models, for retrofit eligibility and possible retrofit, to increase the
value and likelihood of a sale. UMA stated: ``The absence of a retrofit
requirement and/or retrofit standard will likely spur the largest
number of compliant seatbelt [sic] equipped in the shortest amount of
time.''

Other Issues

     UMA noted that a retrofit requirement could create a
cottage industry of unqualified seat belt installers, particularly for
motorcoaches not used for public transportation and owned by
institutions such as colleges, churches, and the like.
     ABA noted that the vast majority of motorcoach operators
(approximately 80 percent) are small businesses with less than 10
employees operating fewer than 7 motorcoaches. ABA stated that the only
way to ensure consistency in the evaluation and upgrading of in-use
motorcoaches to a retroactive manufacturing standard is to establish
Federal specifications and a Federal inspection and evaluation program.
ABA stated that without Federal grants for motorcoach operators to
perform such retrofits, many operators would not be able to finance
such vehicle upgrades.
Agency Response
    For a number of reasons, NHTSA and FMCSA have decided not to issue
a rule on retrofitting seat belt systems on buses subsequent to initial
manufacture. Information from bus manufacturers indicates that
establishing requirements to equip buses with seat belts in all
passenger seating positions subsequent to initial manufacture would not
be cost effective or reasonably feasible from an engineering
perspective. Significant strengthening of the bus structure would be
needed, if achievable, to accommodate the additional seat belt loading,
particularly for those buses that have been in service longer. In some
buses, retrofitting with seat belts might not be structurally possible.
    In the FRIA, NHTSA presents an analysis of the cost effectiveness
of a retrofit requirement, based on the age of the bus to be
retrofitted. Two assumptions about costs are included in the analysis.
The low cost estimate assumes that the most recent buses can be
retrofitted with new seats with lap/shoulder belts and no new
structure. Thus, there is little weight gain and fuel costs are only
included for the weight of the belts themselves. This is the lowest
cost assumption resulting in an estimated installation cost of $14,659.
As would be expected, retrofitting becomes less cost effective as a bus
gets older, because costs remain the same in our example (but may
actually increase in real life), but benefits decrease as there is less
remaining life for the bus. Compared to the guideline of $6.3 million
per life saved, even with the lowest cost estimate for a retrofit
($14,659/bus and no fuel cost), seat belt usage has to be 39 to 53
percent for a one-year-old bus to break even and it increases by about
4 percentage points per year to get to 54 to 64 percent by age five.
Under a higher installation cost assumption ($40,000, with fuel costs
only for the weight of the belts and not for added structure), the
breakeven point in belt usage is 76 to 81 percent for a one-year-old
bus and quickly becomes higher than seat belt usage in light vehicles.
Retrofitting a five year-old or newer buses would result in a breakeven
point in belt usage from 82 percent to greater than 83 percent, i.e.,
most of the range exceeds the belt usage rate for passenger vehicles.
So, if one were to estimate the costs of retrofit at $40,000 per bus,
retrofit is not a cost effective option for buses one to five-years-
old. If one were to estimate the costs of retrofit at the lowest
possible price, seat belt use would need to exceed 54 to 64 percent to
make it worthwhile to retrofit a five-year-old bus. Many commenters
emphasized that the cost of retrofitting will impact many small
businesses that do not have large profit margins. We agree with the
point that public policymakers need to consider that retrofitting costs
could divert financial resources from other safety-related efforts,
such as driver training and bus maintenance.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ Even with lap belts, significant strengthening of the
motorcoach structure may be needed in order to accommodate the
additional seat belt loading, particularly for those buses that have
been in service longer. While the distribution of the loading may be
different, lap belts will still need to restrain the same amount of
loading as lap/shoulder belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We understand that many consumer groups and individuals want to
accelerate the installation of seat belts in the entire motorcoach
fleet by requiring retrofitting. However, comments from those in favor
of retrofitting did not present information offsetting the economic and
technical challenges of a retrofit requirement.
    We did not obtain helpful information from the comments as to how
they foresaw the enforcement of a retrofit program. It is one thing to
visually inspect the buses to see if there are seat belts at passenger
seating positions, it is another to assess the seat belt system to see
if the seat belts and anchorages would hold in a crash and withstand
the loading from the passengers. A seat belt requirement that does not
have a way to assess whether belt systems will adequately restrain
passengers is of diminished value.
    Given the low benefits of a retrofit requirement and high costs
associated with it, and given the agencies' limited resources, we have
decided against developing and implementing a retrofit program. We
believe that Departmental and industry resources should be applied to
achieve more benefits in other program areas.
    A few commenters expressed the view that NHTSA lacks the authority
to require retrofitting of seat belts. A discussion of this issue does
not need to be undertaken at this time since the agencies are not
pursuing a retrofit program for seat belts, but it is a matter on which
we disagree with the commenters, and a topic for discussion at the
appropriate time. We note here that section 32703(e)(2) of the
Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, ``Retrofit Assessment for Existing
Motorcoaches,'' states that ``The Secretary may assess the feasibility,
benefits, and costs with respect to the application of any requirement
established under subsection (a) or (b)(2) to motorcoaches manufactured
before the date on which the requirement applies to new motorcoaches
under paragraph (1).'' Subsection (a) of section 32703 is the provision
in the Act that directs the establishment of this final rule for safety
belts on motorcoaches.
    Regarding a retrofit requirement that would apply only to a subset
of used buses, such as more recently-manufactured buses, there are
still many challenges with a retrofit requirement for the subset of
vehicles. Environmental factors and how the buses were used would
affect the ability of the bus to support the belt loads. NHTSA does not
have the resources to assist in the development of a practical program
that would assess the performance of the retrofitted seat belts.

