positions. Most of these commenters
cited the excellent overall safety record for their industry, increased
cost, low belt use rate, and difficulties in enforcing seat belt use.
About 30 submitted a form letter that stated that the costs associated
with a retrofit requirement would put many companies out of business
since they are already operating at or close to a loss.
    Also opposed to the proposal were 10 individuals who generally
cited the low annual number of motorcoach fatalities, possible low seat
belt use rate, perceived poor comfort, difficulty of enforcing use, and
a belief that the cost per life saved was high. Many suggested that
efforts should be placed on ``more meaningful'' safety reforms than
seat belts, such as driver training programs, limiting the driver's
operating hours and/or distance traveled between breaks, and monitoring
driver performance.
    The People Republic of China (PRC) suggested that seat belts be
required only in the first row or any forward seat without ``obvious
shielding'' and remain optional for all other passenger seating
positions. The commenter suggested that passengers in other rows will
have seat backs in front of them to shield them and thus it is
unreasonable to assume that these passengers will be ejected because
there is no seat belt. PRC also stated many passengers may not use lap/
shoulder belts since ``the motorcoach is a public transportation tool,
travelling at relatively slow speed, and most of the passengers travel
on shorter routes, going on and off frequently.'' \81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ The last sentence seems to be describing transit bus
transportation. [Footnote added.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bus manufacturers generally did not overtly support or oppose the
proposal, but most expressed concern about one or more aspects of it.
MCI believed that the NPRM's foundation for a claim of enhanced
rollover protection is ``significantly speculative and not based on
demonstrated fact,'' and that NHTSA should conduct more research on
this. Turtle Top asked that seat belts be a safety option. Blue Bird
indicated that it supported NHTSA's efforts but asked that NHTSA
exclude buses that met Federal school bus roof crush and occupant
protection (lap belt) requirements. Several European bus manufacturers
(Van Hool, Setra) stated that the FMVSS No. 210 seat belt anchorage
requirement will cause seat backs to be too rigid, and suggested we
adopt European belt anchorage requirements instead.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Issues related to FMVSS No. 210 will be addressed in a
later section of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response

    In 1999, 2004, and 2008, the country experienced a series of
catastrophic heavy bus crashes.\83\ May 1999--bus crash outside of New
Orleans, Louisiana, 9 ejections, 22 fatalities and 16 serious injuries.
October 2004--crash of a 47-passenger bus near Turrell, Arkansas, 30
ejections, 14 passenger fatalities and the driver. January 2008--crash
of a bus near Mexican Hat, Utah, 50 ejected and 9 fatalities. August
2008--crash of a bus carrying 54 passengers near Sherman, Texas, 17
fatalities. October 2008--crash of a bus heading from Sacramento, 12
ejected, 10 fatalities, over 30 injured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ These and other heavy bus crashes were summarized in the
NPRM at 75 FR 50964-50965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These crashes, and others, involved buses of the very types we are
covering under today's final rule.
    Some commenters believe that if the buses had seat belts, ``it is
likely . . . [friends and family members and others] would be alive
today,'' \84\ while others believe that a claim of enhanced rollover
protection due to seat belts is ``significantly speculative.'' Some
commenters suggested that the NPRM represents ``too much solution for
not enough problem,'' \85\ and that it targets an ``insignificant
problem'' (``twice as many Americans are killed each year by fire ants
[than on motorcoaches]'' \86\). Some did not think a seat belt
requirement was worthwhile because they doubted the seat belts would be
worn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ National Association of Bus Crash Families/West Brook Bus
Crash Families, October 18, 2010.
    \85\ NHTSA-2010-0112-0009.
    \86\ NHTSA-2010-0112-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We issued this final rule in accordance with the Vehicle Safety Act
and the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act. We carefully assessed the
safety need for the standard. NHTSA prescribes motor vehicle safety
standards that protect the public against unreasonable risk of
accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or performance
of a motor vehicle, and against unreasonable risk of death or injury in
an accident. In prescribing this standard, we considered all relevant,
available motor vehicle safety information, and considered whether a
standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the types of
motor vehicles for which it is prescribed.
    In issuing this final rule, NHTSA considered the relevant,
available motor vehicle safety information, without speculation or
conjecture. After considering all relevant, available safety
information, we determined that the standard is warranted. We have
assessed the benefits and costs of this final rule, both quantitative
and qualitative, and have made a reasoned determination that its
benefits justify its costs. In addition, the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety
Act directs that over-the-road buses must have ``safety belts'' (lap/
shoulder belts).
    We have found an unreasonable risk of death or injury that will be
addressed by this final rule. Although fatal crashes of the affected
vehicles do not occur frequently, when serious crashes do occur, these
can cause a significant number of fatal or serious injuries in a single
event, most often due to rollover and ejection, but also due to
passengers colliding with objects or structures within the bus. From
2000-2009 FARS data, 55 percent of the fatalities in fatal crashes of
the affected vehicles were in rollovers. The vast majority of
fatalities in rollovers were ejections. Forty-two percent of fatalities
are in frontal crashes. While serious crashes resulting

