[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 227 (Monday, November 25, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70415-70474]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28211]

Vol. 78

Monday,

No. 227

November 25, 2013

Part II

 Department of Transportation

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

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

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

49 CFR Part 571

 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection;
Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 /
Rules and Regulations

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0121]
RIN 2127-AK56

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Completing the first initiative of NHTSA's 2007 ``NHTSA's
Approach to Motorcoach Safety'' plan and one of the principal
undertakings of DOT's 2009 Motorcoach Safety Action Plan, and
fulfilling a statutory mandate of the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of
2012, incorporated into the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act, this final rule amends the Federal motor vehicle safety
standard (FMVSS) on occupant crash protection to require lap/shoulder
seat belts for each passenger seating position in all new over-the-road
buses, and in new buses other than over-the-road buses with a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 11,793 kilograms (kg) (26,000
pounds (lb), with certain exclusions. By requiring the passenger lap/
shoulder seat belts, this final rule significantly reduces the risk of
fatality and serious injury in frontal crashes and the risk of occupant
ejection in rollovers, thus considerably enhancing the safety of these
vehicles.

DATES: The effective date of this final rule is November 28, 2016.
Optional early compliance is permitted.
    Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of
this final rule must be received not later than January 9, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer
to the docket and notice number set forth above and be submitted to the
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact
Lawrence Valvo or Louis Molino, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness
Standards, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. For legal issues:
Deirdre Fujita, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. The mailing address for these officials is: National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington,
DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Completing the first initiative of NHTSA's
2007 ``NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach Safety'' plan and one of the
principal undertakings of DOT's 2009 Motorcoach Safety Action Plan, and
fulfilling a statutory mandate of the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of
2012, incorporated into the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act, this final rule amends the Federal motor vehicle safety
standard (FMVSS) on occupant crash protection to require lap/shoulder
seat belts for each passenger seating position in: (a) All new over-
the-road buses; and (b) in new buses other than over-the-road buses,
with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 11,793 kilograms
(kg) (26,000 pounds (lb)).\1\ The notice of proposed rulemaking
preceding this final rule called buses with GVWR greater than 11,793 kg
(26,000 lb) ``motorcoaches.'' Although transportation by these buses
overall is a safe form of transportation in the U.S., several bus
crashes in recent years have illustrated that crashes of these vehicles
can cause a significant number of fatal or serious injuries in a single
event, due in part to the high occupancy rate of the vehicles, the
speed at which they travel, and occupant ejection in rollovers. NHTSA's
safety research on seat belts in large buses (greater than 11,793 kg
(26,000 lb) GVWR) completed in 2009, shows that the installation of
lap/shoulder belts on the vehicles is practicable and effective and
could reduce the risk of fatal injuries in rollover crashes by 77
percent, primarily by preventing occupant ejection. Lap/shoulder belts
are also highly effective in preventing fatalities and serious injuries
in frontal crashes, and will enhance protection in side crashes in the
affected buses. By requiring passenger lap/shoulder seat belts on (a)
new over-the-road buses, and (b) new buses, other than over the road
buses, with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), this final rule
significantly reduces the risk of fatality and serious injury in
frontal crashes and the risk of occupant ejection in rollovers, thus
considerably enhancing the safety of these vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Some buses are excluded from this latter category, such as
transit and school buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. NHTSA's Statutory Authority
    a. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
    b. Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of 2012
    c. Agency Views
III. Background
    a. The Agency's 2007 ``NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach Safety''
Plan
    b. DOT's 2009 Task Force Action Plan
    c. NTSB Recommendations
    d. Congressional Mandate
IV. Safety Need
    a. Introduction
    b. FARS Data
    c. Updated FARS Data
V. Summary of the NPRM
VI. Overview of the Comments
VII. Differences Between the Final Rule and the NPRM
VIII. Motorcoach Definition
    a. GVWR
    1. Response to Comments On Looking Like A Traditional Motorcoach
    2. On Lowering the GVWR Criterion
    b. Sixteen Designated Seating Positions
    c. At Least 2 Rows of Forward-Facing Seats Rearward of the
Driver's Seat
    d. Treatment of Various Bus Types and Configurations Under the
Final Rule
    1. Shuttle Buses
    2. Trolley and Double-Decker Sightseeing Buses
    3. Limousine and Entertainment Buses, Buses With Multiple
Wheelchair Positions
    4. Military Ambulances
    5. Prison Buses
    e. Transit Buses
    f. School Buses
    g. Agency Observations
IX. Requiring Seat Belts at Passenger Seating Positions
X. Type of Belt System on Forward-Facing Seats
XI. Integrated Anchorages
XII. Seat Belt Adjustment, Fit, Lockability, and Other Requirements
XIII. Passenger Seats That Are Not Forward-Facing
XIV. Driver's Seat
XV. Seat Belt Signage and Other Reminders
XVI. Strength Requirements
XVII. Lead Time
XVIII. On Retrofitting Used Buses
XIX. Regulatory Alternatives
XX. Overview of Costs and Benefits
XXI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Executive Summary