None of the respondents provided data that would guide the agency in
addressing this issue, even for newer buses.

XIX. Regulatory Alternatives

    NHTSA examined the benefits and costs of the adopted amendments,
seeking to adopt only those amendments that contribute to improved
safety, and mindful of the principles for regulatory decision-making
set forth in Executive Orders 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' and 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.''
NHTSA has analyzed the merits of requiring lap belts for passenger
seating positions as an alternative to lap/shoulder belts for those
seating positions, knowing, however, that the Motorcoach Enhanced
Safety Act requires lap/shoulder belts on over-the-road buses. NHTSA
also considered ECE R.14 anchorage strength requirements as an
alternative to FMVSS No. 210 requirements. These alternatives are
addressed below.

The Alternative of Lap Belts

    The agency examined the alternative of a lap belt only requirement
(as an alternative to lap/shoulder belts) for passenger seats in buses.
(We note that the alternative of lap belts is not available under the
Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act requirement for lap/shoulder belts on
over-the-road buses.) We determined that the lap belt alternative was
not a reasonable alternative. Lap belts, while effective against
ejection, would provide only a portion of the benefits of passenger
frontal crash protection as lap/shoulder belts. Further, test data also
leads NHTSA to believe that certain types of injuries would be far more
severe if passenger seats only were equipped with lap belts, rather
than lap/shoulder belts. In addition, data indicate that motorists are
more inclined to use lap/shoulder belts than lap-only belts. These
points are discussed below.
    Real world data on light vehicles has led the agency to require
lap/shoulder belts rather than lap belts in as many seating positions
in light vehicles as practical. Both light vehicle data and sled
testing with motorcoach seats show that lap belts are not as effective
as lap/shoulder belts in reducing injuries and fatalities, particularly
in frontal impacts. Our analysis in passenger cars of the effectiveness
of lap belts in reducing fatalities in frontal impacts was zero, while
it was 29 percent for lap/shoulder belts.
    Testing done in NHTSA's motorcoach test program 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 motorcoach 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
seating, 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 with
head contact with the seat in front in some cases.
    In the FRIA (see Table V-6 of the FRIA) accompanying this final
rule, we highlight the average injury measurements from two sled tests
conducted with lap-belted 5th percentile adult female and 50th
percentile adult male dummies. Two crash pulses were utilized in these
sled tests, the VRTC pulse and the EU pulse. Both tests were conducted
with no rear occupants. Table V-6 of the FRIA shows the average dummy
response in the lap belted sled tests. In every instance, the dummies
exceeded the head and neck IARVs when the dummies were lap belted.
    In contrast to the lap/shoulder-belted dummies, the sled test
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.
    In the FRIA (see Figure V-17 of the FRIA), we compare the average
HIC15 and Nij values for the 5th percentile adult female and
50th percentile adult male dummy sizes in the sled testing program, as
a means to compare the relative performance of each restraint strategy
(unbelted, lap belts, and lap/shoulder belts). Figure V-17 of the FRIA
shows that the lowest average HIC and Nij values were associated with
the lap/shoulder belt restraint for both dummy sizes. The lower
HIC15 and Nij values for the lap/shoulder restraint
condition are consistent with the dummy kinematics, which indicated
that the lap/shoulder belt restraint limited head contact with the
forward seat back, particularly for the 5th percentile adult female
dummies. In contrast, most of the average injury measures for the lap
belt restraint condition were at or above the IARVs. In the sled tests,
lap belts resulted in more injuries than being unrestrained, while lap/
shoulder belts were the most effective restraint strategy. We also note
that, while in the test program we did not measure risk of abdominal
injuries, abdominal injuries have been shown to be a problem with lap
belts.\153\ All this information overwhelmingly shows that lap/shoulder
belts would provide more safety benefits to occupants on the affected
buses than lap-only belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ Morgan, June 1999, ``Effectiveness of Lap/Shoulder Belts
in the Back Outboard Seating Positions,'' Washington, DC, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is also a difference between the restraint systems in terms
of estimated belt use rates. In the FRIA, NHTSA estimates that the
breakeven point for lap belt use is 2-3 percent, and for lap/shoulder
belt use the breakeven point is 4-5 percent (a difference of 2
percentage points). The agency has found that lap/shoulder belt usage
is 10 percentage points higher than lap belt usage in the rear seat of
passenger cars. Assuming that this relationship would hold for the
covered buses, the information indicates that lap/shoulder belts would
also be more cost effective than lap belts.

Alternative Anchorage Strength Requirements

    In an earlier section of this preamble, NHTSA discussed its
decision that the lap/shoulder belt anchorages (and the seat structure
itself) must meet FMVSS No. 210 requirements. We sought comment on the
alternative of applying the requirements of ECE R.14 and ECE R.80
rather than FMVSS No. 210.
    As the agency does in all its FMVSS rulemaking, in developing this
final rule NHTSA considered international standards for harmonization
purposes. The agency thus reviewed regulations issued by Australia and
Japan. In Australia, buses with 17 or more seats and with GVWRs greater
than or equal to 3,500 kg (7,716 lb) must comply with ADR 68 (Occupant
Protection in Buses). The ADR 68 anchorage test specifies