in occupant fatality do not occur frequently, when they do occur in the
affected vehicles, passengers are exposed to heightened risks of
rollover and ejection and harm from collision.
    There is a reasonable and practicable way to reduce the risk of
fatality or injury in crashes of the covered vehicles. The risk of
ejection can be reduced by seat belts, a simple, effective, and
relatively inexpensive countermeasure. Lap/shoulder seat belts are
estimated to be 77 percent effective \87\ in preventing fatal injuries
in rollover crashes and 82 percent in preventing AIS 2-5 severity
injuries, primarily by preventing ejection. Moreover, we estimate that
even at a minimum passenger seat belt usage rate of only 4 to 5
percent, the rule will remain cost effective. The availability, cost,
and effectiveness of this countermeasure render the risk of death or
injury in a serious crash of the affected vehicles unreasonable. As a
result of this rule, when the covered buses are involved in the serious
crash, the risk of death or injury to passengers will be significantly
reduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ 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. 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. Real-world data are not available for the
effectiveness of lap/shoulder belts in motorcoaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lap/shoulder seat belts reduce the risk of occupant fatality and
injury when the occupants are not ejected. Nearly half of the
fatalities (45 percent) in the covered vehicles are in non-rollover
crashes, and more than half of these are not ejected. In light
vehicles, lap/shoulder belt effectiveness for fatalities is estimated
to be 29 percent in frontal crashes, 42 percent in side crashes; for
injuries of AIS 2-5 severity level, it is 34 percent in frontal crashes
and 47 percent in side crashes. Id. In our seat belt test program
conducted pursuant to the 2007 ``NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach
Safety'' plan, lap/shoulder belts prevented elevated head and neck
injury values and provided enhanced occupant protection compared to lap
belted and unbelted configurations. Hence, available safety information
indicates that lap/shoulder belts will reduce the risk of death and
injury in non-rollover crashes as well.
    Motor vehicle safety information from the best available research
programs demonstrates further a sound scientific basis supporting this
final rule.
    Data from VRTC's December 2007 full-scale vehicle crash test show
that lap/shoulder seat belts have a significant effect in a 48
kilometers per hour (30 miles per hour) frontal barrier crash test. All
belted test dummies remained securely fastened in their motorcoach
seats, while the unbelted dummies were typically ejected from their
seats and ended up in the aisle or in the seats in front of them (75 FR
at 50967). The agency followed up the full-scale barrier test by
conducting sled tests (laboratory crash simulations) using a
representation of the crash pulse from the barrier test. In the sled
tests, we evaluated the bus seats without seat belts, the seats with
lap/shoulder belts, and the 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 from being exceeded in
almost all configurations using the crash pulse from the bus barrier
test.
    In addition, data from full-vehicle rollover tests demonstrate the
efficacy of lap/shoulder seat belts in even \1/4\-turn bus
rollovers.\88\ The tests followed a protocol modeled after the Economic
Commission for Europe Regulation No. 66 (ECE R.66) \89\ full-vehicle
\1/4\-turn rollover test. The ECE R.66 test tips the bus using a
platform that raises one side of the bus at a steady rate of not more
than 5 degrees/second until the vehicle reaches its unstable
equilibrium, commences a quarter-turn rollover, and strikes a hard
surface. (The rollover test is illustrated below in Figure 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ``ECE
Regulation 66 Based Research Test of Motor Coach Roof Strength, 1992
MCI MC-12 Motor Coach, NHTSA No.: CN0801,'' May 20, 2008; National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ``ECE Regulation 66 Based
Research Test of Motor Coach Roof Strength, 1991 Prevost LeMirage
Motor Coach, NHTSA No.: CM0801,'' May 20, 2008; and National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, ``ECE Regulation 66 Based Research
Test of Motorcoach Roof Strength, 2000 MCI 102-EL3 Motor Coach,
NHTSA No.: MY0800,'' October 1, 2009.
    \89\ Uniform Technical Prescriptions Concerning The Approval of
Large Passenger Vehicles With Regard to the Strength of Their
Superstructure.

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO13.004

    In three tests we conducted, fully-instrumented Hybrid III 50th
percentile adult male test dummies were positioned in aisle seats
opposite the impact side, with one dummy unrestrained and the other
restrained by a seat-integrated lap/shoulder belt. In all three tests,
the restrained dummies remained secured to the seat and produced injury
values significantly below FMVSS No. 208 Injury Assessment Reference
Values (IARVs) for the Hybrid III 50th percentile adult male test
dummy. In contrast, the unrestrained dummies fell head first across the
occupant compartment and struck the bottom of the luggage compartment
and/or the side windows, which produced injury values well above the
IARVs in two of the tests. Injury values for the restrained dummies
never exceeded 40 percent \90\ of the IARV, while the injury values for
the unrestrained dummies reached levels up to 590 percent of the IARVs.
Alarmingly too, the final resting position of the unrestrained dummy in
all three tests was on the impact side window, which has been the most
common ejection portal in real-world rollovers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ The restrained dummy that produced an injury value of 40
percent of the IARV was positioned in a seat that detached from the
vehicle during the impact due to displacement of the side wall and
rolled across the occupant compartment. This seat was installed by
the agency to gauge lap/shoulder belt effectiveness and was not an
original equipment seat. Injury values for restrained dummies where
the seat remained attached to the vehicle did not exceed 12 percent
of the IARV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to PRC, these rollover test data and the data from the
full-scale barrier crash test support our finding that shielding the
motorcoach passenger between seat backs is not enough to prevent
ejection from the area between the seats or from the vehicle. Lap/
shoulder seat belts are needed on these vehicles. In response to MCI,
we will not postpone this final rule until further research is done.
The technical basis supporting this rule is robust and known now.
    The testing has also demonstrated that installing lap/shoulder seat
belts in motorcoaches is practicable. Today, lap/shoulder belts
integral to the vehicle seat are offered on many new motorcoaches. The
lap/shoulder seat belt/seating systems are readily available from seat
suppliers and can be installed by the vehicle manufacturer. Some seat
suppliers offer to help provide the engineering analyses bus
manufacturers can use to certify compliance with Federal motor vehicle
safety standards.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ http://www.cewhite.com/testing-lab [Last accessed February
28, 2012.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will not agree to allow lap/shoulder seat belts to be installed
at the manufacturer's or purchaser's discretion. The benefits of lap/
shoulder belts are realized in all crash modes and will have a
significant impact on safety in the deadliest of crashes, rollovers and
frontal impacts. When the agency has made a determination to issue an
FMVSS to meet a safety need, the benefit of the FMVSS are applied to
all travelers equally and are not made optional. Moreover, in this case
it would be an unjust policy that provides no choice to the persons who
would be