simultaneous application of loading from the belted occupant, the
unbelted occupant in the rear (applied to the seat back), and the
inertial seat loading from a 20 g crash pulse. We estimate that the ADR
68 anchorage test would result in significantly greater (1.5 times
higher) anchorage loads than those measured in our sled tests. In
addition, the maximum deceleration in our 48 km/h (30 mph) motorcoach
crash test was only 13 g compared to the 20 g specified for inertial
seat loading in ADR 68. For these reasons, NHTSA decided not to further
consider ADR 68. NHTSA decided against further consideration of Japan's
regulation because Japan requires lap belts, and as explained above,
the agency has concluded that lap belts are not a reasonable
alternative.
    NHTSA has compared ECE R.14 and ECR R.80 to FMVSS No. 210 to see if
the ECE regulations offer greater benefits than FMVSS No. 210. Our sled
and static testing indicated that ECE R.14/ECE R.80 regulations do not
provide the level of seat belt anchorage strength required for the
foreseeable frontal crash scenario represented by a 48 km/h (30 mph)
barrier impact. The static load requirements for ECE R.14 and ECE R.80
are far below that required to generate the peak seat anchorage loads
that NHTSA measured in its sled tests, which means a seat that
minimally meets the ECE required static loads for M3 vehicles may
separate from its floor anchorages in a crash, especially in a severe
frontal crash where tri-loading of the seat occurs.
    We have also compared ECE R.14 and ECR R.80 to FMVSS No. 210 to see
if the ECE regulations offer less costs than FMVSS No. 210. The
information from the seat manufacturers indicate that meeting ECE R.14
and R.80 would not necessarily result in cost or weight savings. Seat
supplier IMMI stated that its own review determined that meeting ECE
R.14 would result in minor material reductions compared to a seat
meeting FMVSS No. 210, resulting in minimal savings per seat assembly.
U.S. seat suppliers C.E. White and IMMI and possibly others already
have established their structural concepts and production to meet FMVSS
No. 210. For these reasons, we have decided to adopt FMVSS No. 210 and
not the ECE standards.

XX. Overview of Costs and Benefits

    Based on FARS data 2000-2009, annually there were 20.9 fatalities
and 7,934 injuries to occupants of covered buses. We estimate that
installing lap/shoulder seat belts on new covered buses will save 1.7-
9.2 lives and prevent 146-858 injuries (3.46-25.17 equivalent lives),
depending upon the usage of lap/shoulder belts in the vehicles (Table
9).\154\ The cost of adding lap/shoulder belts will be approximately
$2,101 per vehicle. Lifetime fuel costs due to an increased weight of
the bus will be an additional cost of $794 to $1,077 (estimated in
Table 10 below). Total costs are estimated to range from $6.4 to $8.6
million for the 2,200 buses sold per year (all costs are in $2008). The
cost per equivalent life saved is estimated to range from $0.3 million
to $1.8 million (Table 11).

                Table 9--Estimated Benefits of Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities................................  1.7 to 9.2.
AIS 1 Injuries (Minor)....................  89 to 536.
AIS 2-5 (Moderate to Severe)..............  57 to 322.
Total Non-fatal Injuries..................  146 to 858.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Table 10--Estimated Costs of Final Rule
                               [in $2008]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Per average     Total fleet
                                              vehicle       ($Millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bus Driver..............................           $7.54           $0.02
Bus Passenger...........................        2,094               4.6
Fuel Costs @ 3%.........................        1,077               2.4
Fuel Costs @ 7%.........................          794               1.7
New Vehicle and Fuel Costs
@ 3%....................................        3,178               7.0
@ 7%....................................        2,895               6.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Table 11--Costs Per Equivalent Life Saved
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Cost per equivalent life saved           3% to 7% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
50% Belt use for drivers and 15% Belt usage for   $1.5 to $1.8 mill.
 passengers.
83% Belt usage..................................  $0.3 to $0.3 mill.
Breakeven point in passenger belt usage.........  4 to 5%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     Table 12--Annualized Costs and Benefits
                                         [In millions of $2008 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Annualized      Annualized
                                                     costs         benefits               Net benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount Rate..............................            $7.0     $28.5-158.6  $21.5 to 151.6.
7% Discount Rate..............................             6.4      21.8-121.1  15.4 to 114.7.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cost of installing lap/shoulder belts on new buses is estimated
as follows. For the driver, the difference in costs between a lap belt
only and a lap/shoulder belt at the driver seating position is
approximately $18.86.\155\ This cost includes the difference in cost
between a lap and lap/shoulder belt. About 60 percent of the driver
positions currently have lap/shoulder belts, thus adding a shoulder
belt to the driver seat for 40 percent of the large buses will add an
average of $7.54 per bus. For the passenger seats, the incremental cost
of adding lap/shoulder belts and to change the seat anchorages for a
two passenger seat is $78.14 ($39.07 per seating position). On a 54-
passenger bus, the cost for the passenger seats is $2,109.78 ($39.07 x
54). On a 45-passenger bus, the incremental cost of adding lap/shoulder
belts and to change the seat anchorages $1,758.15 ($39.07 x 45). A
sales weighted average of those buses results in the estimate of $2,094
per average covered bus. The agency has also estimated increased costs
in fuel usage. The increased fuel costs depend on added weight
(estimated to be 73 kg (161 lb) \156\) and the discount rate used.
NHTSA estimates the increased costs in fuel usage for added weight and
discounts the additional fuel used over the lifetime of the bus using a
3 percent and 7 percent discount rate. See the FRIA for more details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ The FRIA assumes that the seat belt use rate on the
affected buses will be between 15 percent and the percent use in
passenger vehicles, which was 83 percent in 2008. These annual
benefits would accrue when all affected buses in the fleet have lap/
shoulder belts.
    \155\ ``Cost and Weight Added by the Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards for Model Years 1968-2001 in Passenger Cars and
Light Trucks,'' December 2004, DOT HS 809 834, Pages 81 and 88.
    \156\ See FRIA. This estimate is based on results from a NHTSA
contractor conducting cost/weight teardown studies of affected bus
seats. The weight added by lap/shoulder belts was 2.70 kg (5.96 lb)
per 2-person seat. This is the weight only of the seat belt assembly
itself and does not include changing the design of the seat,
reinforcing the floor, walls or other areas of the bus. The final
cost and weight results from the study are in the docket for the
NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

XXI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

    The agency has considered the impact of this rulemaking action
under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034;
February 26, 1979) and determined that it is economically
``significant'' under those documents. This final rule also satisfies a
Congressional mandate set forth in the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act
of 2012, and thus relates to a matter of substantial Congressional and
public interest. Accordingly, the action was reviewed under the
Executive Order 12866. NHTSA has prepared a FRIA for this final
rule.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ NHTSA's FRIA is available in the docket for this final
rule and may be obtained by downloading it or by contacting Docket
Management at the address or telephone number provided at the
beginning of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate that installing lap/shoulder belts on new covered buses
will save approximately 1.7 to 9.2 lives and prevent 146 to 858
injuries per year, depending on the usage of lap/shoulder belts in the
buses. We estimate that total cost of adding lap/shoulder belts,
changing the anchorages and reinforcing the floor is approximately
$2,101. The agency has also estimated increased costs in fuel usage.
The cost per equivalent life saved is estimated to be $0.3 million to
$1.8 million.
    The benefits, costs, and other impacts of this rulemaking are
summarized in the immediately preceding section of this preamble and
discussed at length in the FRIA.

Cumulative Effect of Regulations

    Consistent with Executive Order 13563 and the Vehicle Safety Act,
we have considered the cumulative effects of the new regulations
stemming from NHTSA's 2007 ``NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach Safety''
plan and DOT's 2009 Motorcoach Safety Action Plan, and have taken steps
to identify opportunities to harmonize and streamline those
regulations. By coordinating the timing and content of the rulemakings,
our goal is to expeditiously maximize the net benefits of the
regulations (by either increasing benefits or reducing costs or a
combination of the two) while simplifying requirements on the public
and ensuring that the requirements are justified. We seek to ensure
that this coordination will also simplify the implementation of
multiple requirements on a single industry.
    NHTSA's Motorcoach Safety Action Plan identified four priority
areas--passenger ejection, rollover structural integrity, emergency
egress, and fire safety. There have been other initiatives on large bus
performance, such as electronic stability control (ESC) systems \158\--
an action included in the DOT plan--and an initiative to update the
large bus tire standard.\159\ In deciding how best to initiate and
coordinate rulemaking in these areas, NHTSA examined various factors
including the benefits that would be achieved by the rulemakings, the
anticipated vehicle designs and countermeasures needed to comply with
the regulations, and the extent to which the timing and content of the
rulemakings could be coordinated to lessen the need for multiple
redesign and to lower overall costs. After this examination, we decided
on a course of action that prioritized the goal of reducing passenger
ejection and increasing frontal impact protection because many benefits
could be achieved expeditiously with countermeasures that were readily
available (using bus seats with integral lap/shoulder seat belts, which
are already available from seat suppliers) and whose installation would
not significantly impact other vehicle designs. Similarly, we have also
determined that an ESC rulemaking would present relatively few
synchronization issues with other rules, since the vehicles at issue
already have the foundation braking systems needed for the stability
control technology, and the additional equipment to realize ESC are
sensors that are already available and that can be installed without
significant impact on other vehicle systems. Further, we estimate that
80 percent of the affected buses already have ESC systems. We realize
that a rollover structural integrity rulemaking, or an emergency egress
rulemaking, could involve more redesign of vehicle structure than rules
involving systems such as seat belts, ESC, or tires.\160\ Our decision-
making in these and all the rulemakings outlined in the ``NHTSA's
Approach to Motorcoach Safety'' plan, DOT's Motorcoach Safety Action
Plan, and the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Plan will be cognizant of the
timing and content of the actions so as to simplify requirements
applicable to the public and private sectors, ensure that requirements
are justified, and increase the net benefits of the resulting safety
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ 77 FR 30766, May 23, 2012.
    \159\ 75 FR 60037; September 29, 2010.
    \160\ The initiative on fire safety is in a research phase.
Rulemaking resulting from the research will not occur in the near
term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 32706 of the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act directs the
Secretary to consider, if DOT undertakes separate rulemaking
proceedings, whether each added aspect of rulemaking may contribute to
addressing the safety need determined to require rulemaking and the
benefits obtained through this safety belt rulemaking, and to avoid
duplicative benefits, costs, and countermeasures. NHTSA has and will
consider these