protected by the lap/shoulder seat belts--the passengers--as to whether
the lap/shoulder belts will be provided in the buses in which they
ride. For over-the-road buses, the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act
requires these buses to have lap/shoulder belts.
    In 2007, the majority of the motorcoach trips (65 percent) were
made by children and senior citizens.\92\ This final rule protects
these vulnerable populations, as it protects all persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ In 2007, the majority of the motorcoach trips (65 percent)
were made by children and senior citizens. ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although fatal crashes of the covered vehicles occur infrequently,
the crashes can affect the public's confidence in the safety of
motorcoach transportation. Then-NTSB Acting Chairman and board member
Mark V. Rosenker noted: ``[M]otorcoach travel is also one of the safest
modes of transportation, but when accidents and fatalities do occur,
the public's perception of the safety of motorcoach travel can be badly
damaged, and once they perceive something as being unsafe it is very
hard to change their minds.'' \93\ Mr. Rosenker observed: ``[W]hen
tragedies occur they attract a huge amount of media attention, and as a
result, the potential exists for the public to lose confidence in our
transportation systems.'' In its comments on the NPRM, the United
Motorcoach Association stated: ``Maintaining the confidence of
consumers is of critical importance to the motorcoach industry.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ Remarks of Mark V. Rosenker, Acting Chairman NTSB, before
the Greater New Jersey Motorcoach Association, June 3, 2009, http://www.ntsb.gov/news/speeches/rosenker/mvr090603.html [last accessed
February 3, 2012]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's final rule will help sustain public confidence in the
safety of the covered vehicles. Today's final rule is a first step
toward a time when news of a serious crash of a subject bus is not
associated with a catastrophic number of fatal and serious injuries. As
consumers become familiar with lap/shoulder seat belts on the covered
buses and more aware of the protection they provide, we expect not only
use rates to increase, but public confidence in the safety of the
affected buses to be bolstered as well.
    A number of private transportation providers asked who will enforce
a seat belt use requirement and what type of violations will be cited
to the carrier if passengers are found not wearing their seat belts.
Arrow Coach Lines suggested that the states should consider adopting
mandatory seat belt use laws on buses equipped with seat belts, but
also suggested that enforcement will be a problem since police officers
cannot see inside a bus while it is traveling on a highway. American
Bus Association recommended that this rulemaking be followed and
supported by a strong DOT effort to encourage motorcoach seat belt use,
including incentives or sanctions to states to enforce seat belt use
rules and the DOT should support such efforts in reauthorization.
    Regarding requirements that drivers should instruct passengers on
seat belt use, it is correct that such requirements are outside of
NHTSA's regulatory authority.\94\ United Motorcoach Association
suggested that FMCSA should revise their guidance for pre-trip
announcements and/or instructions to include reminders and directions
for passengers regarding the use of seat belts. DOT and FMCSA are aware
of and are considering these comments concerning the drivers' role in
instructing passengers to use their seat belts. DOT, FMCSA and NHTSA
are continuing work on the Departmental plan on motorcoach safety and
are considering the next steps that could be taken to increase
passenger use of the seat belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ Similarly, a few commenters asked about the use of seat
belts at wheelchair positions. This final rule does not require the
use of seat belts by any passenger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We recognize that seat belt use rates could be low at first,
possibly because the belts may seem strange and unfamiliar in the bus.
However, we also believe passengers' attitudes about using seat belts
can change, just as public opinion changed on using seat belts in
passenger vehicles and on restraining children in child safety seats.
In 1994 passenger vehicle seat belt use rate was 58 percent. The 2010
data show the highest ever passenger vehicle seat belt use rate at 84
percent.\95\ Mandatory seat belt use laws and child safety seat laws no
doubt had a role in changing attitudes, but we believe that attitudes
also changed when people became more aware of the safety benefits
provided by the safety equipment. We believe that, as more and more
covered buses are manufactured with lap/shoulder seat belts, the
public's familiarity with and awareness of the safety benefits of the
lap/shoulder belts on these buses will grow, and with that, seat belt
use rates will too.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ DOT HS 811 378. Traffic Safety Facts Research Note: Seat
Belt Use in 2010--Overall Results, September 2010. www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811378.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even today, we believe that lap/shoulder seat belts in covered
buses are cost effective with just a usage rate of only 4 to 5 percent.
It is only if the belts are available that passengers will have the
opportunity, the choice, to take the step to use them.
    Some transportation providers expressed concerns about having to
pay more for buses with seat belts, and the depressing of business
because of cost being passed on to passengers. A few said that the
resale value of its used buses will be substantially reduced and that,
since sale of the used buses helps fund the purchase of new buses, some
will not be able to purchase new motorcoaches within a normal 12-year
cycle.
    We have weighed these matters in our decision-making. The
incremental cost of this final rule will be relatively small. The
agency estimates that the highest annualized cost due to this rule,
including fuel cost, is $7.0 million. According to the 2008 Motorcoach
Census,\96\ in 2007 there were 751 million trips taken on motorcoaches
in the U.S. and Canada. If the increase in price of a motorcoach were
distributed among these trips, it would account to a one cent increase
in the price of a ticket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As far as the claimed decrease in the resale price of motorcoaches,
secondary and tertiary effects of safety regulations are highly
speculative and are not typically attributed to the cost of a rule.
Even if we were to assess these effects, the commenters did not provide
information enabling us to assess or substantiate these claims.
    We note that the commenters depict a scenario in which any change
to the FMVSSs that requires a new or improved safety feature will have
the effect of reducing the resale value of the used vehicles that do
not have the safety feature. We note further that this scenario would
apply to all vehicles, not just motorcoaches. A person selling a used
car that does not have, for example, side impact air bags, competes
against a person selling a used car that does. It would be unreasonable
for NHTSA not to adopt an FMVSS that requires a new safety device or
upgrades to an existing safety feature because the effect of the
amendment would lower the demand for some used vehicles. We note also
that the demand for vehicles that have the safety feature (e.g.,
passenger lap/shoulder seat belts on buses) has the positive effect of
possibly expediting the transition to lap/shoulder seat belt-equipped
buses in the fleet.
    Arrow Coach Lines commented that the costs associated with
maintenance and upkeep of passenger seat belts in

the covered buses were not discussed in the NPRM, and stated that seat
belts will be a ``maintenance nightmare.'' Trans-Bridge Lines stated
that it has had seat belts cut, tied into knots, and intentionally
broken in their seat belt-equipped buses, which has added additional
expenses for their company to inspect, maintain, and repair the seat
belts.
    In response, we first want to be clear that there is no requirement
in the final rule that applies to the operators, such as a maintenance
requirement. Second, we do not believe that the costs of maintaining
the belts, if any, will be impactful. The commenters did not provide
any data on this cost. The agency does not have reason to believe that
this work will need to be done more than incidentally or that it will
amount to a real cost, attributable to the cost of the rule. Belt
maintenance work is not generally recognized as a necessity or as
subject to a schedule (unlike safety systems such as tires, where it is
generally recognized that the average tire lasts 45,000 miles).
Further, we expect that the cost of maintaining the belts, if any, to
be very small in comparison to the cost of upgrading the buses with
seat belts. In response to a commenter, the assertion that non-seat
belt related safety items may suffer in some bus garages due to the
rule because the time required to maintain belts may come at the
expense of checking other safety items is speculative and we cannot
give credence to it without some kind of substantiation of this serious
claim.
    Three private transportation providers expressed concern over the
impact on liability and insurance costs for their non-seat belt
equipped motorcoaches if passenger seat belts are installed in new
motorcoaches. Vandalia Bus Lines asked how it will market the current
fleets without seat belts, and how will insurance companies handle the
operators who do not install seat belts because of retrofit costs.
    On the issue of liability and private insurance costs to operators
of existing non-seat belt equipped motorcoaches, the commenters did not
provide any estimate of the potential increase in operating costs. The
assertions about these effects are highly speculative, and have not
been substantiated or quantified by the commenters. Further, the
assertions are at most related to the cost of doing business and not to
the cost of the rule. We also believe that, to the extent commenters
are arguing against adoption of the NPRM, it would be unreasonable for
NHTSA not to adopt an FMVSS that establishes new safety requirements or
upgrades an existing safety feature because of assertions about the
effect of the amendment on liability and insurance costs associated
with operating used vehicles that do not meet the new or upgraded
standard.