factors so as to avoid duplicative benefits, costs, and
countermeasures.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR Part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. According to 13 CFR 121.201, the Small
Business Administration's size standards regulations used to define
small business concerns, manufacturers affected today would fall under
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) No. 336111,
Automobile Manufacturing, which has a size standard of 1,000 employees
or fewer. NHTSA estimates that there are 20 manufacturers of buses
subject to this rulemaking, and that approximately 9 of these
manufacturers are considered small businesses (these include second-
stage manufacturers).
    For the reasons discussed below, I certify that this final rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The agency estimates that the average incremental costs
to each bus will be $2,101 per unit to meet this final rule. This
incremental cost does not constitute a significant impact given that
the average cost of the buses subject to this rulemaking ranges from
$200,000 to $500,000. Further, these incremental costs, which are very
small compared to the overall cost of the bus, can ultimately be passed
on to the bus purchaser and/or persons purchasing tickets or chartering
the bus's services. In addition, certifying that their buses comply
with the safety requirements adopted today will not have a significant
economic impact on the manufacturers. Small manufacturers are already
certifying their bus's compliance with FMVSS No. 207's seat strength
requirements (driver's seat), FMVSS No. 208's occupant crash protection
requirements applying to the driver's seating position, and the FMVSS
No. 210 seat belt anchorage strength requirements for the driver's
seating position. The methodology that is used to certify to today's
requirements is a relatively simple static pull test, the same or
similar to the tests currently applying to small manufacturers to
certify compliance with FMVSS Nos. 207, 208 and 210 for the driver's
seating position.
    Small manufacturers have many options available to certify
compliance, none of which will result in a significant economic impact
on these entities. Bus manufacturers typically obtain seating systems
from seat suppliers and install the seats on the bus body. Seat
suppliers currently offer bus seats with lap/shoulder belts integral to
the seats. As a result of this final rule, the bus manufacturers will
be able to order passenger seats with lap/shoulder belts from the same
suppliers, just as they do today. Seat suppliers (which are large
businesses) offer technical assistance to the bus manufacturer
regarding installation of the seats and testing to the FMVSSs.\161\ The
small bus manufacturer can certify compliance with the requirements
adopted today using the information and instruction provided by the
seat supplier. (Note also that the performance requirements of today's
final rule involve a simple static pull test.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ See http://www.cewhite.com/testing-lab (``The entire
testing program is FREE for our customers''), see also http://www.freedmanseating.com/fstl/) (``We Provide . . . FMVSS/CMVSS 207,
210, and 225 Testing . . . Special Tests Performed Per Client's
Specifications'') [Web sites last accessed February 1, 2012]. IMMI
indicated in its comments that it also assists in the testing of
buses using its seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For small bus manufacturers that wish to perform their own testing,
there are several options available. One option is to ``section'' the
vehicle or otherwise obtain a body section representative of the
vehicle, install the seat in the section as they would in the actual
full vehicle, and test the seat assembly to the FMVSS No. 210 pull
test. This is basically the approach that VRTC used in NHTSA's
motorcoach seat belt research program. The bus manufacturer could base
its certification on these tests, without testing a full vehicle. The
manufacturer could also test a bus that is not completely new. A
manufacturer could test seating systems installed on an old bus chassis
or other underlying structure, and could sufficiently assess the
ability of the seating system to meet today's requirements.
    Moreover, a small manufacturer is not required to conduct actual
testing. It can certify compliance by using modeling and engineering
analyses. Unlike NHTSA, manufacturers certifying compliance of their
own vehicles have more detailed information regarding their own
vehicles and can use reasonable engineering analyses to determine
whether their vehicles will comply with the requirements. A small
manufacturer is closely familiar with its vehicle design and can use
modeling and relevant analyses on a vehicle-by-vehicle basis to
reasonably predict whether its bus design will meet the requirements of
today's rule.
    We also note that the product cycle of the covered buses is
significantly longer than other vehicle types. With a longer product
cycle, we believe that the costs of certification for manufacturers
would be further reduced as the costs of conducting compliance testing
and the relevant analyses could be spread over a significantly longer
period of time.
    We note that today's rule may affect small businesses as purchasers
of the affected buses, but this is an indirect effect. Moreover, as
mentioned above, we anticipate that the impact on these businesses will
not be significant because the expected price increase of the buses
used by these businesses is ($2,101 for each bus valued between
$200,000 and $500,000). While fuel costs for these businesses will
increase between $794 and $1,077 (in 2008 dollars) per bus over the
lifetime of the bus, these expected increases in costs are small in
comparison to the cost of each vehicle. We further anticipate that
these costs will equally affect all operators of the covered buses and
thus small operators will be able to pass these costs onto their
consumers.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that
the rulemaking will not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement.

The final rule will not have ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.''
    NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision:
When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a
State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue
in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is
identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C.
30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any
non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the
same aspect of performance.
    The express preemption provision described above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e) Pursuant to this
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express
preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied
preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by virtue of
NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted. This second way that
NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there being an actual
conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would
effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone
obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer,
notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard.
Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum
standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose
a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be
preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist--for
example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum
standard--the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly
preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
    Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered
whether this final rule could or should preempt State common law causes
of action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding
the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that
preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
    To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language
and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's final
rule and finds that this final rule, like many NHTSA rules, will
prescribe only a minimum safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not
intend that this final rule preempt state tort law that would
effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers
than that established by today's final rule. Establishment of a higher
standard by means of State tort law will not conflict with the minimum
standard final here. Without any conflict, there could not be any
implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of action.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation
of this action will not have any significant impact on the quality of
the human environment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid
OMB control number. This rulemaking does not establish any new
information collection requirements.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments.'' After carefully reviewing the available information,
including standards from the European Union, Australia and Japan, NHTSA
has determined that there are no voluntary consensus standards that we
will be incorporating into this rulemaking. The reasons the agency has
decided against adopting the international regulations regarding the
performance of seat belt anchorages were discussed earlier in this
preamble.

Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows.
    The issue of preemption is discussed above in connection with E.O.
13132. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that
individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other
administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to
result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This final rule will
not result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of $100 million
annually.

Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001) applies to any
rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as
defined under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have a significantly adverse
effect on the supply of, distribution of, or use of energy; or (2) that
is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. This rulemaking is
not subject to E.O. 13211.

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 and E.O. 13563 require regulations to be
written in a manner that is simple and easy to understand. Application
of the principles of plain language includes

consideration of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please write us.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all submissions to
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, and Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as
set forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 571 is amended to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

0
2. Section 571.208 is amended by revising S4.4, S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) and
S<IP_ADDRESS>(b), the introductory text of S<IP_ADDRESS>(a), the introductory
text of S<IP_ADDRESS>(b), and the introductory text of S<IP_ADDRESS>; and adding
S7.1.6, to read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    S4.4 Buses manufactured on or after November 28, 2016.
    S4.4.1 Definitions. For purposes of S4.4, the following definitions
apply:
    Over-the-road bus means a bus characterized by an elevated
passenger deck located over a baggage compartment, except a school bus.
    Perimeter-seating bus means a bus with 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 and is not an over-the-road bus.
    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.
    Stop-request system means a vehicle-integrated system for passenger
use to signal to a vehicle operator that they are requesting a stop.
    Transit bus means a bus that is equipped with a stop-request system
sold for public transportation provided by, or on behalf of, a State or
local government and that is not an over-the-road bus.
    S4.4.2 Buses with a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) or less and an
unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5,500 lb) or less.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Each bus with a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) or less and an
unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5,500 lb) or less, except a school
bus, shall comply with the requirements of S4.2.6 of this standard for
front seating positions and with the requirements of S<IP_ADDRESS> of this
standard for all rear seating positions.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Each school bus with a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) or less
and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5,500 lb) or less shall
comply with the requirements of S4.2.6 of this standard for front
seating positions and with the requirements of S<IP_ADDRESS> of this
standard for all rear seating positions.
    S4.4.3 Buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Except as provided in S<IP_ADDRESS>.1, S<IP_ADDRESS>.2, S<IP_ADDRESS>.3,
S<IP_ADDRESS>.4 and S<IP_ADDRESS>.5, each bus with a gross vehicle weight rating
of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, except a school bus or an over-the-
road bus, shall be equipped with a Type 2 seat belt assembly at every
designated seating position other than a side-facing position. Type 2
seat belt assemblies installed in compliance with this requirement
shall conform to Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209) and with S7.1 and
S7.2 of this standard. If a Type 2 seat belt assembly installed in
compliance with this requirement incorporates a webbing tension
relieving device, the vehicle owner's manual shall include the
information specified in S7.4.2(b) of this standard for the tension
relieving device, and the vehicle shall conform to S7.4.2(c) of this
standard. Side-facing designated seating positions shall be equipped,
at the manufacturer's option, with a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt
assembly.
    S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 Any rear designated seating position with a seat that
can be adjusted to be forward- or rear-facing and to face some other
direction shall either:
    (a) Meet the requirements of S<IP_ADDRESS> with the seat in any position
in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion, or meet
S<IP_ADDRESS>.1(b)(1) and S<IP_ADDRESS>.1(b)(2).
    (b)(1) When the seat is in its forward-facing and/or rear-facing
position, or within 30 degrees of either position, have a
Type 2 seat belt assembly with an upper torso restraint that
    (i) Conforms to S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard,
    (ii) Adjusts by means of an emergency locking retractor conforming
to Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209), and
    (iii) May be detachable at the buckle or upper anchorage, but not
both.
    (2) When the seat is in any position in which it can be occupied
while the vehicle is in motion, have a Type 1 seat belt or the pelvic
portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to S7.1 and S7.2
of this standard.
    S<IP_ADDRESS>.2 Any rear designated seating position on a readily
removable seat (that is, a seat designed to be easily removed and
replaced by means installed by the manufacturer for that purpose) may
meet the requirements of S<IP_ADDRESS> by use of a belt incorporating a
release mechanism that detaches both the lap and shoulder portion at
either the upper or lower anchorage point, but not both. The means of
detachment shall be a key or key-like object.
    S<IP_ADDRESS>.3 Any inboard designated seating position on a seat for
which the entire seat back can be folded such that no part of the seat
back extends above a horizontal plane located 250 mm above the highest
SRP located on the seat may meet the requirements of S<IP_ADDRESS> by use of
a belt incorporating a release mechanism that detaches both the lap and
shoulder portion at either the upper or lower anchorage point, but not
both. The means of detachment shall be a key or key-like object.
    S<IP_ADDRESS>.4 Any rear designated seating position adjacent to a
walkway located between the seat, which