Other DOT Initiatives

    Some motorcoach transportation providers suggested that NHTSA
direct regulations towards areas other than seat belts, such as
improving vehicle fire resistance, reducing driver inattention and
detecting fatigue, and adding passive safety elements such as increased
roof strength, improved emergency exits, and seat padding.
    This regulation mandating the installation of lap/shoulder belts on
over-the-road buses is required by the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act.
At the same time, many of the alternatives to a lap/shoulder seat belt
requirement suggested by various motorcoach operators, such as
improving fire resistance, increasing structural integrity, and
reducing driver fatigue and inattention, are being explored by DOT as
outlined in the Motorcoach Safety Action Plan, and in furtherance of
provisions in the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act regarding research and
rulemaking. However, these actions will be complementary to, not a
replacement for, this action on seat belts. Motorcoach crashes are not
exclusive to a particular type of enterprise or driver. DOT is taking
all reasonable efforts to improve the crashworthiness and
crashavoidance characteristics of the vehicles; we have determined that
providing passengers lap/shoulder seat belts will amount to an
unprecedented enhancement of motorcoach safety.
    With regard to other DOT initiatives, FMCSA notes that, although
the amendments to FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210 are not applicable to new
buses built for sale and use in Canada, FMCSA is developing a
rulemaking to cross-reference the new FMVSS requirements, the effect of
which would be to require motor carriers operating in the U.S. to have
seat belts on the buses. FMCSA explains that it has traditionally held
all motor carriers operating in the U.S. to the same safety
requirements via 49 CFR Part 393, ``Parts and Accessories Necessary for
Safe Operation,'' and that the FMCSA rulemaking would apply to Canada-
domiciled bus operators traveling into the U.S. Thus, FMCSA states, in
the event FMCSA adopts a rule to require carriers to maintain the seat
belts, those requirements may be applied to Canada- and Mexico-
domiciled carriers operating buses manufactured on or after the
compliance date included in the NHTSA rule.
    In summary, for the above reasons, NHTSA has deemed unreasonable
the present occupant fatality risk in buses with a GVWR greater than
11,793 kg (26,000 lb), given the risk of fatality and serious injury in
rollover and frontal crashes, and the proven protection afforded by
lap/shoulder seat belts, an available and relatively inexpensive
countermeasure. NHTSA has issued today's final rule to reduce that
risk, and to fulfill the statutory mandate of section 32703(a) of the
Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of 2012.

X. Type of Belt System on Forward-Facing Seats

    The NPRM proposed to require lap/shoulder belts for forward-facing
passenger seating positions, and not lap belts.

Comments

    1. Van Hool and Setra requested that lap or lap/shoulder belts that
meet the European regulations be allowed as an alternative to the
proposed requirements.
    2. Blue Bird said that it manufactures non-school buses with a GVWR
greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). The buses meet the Federal school
bus safety standard for roof crush (FMVSS No. 220, ``School bus
rollover protection'') and have seats that meet the Federal school bus
standard for passenger crash protection (FMVSS No. 222, ``School bus
passenger seating and crash protection''). Blue Bird requested that we
allow buses that meet FMVSS No. 220 and that have passenger seats
meeting FMVSS No. 222 to have lap-only belts instead of lap/shoulder
belts.
    3. Prevost, a coach manufacturer,\97\ requested that lap-only belts
be allowed at any seat where the occupant is not at risk of striking
its head.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ Prevost is a division of Volvo Group Canada Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response

    The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act directs NHTSA to ``prescribe
regulations requiring safety belts to be installed in motorcoaches at
each designed seating position.'' ``Safety belts'' mean lap/shoulder
belts (see section 32702(12) of the Act). Consistent with the
Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, this final rule requires lap/shoulder
belts at each designated seating position in over-the-road buses,
regardless of the direction the seat faces.
    For buses other than over-the-road buses, this final rule requires
lap/shoulder belts at each passenger

designated seating position, except side-facing seats may be equipped
with a lap belt instead of a lap/shoulder belt. We respond to the
comments as follows.
    1. We decline to allow the option of lap-only belts at forward-
facing passenger seating positions on the buses, even lap belts that
meet European regulations (ECE R.14 and ECE R.80 are discussed in
section XVI of this preamble) and even if the seats meet some of the
requirements of FMVSS No. 222.
    Our decision is based on the results of NHTSA's test program
conducted as part of the agency's 2007 ``NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach
Safety'' plan. These tests found that lap/shoulder belts in forward-
facing seats prevented elevated head and neck injury values and
provided enhanced occupant protection compared to lap belts.
    In the VRTC full-scale over-the-road bus crash, 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 area between seats, compared to the lap-belted dummies and
unbelted dummies.
    In the VRTC sled tests of 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.
     When lap/shoulder-belted dummies were subject to loading
(of their seats) by an aft unbelted dummy, there was additional forward
excursion of the lap/shoulder-belted dummies, but the resulting average
head injury measures were still relatively low in most cases, even in
cases when the head contacted the seat in front.
     Lap/shoulder-belted dummies were better restrained in the
oblique sled tests, conducted at a 15-degree angle, than lap-belted
dummies. They had lower injury measures and were retained in their
seats.
    In contrast to the lap/shoulder-belted dummies, the results for lap
only dummies showed--
     HIC and Nij measures exceeded the IARVs for virtually all
the dummies tested (there was a 50th percentile male dummy which
measured a HIC of 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.
    2. Blue Bird requested that the final rule allow the option of lap-
only belts at forward-facing passenger seating positions on buses that
meet FMVSS No. 220 and FMVSS No. 222. Our reasons to decline to allow
the option of lap-only belts at forward-facing passenger seating
positions are explained above. Further, if the passenger seats on the
bus did not meet FMVSS No. 222's seat spacing requirements, then lap
belts alone may not provide a sufficient level of occupant protection
on the buses. This is because the compartmentalization protection
offered by FMVSS No. 222 is not simply predicated on the physical
characteristics of the seat, but also the limited seat spacing. This
limited spacing serves to control the occupant velocity such that
impacting the forward seat back is less injurious.
    3. We decline Prevost's suggestion to allow lap-only belts at any
seat where the occupant is not at risk of striking its head.
Considering that the highest accelerations in motorcoach crashes are
typically produced during frontal or rear impacts, and these
accelerations are predominantly in the longitudinal direction, lap/
shoulder belts will provide the best protection for non-side facing
occupants in all forward-facing seats, even for seats that are in a
``clear'' area (no chance of head impact). NHTSA crash and sled testing
of motorcoaches and motorcoach seats clearly showed the superior
protection offered by lap/shoulder belt as compared to lap belts for
forward-facing occupants. Lap/shoulder belts are superior to lap belts
in a frontal crash because they provide more surface area for an
occupant's body to react with during a crash when compared to lap-only
belts, and the forces are spread over the pelvis and torso (with lap/
shoulder belts) rather than the pelvis alone (as with lap-only belts).

XI. Integrated Anchorages

    We proposed that the lap/shoulder seat belt anchorages, both torso
and lap, be required to be integrated into the seat structure for
passenger seats, except for the belt anchorages in the last row of the
coach (if there is no wheelchair position or side emergency door behind
these seats) and in the driver seating position. We proposed integral
lap/shoulder belts on the buses 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 is consistent with a 2010 amendment
adopted regarding passenger crash protection on small school buses and
optionally provided seat belts on large school buses (FMVSS No. 222).
    The last row was proposed to be excluded from the requirement
because 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.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ However, we proposed that 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed excluding the driver's seating position from the
requirement 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.

Comments

    All persons commenting on this issue were generally supportive of
the requirement.
    C.E. White stated that the driver lap/shoulder belt should be
integrated into the seat frame and it should include an adjustable
shoulder height mechanism.
    American Seating recommended that seat integrated anchorages not be
made a requirement for side-facing seats. American Seating argued that
side-facing seats should be excluded for the same reason as the last
row of seats since non-integrated seat belts at these positions would
not impede occupant egress.

Response

    We do not agree that the driver position seat belts should be
integral to the seat. As stated in the NPRM, the reason for requiring
passenger seats to have integrated lap/shoulder seat belts is 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.'' We do not find
there to be a similar need for the driver position. The driver seating
position was originally excluded in the NPRM from such a requirement
because the driver compartment is usually separated from the passenger
compartment by a bulkhead or partition. The driver's shoulder belt
anchorage can be attached to the seat structure, side wall, or bulkhead
without increasing risk of entanglement of the driver or passengers
during egress. Though there may be a comfort advantage for integrating
seat belt

anchorages into the driver seat, there is no clear safety benefit in
requiring them to be integrated.
    In reference to C.E. White's request that the shoulder height be
adjustable, we note that all the fit and adjustment requirements of
S7.1 of FMVSS No. 208 are being required for the driver position of
affected buses. Regarding AORC's request that the lap/shoulder belt
move with any suspension seat, we note that we believe this issue is
already sufficiently addressed for all buses by the regulatory text of
FMVSS No. 208. This section has a requirement that the automatic
locking retractor used at a driver seating position of a suspension
system must be attached to the seat structure that moves as the
suspension system functions. In addition, the lap belt portion of a
seat belt equipped with an automatic locking retractor must allow at
least 19 mm (\3/4\ inch), but less than 76 mm (3 inches) of webbing
movement before retracting webbing to the next locking position. We see
no need for any changes to this section for the affected vehicles.
    The agency agrees with American Seating's view that seat-integrated
anchorages need not be made a requirement for side-facing seats. We
note that side-facing seats were excluded from the requirement for
integrated anchorages based on the regulatory text presented in the
NPRM. We agree to adopt this text in the final rule, thereby excluding
any passenger seat that does not have another seat, a wheelchair
position, or a side emergency exit door behind it, for the reasons
provided in the NPRM.
    In addition, NHTSA is excluding any right front outboard seating
position that is not rearward of the driver's seat from the requirement
that the lap/shoulder seat belt system must be integrated into the seat
structure. (The lap/shoulder belts are still required for that
position, but they do not need to be integrated into the seat
structure.) The agency has decided on this provision because under
current FMVSS No. 208, the seat belt assemblies of the right front
passenger designated seating position and the driver's designated
seating position are subject to the same seat belt requirements.
Currently, there are final-stage manufacturers, some of which are small
businesses, which manufacture body-on-frame buses by combining an
incomplete vehicle that has a driver seat and a right front passenger
seat (a chassis cab) with a bus body. We wish to address the situation
where a final-stage manufacturer obtains an incomplete vehicle in which
the driver seat and the right front passenger seat have non-integral
lap/shoulder belts. We do not believe there is a safety need to require
the final-stage manufacturer to replace the right front passenger seat
(which might have non-integral lap/shoulder belts) with a seat that has
integral lap/shoulder seat belts. This is because the right front
passenger seat is typically located away from an area that passengers
will be traversing to egress the vehicle, and because this provision
involves only this one passenger seat on the bus.
    Such a provision provides flexibility to final-stage manufacturers
using chassis cabs. The manufacturer will be able to use the seating
systems that were provided by the chassis cab manufacturer without
having to replace the right front passenger seat with a seat that has a
different belt system.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ In furtherance of this flexibility, this final rule will
also subject the seat belt assembly of the right front passenger
designated seating position to the requirements applying to the seat
belt assembly of the driver's seating position. We conclude there is
no safety downside to this approach since it only involves a single
passenger seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

XII. Seat Belt Adjustment, Fit, Lockability, and Other Requirements

    NHTSA proposed that the lap/shoulder belts installed for passengers
and drivers include provisions for seat belt adjustment and fit as
specified in S7.1 of FMVSS No. 208. Specifying belt adjustment and fit
ensure that the lap and shoulder belt portions of the seat belt
assembly are able to accommodate passengers whose dimensions range from
those of a small child to a large adult male. Through references in
FMVSS No. 208, NHTSA proposed 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 proposed that the seat belt at each designated
seating position, besides the driver position, meet the FMVSS No. 208
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.
    The NPRM also proposed 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.

Comments

    Seven commenters responded to this aspect of the NPRM, generally
supporting requirements for adjustment and fit. There were some
questions raised about the lockability requirements, but as explained
below, it seemed to some extent that these were based on a
misunderstanding of lockable seat belts.