walkway is designed to allow access to more rearward designated seating
positions, and not adjacent to the side of the vehicle may meet the
requirements of S<IP_ADDRESS> by use of a belt incorporating a release
mechanism that detaches both the lap and shoulder portion at either the
upper or lower anchorage point, but not both. The means of detachment
shall be a key or key-like object.
    S<IP_ADDRESS>.5 Any rear side-facing designated seating position shall
be equipped with a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to
S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Each school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating of
4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less shall comply with the requirements of
S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 and S<IP_ADDRESS>.2.
    S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 The driver's designated seating position and any
outboard designated seating position not rearward of the driver's
seating position shall be equipped with a Type 2 seat belt assembly.
The seat belt assembly shall comply with Standard No. 209 (49 CFR
571.209) and with S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard. The lap belt portion
of the seat belt assembly shall include either an emergency locking
retractor or an automatic locking retractor. An automatic locking
retractor shall not retract webbing to the next locking position until
at least \3/4\; inch of webbing has moved into the retractor. In
determining whether an automatic locking retractor complies with this
requirement, the webbing is extended to 75 percent of its length and
the retractor is locked after the initial adjustment. If the seat belt
assembly installed in compliance with this requirement incorporates any
webbing tension-relieving device, the vehicle owner's manual shall
include the information specified in S7.4.2(b) of this standard for the
tension-relieving device, and the vehicle shall comply with S7.4.2(c)
of this standard.
    S<IP_ADDRESS>.2 Passenger seating positions, other than any outboard
designated seating position not rearward of the driver's seating
position, shall be equipped with Type 2 seat belt assemblies that
comply with the requirements of S<IP_ADDRESS>, S7.1.5 and S7.2 of this
standard.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Each over-the-road-bus with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb)
or less shall meet the requirements of S<IP_ADDRESS> (as specified for buses
with a GVWR or more than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)).
    S4.4.4 Buses with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) but not
greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb).
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Each bus with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) but
not greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), except a school bus or an over-
the-road bus, shall meet the requirements of S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 or S<IP_ADDRESS>.2.
    S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 First option--complete passenger protection system--
driver only. The vehicle shall meet the crash protection requirements
of S5, with respect to an anthropomorphic test dummy in the driver's
designated seating position, by means that require no action by vehicle
occupants.
    S<IP_ADDRESS>.2 Second option--belt system--driver only. The vehicle
shall, at the driver's designated seating position, be equipped with
either a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to Sec.
571.209 of this part and S7.2 of this Standard. A Type 1 belt assembly
or the pelvic portion of a dual retractor Type 2 belt assembly
installed at the driver's seating position shall include either an
emergency locking retractor or an automatic locking retractor. If a
seat belt assembly installed at the driver's seating position includes
an automatic locking retractor for the lap belt or the lap belt
portion, that seat belt assembly shall comply with the following:
    (a) An automatic locking retractor used at a driver's seating
position that has some type of suspension system for the seat shall be
attached to the seat structure that moves as the suspension system
functions.
    (b) The lap belt or lap belt portion of a seat belt assembly
equipped with an automatic locking retractor that is installed at the
driver's seating position must allow at least \3/4\; inch, but less
than 3 inches, of webbing movement before retracting webbing to the
next locking position.
    (c) Compliance with S<IP_ADDRESS>.1(b) of this standard is determined as
follows:
    (1) The seat belt assembly is buckled and the retractor end of the
seat belt assembly is anchored to a horizontal surface. The webbing for
the lap belt or lap belt portion of the seat belt assembly is extended
to 75 percent of its length and the retractor is locked after the
initial adjustment.
    (2) A load of 20 pounds is applied to the free end of the lap belt
or the lap belt portion of the belt assembly (i.e., the end that is not
anchored to the horizontal surface) in the direction away from the
retractor. The position of the free end of the belt assembly is
recorded.
    (3) Within a 30 second period, the 20 pound load is slowly
decreased, until the retractor moves to the next locking position. The
position of the free end of the belt assembly is recorded again.
    (4) The difference between the two positions recorded for the free
end of the belt assembly shall be at least \3/4\; inch but less than 3
inches.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Each school bus with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kg (10,000
lb) but not greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) shall be equipped with a
Type 2 seat belt assembly at the driver's designated seating position.
The seat belt assembly shall comply with Standard No. 209 (49 CFR
571.209) and with S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard. If a seat belt
assembly installed in compliance with this requirement includes an
automatic locking retractor for the lap belt portion, that seat belt
assembly shall comply with paragraphs (a) through (c) of S<IP_ADDRESS>.2 of
this standard. If a seat belt assembly installed in compliance with
this requirement incorporates any webbing tension-relieving device, the
vehicle owner's manual shall include the information specified in
S7.4.2(b) of this standard for the tension-relieving device, and the
vehicle shall comply with S7.4.2(c) of this standard.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Each over-the-road-bus with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb) but not greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) shall meet the
requirements of S<IP_ADDRESS> (as specified for buses with a GVWR or more
than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)).
    S4.4.5 Buses with a GVWR of more than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb).
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Each bus with a GVWR of more than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb),
except a perimeter-seating bus, transit bus, or school bus, shall
comply with the requirements of S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 and S<IP_ADDRESS>.2.
    S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 The driver's designated seating position and any
outboard designated seating position not rearward of the driver's
seating position shall be equipped with a Type 2 seat belt assembly.
The seat belt assembly shall comply with Standard No. 209 (49 CFR
571.209) and with S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard. If a seat belt
assembly installed in compliance with this requirement includes an
automatic locking retractor for the lap belt portion, that seat belt
assembly shall comply with paragraphs (a) through (c) of S<IP_ADDRESS>.2 of
this standard. If a seat belt assembly installed in compliance with
this requirement incorporates any webbing tension-relieving device, the
vehicle owner's manual shall include the information specified in
S7.4.2(b) of this standard for the tension-relieving device, and the
vehicle shall comply with S7.4.2(c) of this standard.
    S<IP_ADDRESS>.2 Passenger seating positions, other than any outboard
designated seating position not rearward of the driver's seating
position and seating positions on prison buses