Agency Response

    We note that IMMI stated that it is aware of concerns in the
industry about lockability requirements being satisfied by an automatic
locking retractor (ALR), which the commenter associated with possible
increased harm to passengers. The commenter did not elaborate what it
meant by ``harm to passengers,'' and we know of no reason why
lockability would lead to harm on motorcoaches. Seat belts in passenger
cars and other light duty vehicles have had to meet lockability
requirements since the 1990s.
    The agency disagrees with Setra's concern that passenger seats that
use a locking retractor for the lap portion ``will restrict passenger
freedom to move during long trips and would be quite disagreeable.''
This final rule requires that all passenger seats in affected vehicles
have seat belt assemblies that are equipped with an emergency locking
retractor (ELR).\100\ When an ELR and lockability are required, vehicle
manufacturers commonly use a switchable seat belt retractor (ELR/ALR)
that can easily be converted from the ELR mode to the ALR mode to meet
both requirements.\101\ For a lap/shoulder (Type 2) belt system, the
lap portion of the seat belt can also be made lockable by using a
continuous-loop seat belt with the switchable retractor providing
tension to the lap belt portion through the shoulder belt portion.\102\

Such seat belt systems, which are commonly used in current light
passenger vehicles, can meet the passenger seat ELR and lockability
requirements of this rule without significantly restricting the
occupant's freedom of motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ An ELR is a seat belt retractor that locks only in
response to the rapid deceleration of a vehicle or rapid spooling
out of the seat belt webbing from the retractor, and increases the
comfort of the seat belt assembly compared to an automatic locking
retractor (ALR). An ALR is a seat belt retractor that locks when the
continuous motion of spooling the belt out is stopped. From that
point, the seat belt cannot be pulled out any further without first
letting the seat belt fully retract into the retractor housing.
    \101\ A switchable retractor (ELR/ALR) can be converted from an
ELR to an ALR without the use of any tools by slowly pulling all of
the webbing out of the retractor, which engages the ALR mode, and
letting the retractor wind the webbing back up. In ALR mode, the
seat belt is lockable for use with child restraints.
    \102\ A continuous-loop lap/shoulder belt is a three-point belt
that uses one continuous piece of webbing that slides through a
latch plate. It is connected at one end to the vehicle at the anchor
point and the other to a retractor system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IMMI suggested that we permit bus manufacturers to install child
restraint anchorage systems (FMVSS No. 225, ``LATCH'' systems) at some
passenger seats in lieu of meeting lockability requirements.
SafetyBeltSafe and Safe Ride News suggested that LATCH be required at
some passenger seating locations in the buses. We are not adopting
these suggestions. Child restraint systems are required \103\ to be
capable of attachment to the vehicle seat using the seat belt system
and using the child restraint anchorage systems. Motorists are familiar
with the belt system to attach child restraints to the vehicle seats.
Since the public has gained a strong familiarity using seat belts with
child restraints, we are adopting the lockability requirement for all
passenger seating positions on the covered buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ FMVSS No. 213, ``Child restraint systems.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also disagree with SafetyBeltSafe and Safe Ride News that the
final rule should require LATCH at some passenger seating locations in
the buses covered by this rule. This issue was not proposed in the
NPRM. Note also that bus manufacturers are not prevented from offering
LATCH to purchasers of their vehicles if they choose to do so.
    Setra objected to the idea that the vehicle owner's manual must
include information about using a device such as a lockability feature,
believing it not to be practical toward providing bus passengers the
prescribed information. The agency disagrees with Setra's belief that
instructions in the owner's manual on how the seat belt assembly can be
made to accommodate a child restraint serve little or no purpose.
Though the owner's manual (or other form of written instruction) might
not be directly available to the bus passengers, the instructions will
be available to the vehicle operator. Instructions regarding the
operation of safety-related vehicle systems at both the driver and the
passenger seating positions, including those required by FMVSS No. 208,
should be available to the bus operator to assist passengers as needed.
Such information could pertain to using the seat belt lockability
function for the installation of child restraints, and importantly,
disengaging the feature when the belt has to be returned to its ELR
state for a subsequent adult passenger.
    We disagree with IMMI that the adjustable upper shoulder belt
anchor point requirement should be identical to the range for larger
occupants in FMVSS No. 210 for school bus seats, i.e., 280 mm to 520
mm. We do not agree that the extended range of seat belt adjustment
required for school buses is needed for the vehicles affected by this
final rule. In travel on the affected vehicles, a booster seat can be
more readily used, if needed, to obtain proper shoulder belt fit than
on school buses, since an adult would likely be traveling with the
child on the commercial bus to provide and supervise use of the booster
seat.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ IMMI, SafetyBeltSafe and Safe Ride News's comments about
potential problems with requiring manually locking belts equipped
with switchable retractors on large school buses is outside the
scope of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reading Setra's comment, we reviewed proposed S7.1.6 (FMVSS
No. 208) and found it was oversimplified in the NPRM. We have corrected
the language in the final rule to more closely reflect S7.1.1 of
current FMVSS No. 208, from which it was derived. Specifically, the fit
requirements have been extended down to the 50th percentile 6-year-old
child and the seat back position has been corrected to indicate the
nominal design position.
    While reviewing Setra's comment on S<IP_ADDRESS>(c), we realized that
current S7.1.3 of FMVSS No. 208 was unintentionally left out of the
proposed amendatory text for the passenger seating positions. S7.1.3
requires that the intersection of the upper torso belt and lap belt in
any lap/shoulder belt assembly, when adjusted in accordance with the
manufacturer's instructions, must be at least 6 inches from the
vertical centerline of a 50th percentile male occupant when measured
along the centerline of the lap belt. This is an important feature of
proper belt fit that is applicable to most current seating
positions.\105\ This section has been added to the requirements adopted
today for the seating positions on the affected vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ Passenger seats of large school buses voluntarily equipped
with seat belts do not need to meet this requirement because of the
unique seat geometry associated with these seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

XIII. Passenger Seats That Are Not Forward-Facing

    For side-facing seating positions, the NPRM provided manufacturers
with the option of installing either a lap or a lap/shoulder belt. This
option was consistent with FMVSS No. 208 (S<IP_ADDRESS>), which allows lap
belts for side-facing seats on buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000
lb) or less. The agency proposed to permit lap belts in side-facing
seats because we were unaware of any demonstrable increase in
associated risk. We also noted that a study commissioned by the
European Commission regarding side-facing seats on minibuses and
motorcoaches found that due to different seat belt designs, crash modes
and a lack of real world data, it cannot be determined whether a lap
belt or a lap/shoulder belt would be the most effective.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive/projects/safety_consid_long_stg.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments

    Turtle Top asked why require either type of seat belt for side-
facing seats. IMMI and American Seating recommended that forward-facing
seating be mandated. They believed that mixing forward-facing seating
with rear-facing or side-facing seating can result in unbelted
passengers colliding with belted passengers during a crash. American
Seating claimed that shoulder belts may cause serious neck injuries
when applied to side-facing passenger seating positions. These and
other comments are addressed below.

 Agency Response

    The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act directs NHTSA to ``prescribe
regulations requiring safety belts to be installed in motorcoaches at
each designed seating position.'' The term ``safety belts'' means lap/
shoulder belts (see section 32702(12) of the Act) and ``motorcoach''
means ``over-the-road bus'' (with certain vehicles excepted). Thus, the
Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act requires over-the-road buses to have
lap/shoulder belts at each designated seating position, which includes
side-facing seats.
    1. In response to Turtle Top, mandating seat belts at side-facing
seats is consistent with the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act. In
addition, such a mandate is consistent with NHTSA's determination that
seat belts at side-facing locations will provide a clear benefit in
rollovers, especially in preventing ejection. Seat belts are required
for side-seating by FMVSS No. 208 in buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb) or less for that reason. The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act
requires seat belts on side-facing seats only in over-the-road buses.
Because seat belt systems will be effective in heavy buses generally,
we are not going to forgo requiring seat belts at side-facing seats in
non-over-the-road buses.

    As to the specific type of seat belt, the final rule will require
lap or lap/shoulder belts (at the manufacturer's option) at side-facing
seats on all affected buses, except over-the-road buses. For over-the-
road buses the final rule will require lap/shoulder belts in side-
facing seats, consistent with the MAP-21 Congressional mandate, as
opposed to allowing the option for lap or lap/shoulder belts.
    There is not sufficient information that substantiates concerns
about lap/shoulder belts on side-facing seats to a degree that would
support prohibiting such belts. Yet, NHTSA acknowledges there have been
concerns about the shoulder belt on side-facing seats, which we have
weighed in past decisions not to require lap/shoulder belts on side-
facing seats for any vehicle type of any weight.
    In the 2004 Anton's Law final rule we specifically declined to
require lap/shoulder belts on side-facing seats of light vehicles
because we believed ``the addition of a shoulder belt at this seat
position is of limited value, given the paucity of data related to side
facing seats.'' \107\ However, we declined to prohibit lap/shoulder
belts ``because we [were] unaware of any demonstrable increase in
associated risk.'' The agency's view on this matter has not changed.
There is not enough information showing the effect, positive or
negative, of the shoulder belt on side-facing seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ 59 FR 70907.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, although we have no direct evidence that shoulder belts
may cause serious neck injuries when applied to side-facing seats, we
are aware of simulation data that are indicative of potential carotid
artery injury when the neck is loaded by the shoulder belt.\108\ In
addition, as we noted in 2004, the Australian Design Rule ADR 5/04,
``Anchorages for Seatbelts'' has specifically prohibited shoulder belts
for side-facing seats since 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ Editors: Fildes, B., Diggs, K., ``Occupant Protection in
Far Side Crashes,'' Monash University Accident Research Center,
Report No. 294, April 2010, pg. 57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe there are design considerations that could possibly
mitigate a risk of neck injury. In the 2004 Anton's Law final rule we
noted that a study funded by the European Commission (EC) regarding
side-facing seats on minibuses and motorcoaches found that the addition
of a panel directly in front of a side-facing seat would help restrain
a belted occupant in a frontal crash in a manner that would prevent
either spool-out from the belt or belt loading against the neck.\109\
The literature review in this same report also stated that neck loading
by shoulder belts in frontal crashes can be avoided by locating the
shoulder belt anchorage rearward of the occupant neck. We recognize
that this could limit the restraint of an occupant's upper torso, given
that the shoulder belt may slip off the shoulder.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ This report may be viewed at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/files/projects/safety_consid_long_stg_en.pdf.
    \110\ Note that our final rule does not prohibit manufacturers
from installing a forward panel or a rearward anchorage location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our understanding is that there would be few, if any, side-facing
seats on over-the-road buses, so the real-world implications of this
issue might be narrow. Given that there are unknowns about shoulder
belt loading of an occupant's neck on a side-facing seat, and in view
of the small number of side-facing seats on the buses in question,
manufacturers of over-the-road buses seeking to install lap belts on
side-facing seats may petition NHTSA for a temporary exemption from the
requirement to install lap/shoulder belt at side-facing seats, under 49
CFR Part 555. The basis for the petition is that the applicant is
unable to sell a bus whose overall level of safety is at least equal to
that of a non-exempted vehicle.\111\ The agency would be receptive to
the argument that, for side-facing seats, lap belts provide an
equivalent level of safety to lap/shoulder belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ 49 CFR part 555 limits the number of exempted vehicles
sold in the U.S. in any 12-month period to 2,500 vehicles. The
exemption is limited to a period of 2 years by 49 CFR 555.8(b) but
applications for renewal of the exemption are automatically granted
if filed within 60 days before termination of the exemption and do
not terminate until the Administrator grants or denies the
application for renewal. 49 CFR 555.8(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The issue of mandating only forward-facing seats was not a part
of the NPRM. In the NPRM, we indicated our awareness of other seating
directions when we proposed to permit either a lap belt or lap/shoulder
belt for side-facing seats. The commenters suggesting that affected
vehicles be restricted to forward-facing seats did not present data
showing a safety need for prohibiting seats other than forward-facing
seats. While we recognize there is potential for occupant-to-occupant
contact when seating configurations are intermixed, this final rule
mitigates such potential contact by specifying that some type of seat
belt must be provided at all passenger seating positions.
    3. The NPRM preamble did not mention rear-facing seats even though
we meant to apply the proposed lap/shoulder belt requirements to those
seats, as shown by the proposed regulatory text that included language
for rear-facing seats. We note for clarification purposes that this
final rule requires lap/shoulder belts at all passenger seating
positions other than side-facing seats, not just forward-facing
positions.
    4. BroendumSeats requested that the regulation include ``sleeper
seats,'' which are seats that can be reconfigured into a couchette by
the passengers to allow them to lie down while the motorcoach is
moving. BroendumSeats suggested that this type of seat should meet the
proposed regulations when configured as an ordinary coach seat and also
be required to restrain the occupant when configured as a couchette and
tested using the same forces as used for the sitting position.
    In response, we cannot consider the suggestion to apply seat belt
requirements to ``sleeper seats'' when configured as couchettes at this
time. Such seats need to meet the requirements of the final rule when
configured as ordinary coach seats. The couchette configuration was not
contemplated during development of the NPRM, nor does the agency have
any technical data or market volume data to assess the safety need
involved or how NHTSA should address it.