rearward of the driver's seating position, shall:
    (a) Other than for over-the-road buses:
    (i) Be equipped with a Type 2 seat belt assembly at any seating
position that is not a side-facing position;
    (ii) Be equipped with a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at any
seating position that is a side-facing position;
    (c) For over-the-road buses, be equipped with a Type 2 seat belt
assembly;
    (d) Have the seat belt assembly attached to the seat structure at
any seating position that has another seating position, wheelchair
position, or side emergency door behind it; and
    (e) Comply with the requirements of S<IP_ADDRESS>, S7.1.3, S7.1.6 and
S7.2 of this standard.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Each perimeter-seating bus and transit bus with a GVWR of
more than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) shall meet the requirements of
S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 or S<IP_ADDRESS>.2 (as specified for buses with a GVWR of more
than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) but not greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)).
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Each school bus with a GVWR of more than 11,793 kg (26,000
lb) shall be equipped with a Type 2 seat belt assembly at the driver's
designated seating position. The seat belt assembly shall comply with
Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209) and with S7.1 and S7.2 of this
standard. If a seat belt assembly installed in compliance with this
requirement includes an automatic locking retractor for the lap belt
portion, that seat belt assembly shall comply with paragraphs (a)
through (c) of S<IP_ADDRESS>.2 of this standard. If a seat belt assembly
installed in compliance with this requirement incorporates any webbing
tension-relieving device, the vehicle owner's manual shall include the
information specified in S7.4.2(b) of this standard for the tension-
relieving device, and the vehicle shall comply with S7.4.2(c) of this
standard.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2005 and
before September 1, 2007.
    (a) For vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States on or
after September 1, 2005, and before September 1, 2007, a percentage of
the manufacturer's production as specified in S<IP_ADDRESS>, shall meet the
requirements specified in either S<IP_ADDRESS> for complying passenger cars,
S4.2.7 for complying trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, or
S<IP_ADDRESS> for complying buses.
    (b) A manufacturer that sells two or fewer carlines, as that term
is defined at 49 CFR 583.4, in the United States may, at the option of
the manufacturer, meet the requirements of this paragraph, instead of
paragraph (a) of this section. Each vehicle manufactured on or after
September 1, 2006, and before September 1, 2007, shall meet the
requirements specified in S<IP_ADDRESS> for complying passenger cars, S4.2.7
for complying trucks & multipurpose passenger vehicles, and S<IP_ADDRESS>
for complying buses. Credits for vehicles manufactured before September
1, 2006 are not to be applied to the requirements of this paragraph.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Phase-in schedule.
    (a) Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2005, and before
September 1, 2006. Subject to S<IP_ADDRESS>(a), for vehicles manufactured on
or after September 1, 2005, and before September 1, 2006, the amount of
vehicles complying with S<IP_ADDRESS> for complying passenger cars, S4.2.7
for complying trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, or S<IP_ADDRESS>
for complying buses shall be not less than 50 percent of:
    * * *
    (b) Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2006, and before
September 1, 2007. Subject to S<IP_ADDRESS>(b), for vehicles manufactured on
or after September 1, 2006, and before September 1, 2007, the amount of
vehicles complying with S<IP_ADDRESS> for complying passenger cars, S4.2.7
for complying trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, or S<IP_ADDRESS>
for complying buses shall be not less than 80 percent of:
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Passenger cars, and trucks, buses, and multipurpose
passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less
manufactured on or after September 1, 1995 and buses with a GVWR of
more than 11,793 kg (26,000 pounds) manufactured on or after November
28, 2016, except a perimeter-seating bus, prison bus, school bus, or
transit bus, shall meet the requirements of S<IP_ADDRESS>(a), S<IP_ADDRESS>(b)
and S<IP_ADDRESS>(c).
    * * *
    S7.1.6 Passenger seats, other than any outboard designated seating
position not rearward of the driver's seating position, in buses with a
GVWR of more than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) manufactured on or after
November 28, 2016. The lap belt of any seat belt assembly on any
passenger seat in each bus with a GVWR of more than 11,793 kg (26,000
lb), except a perimeter-seating bus, prison bus, school bus, or transit
bus, shall adjust by means of any emergency-locking retractor that
conforms to 49 CFR 571.209 to fit persons whose dimensions range from
those of a 50th percentile 6-year-old child to those of a 95th
percentile adult male and the upper torso restraint shall adjust by
means of an emergency-locking retractor that conforms to 49 CFR 571.209
to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 5th percentile
adult female to those of a 95th percentile adult male, with the seat in
any position, the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding
position, and any adjustable anchorages adjusted to the manufacturer's
nominal design position for a 50th percentile adult male occupant.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 571.222 is amended by:
0
a. Revising S5(a)(2)(i);
0
b. Removing and reserving S5(b)(1)(ii); and
0
c. Revising S5(b)(1)(iii).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  571.222  Standard No. 222; School bus passenger seating and crash
protection.

* * * * *
    S5. Requirements.
* * * * *
    (a) Large school buses.
    * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) S<IP_ADDRESS> of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208);
* * * * *
    (b) Small school buses. * * *
    (1)
    (iii) In the case of vehicles manufactured on or after October 21,
2011 the requirements of S<IP_ADDRESS> of Sec.  571.208 and the requirements
of Sec. Sec.  571.207, 571.209 and 571.210 as they apply to school
buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg or less; and,
* * * * *

    Dated: November 19, 2013.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-28211 Filed 11-20-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P