XIV. Driver's Seat

    In the NPRM, the agency explained that FMVSS No. 208 currently
allows an option of a lap or lap/shoulder belt for the driver seating
position in buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). The
NPRM proposed to amend FMVSS No. 208 to require lap/shoulder belts for
the driver seating position in (the vehicles the NPRM proposed to
define as) motorcoaches (generally buses with a GVWR greater than
11,793 kg (26,000 lb) except transit and school buses) and in ``large''
(GVWR over 4,536 kg (10,000 lb)) school buses. (``Small'' school buses
(GVWR less than or equal to 4,536 kg (10,000 lb)) are already required
to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts for the driver's seating
position.)
    The agency proposed not to require lap/shoulder belts for drivers
of transit or other buses. We stated that ``[t]hese buses are driven in
different environments than motorcoaches,'' and that ``Motorcoaches are
often driven on highways and other high-speed roads, so the risk of
injury is greater for drivers of these [motorcoach] vehicles'' as
compared to other buses. The NPRM did not provide any estimate of the
potential costs and benefits of a lap/shoulder belt requirement but
requested comment on the issue.

Comments

    All 16 commenters on this issue supported the proposal.
    NTSB stated that it is pleased with the proposal to require lap/
shoulder belts for the driver position in motorcoaches and large school
buses and that such a requirement addresses NTSB Safety Recommendation
H-90-75.
    The National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation
Services (NASDPTS) expressed strong support for the lap/shoulder belt
requirement for the driver position in motorcoaches and in large school
buses. NASDPTS said that in response to the NPRM, it conducted an
informal survey of the manufacturers of large school buses and found
that currently all new large school buses are being manufactured with a
lap/shoulder belt at the driver position. It stated that most states
already require lap/shoulder belts at the driver position of school
buses and that the School Transportation Specifications and Procedures
of the National Congress on School Transportation has recommended that
the states adopt this requirement since 1990. The National School
Transportation Association also supported the lap/shoulder belt
requirement for the driver position of large school buses.
    SafetyBeltSafe, Safe Ride News, Advocates, and two seat
manufacturers expressed support for the lap/shoulder belt requirement
for the driver position of motorcoaches and large school buses, but
recommended that it include all buses, including urban transit buses.

Agency Response

    The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act requires over-the-road buses to
have lap/shoulder belts at each designated seating position, which
includes the driver position.
    In satisfaction of the Act, and in accordance with the NPRM, this
final rule requires a lap/shoulder belt for the driver position in
over-the-road buses, and in other buses as discussed in the NPRM.
    In response to commenters requesting that the requirement be
expanded to include the driver position of all buses, we are not
agreeing to this suggestion without providing more opportunity to the
public to comment on the issue.
    After the comments were received, we reanalyzed accident data for
the driver's position for these other buses. First, looking at the data
for drivers of buses above the 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) threshold and
below that threshold, we found that drivers of buses between 4,536 kg
and 11,793 kg (10,000 lb and 26,000 lb) are at slightly less risk of
fatality than the drivers of motorcoaches above the 11,793 kg (26,000
lb) threshold. On an annual basis, there are 0.7 driver fatalities in
the buses between 4,536 kg and 11,793 kg (10,000 lb and 26,000 lb) as
compared to 4.1 in the motorcoaches above the 11,793 kg (26,000 lb).
These data present that there is less of a safety need to require lap/
shoulder belts for the driver positions of buses below the 11,793 kg
(26,000 lb) threshold than for buses above the 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)
threshold.
    Second, regarding the driver's position on transit buses, 2000-2009
FARS data show that for transit buses with a GVWR of 11,793 kg (26,000
lb) or less, transit bus drivers had zero fatalities during this 10
year period. For buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb),
the analysis showed that the number of annual driver fatalities for the
category of vehicle in FARS termed transit bus body type is 1.1, as
compared to 4.1 for non-transit and non-school buses. Thus, the target
population for transit bus drivers is about one-quarter of that for
drivers of buses covered by this final rule.
    To further learn about this issue, we also conducted a cost/benefit
analysis for requiring a lap/shoulder belt at the driver position of
buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). This analysis
found that the cost per equivalent life saved for drivers in the
covered buses (GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)) ranged from
$0.01 to $0.04 million, drivers in mid-size buses (GVWR from 4,536 to
11,793 (10,000 to 26,000 lb)) ranged from $0.04 to $3.1 million and
drivers in transit buses (GVWR greater than 4,536 kg or 10,000 lb)
ranged from $0.04 to $0.8 million.
    The issue of requiring lap/shoulder belts at the driver position of
large transit buses was not discussed in a meaningful way in the NPRM.
Thus, the transit bus industry, including manufacturers, purchasers,
and operators of transit buses, did not provide in-depth comment on
this issue in response to the NPRM, nor have we been able to benefit
from reading comments on the issue. In the absence of this, this final
rule will not extend the lap/shoulder belt requirement beyond driver
positions of the buses covered in the NPRM.

XV. Seat Belt Signage and Other Reminders

    We have decided against requiring passenger seat belt use signage
or auditory reminders on covered buses at this time. At this time, the
agency does not know enough about the use of seat belt use signage and
reminders on covered buses and does not have information on their cost
and effectiveness at promoting passengers to use seat belts. In its
comment, Trans-Bridge Lines said that it found that the majority of its
passengers do not use belts in spite of having signage asking
passengers to fasten their seat belts and having the driver instructing
them to do so.
    It is unclear how auditory seat belt reminders for the passengers,
as suggested by some commenters, could be implemented without a sensor
to determine the occupancy of the seat and switches in the belt buckles
to determine their use. Such a requirement would be relatively
expensive, and it does not seem like a prudent investment. Trans-Bridge
Lines commented that its drivers must focus on the safe operation of
the bus and cannot simultaneously enforce seat belt fastening rules.
    UMA believed that FMCSA should revise their guidance for pre-trip
announcements and/or instructions to include reminders and directions
for passengers regarding the use of seat belts. We have informed FMCSA
of UMA's comment.

XVI. Strength Requirements

    NHTSA proposed that lap/shoulder belts on the covered buses be
required to meet the anchorage strength requirements of FMVSS No. 210.
Because the agency proposed a requirement that the passenger lap/
shoulder belts must be integrated into the seat structure, the agency's
view was that a seat belt anchorage strength requirement not only
specifies the strength of the seat belt attachment to the vehicle seat,
it also performs the vital function of ensuring 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.'' NPRM, 75 FR at 50973.
    In FMVSS No. 210, lap/shoulder belt anchorages and attachment
hardware are required to withstand a 13,345 N (3,000 lb) force applied
to the lap portion and a 13,345 N (3,000 lb) force simultaneously
applied to the torso portion of the belt assembly, for 10 seconds.\112\
Anchorages, attachment

hardware, and attachment bolts for seats with multiple designated
seating positions are tested simultaneously. The seat belt anchorage
comprises any component involved in transferring seat belts loads to
the vehicle structure. See S3, FMVSS No. 210. Since the seat belts will
be attached to the vehicle seat on the covered buses, the seat belt
anchorage includes the seat frame and seat pedestal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------