    One of the guiding principles NHTSA considers in determining the
priorities of our rulemaking projects is to protect the public against
unreasonable risk of death or injury in high-occupancy vehicles. In
2007, NHTSA published a comprehensive plan to research improvements to
bus safety, entitled, ``NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach Safety.'' \2\ In
the plan, the term ``motorcoach'' referred to intercity transport
buses. This plan was developed in direct response to several National
Transportation Safety Board

(NTSB) recommendations and also to address several crashes that
occurred since the recommendations were issued. NHTSA's plan identified
as our highest priorities four specific areas where we can most
effectively address open NTSB recommendations in the near-term, and
also improve the safety of the buses most expeditiously. The four
priority areas were: (1) Passenger ejection; (2) rollover structural
integrity; (3) emergency egress; and (4) fire safety.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2007-
28793-0001. See Docket No. NHTSA-2007-28793.
    \3\ In 2009, DOT issued a Departmental Motorcoach Safety Action
Plan, which is described later in this preamble. Today's final rule
completes one of the principal rulemakings included in the DOT plan
to enhance motorcoach safety. http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/documents/safety-security/MotorcoachSafetyActionPlan_finalreport-508.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule addresses the first priority area of the NHTSA
plan, to minimize intercity bus passenger and driver ejection by
requiring the installation of seat belts for all occupants of: (a) New
over-the-road buses; \4\ and (b) new buses, other than over-the-road
buses, with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb).\5\ The notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) preceding this final rule, published on
August 18, 2010 (75 FR 50958), proposed to call buses with a GVWR
greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) ``motorcoaches,'' and proposed to
apply seat belt requirements to those vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ An over-the-road bus is a bus characterized by an elevated
passenger deck located over a baggage compartment. See section
3038(a)(3) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century,
cited in section 32702(6) of Subtitle G, the Motorcoach Enhanced
Safety Act, of MAP-21.
    \5\ Certain bus types are excepted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule fulfills a statutory mandate on motorcoach safety
set forth in the ``Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act''
(MAP-21), On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed MAP-21, which
incorporated the ``Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of 2012'' (Motorcoach
Enhanced Safety Act) in Subtitle G. Among other matters, the Motorcoach
Enhanced Safety Act requires DOT to ``prescribe regulations requiring
safety belts to be installed in motorcoaches \6\ at each designated
seating position'' not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
the Act. We have completed this final rule in furtherance of NHTSA's
goal to enhance the safety of all heavy buses used in intercity bus
transportation, while attending to the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act's
focus on over-the-road buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Under the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, ``motorcoach''
means an over-the-road bus, but does not include a bus used in
public transportation provided by, or on behalf of, a public
transportation agency, or a school bus.
    [Footnote added.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule is based on scientific data from an extensive test
program completed in 2009 at NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center
(VRTC). The program began with a full-scale frontal 48 kilometers per
hour (km/h) (30 miles per hour (mph)) barrier crash test of a 54-
passenger over-the-road bus. The testing involved instrumented test
dummies representing 50th percentile adult males, 5th percentile adult
females, and 95th percentile adult males in belted and unbelted seating
configurations. The weight of the bus as tested (including test dummies
and equipment) was 19,377 kg (42,720 lb), which was less than the GVWR
of the bus (~24,500 kg (54,000 lb)).\7\ In the crash test, NHTSA
analyzed the head accelerations (head injury criterion, (HIC)), neck
injury (Nij) values, and other injury criteria measured by the test
dummies, the kinematics of the dummies during the crash, and the
structural integrity of the seats, floor and bus. Follow-on sled
testing was also conducted to evaluate the performance of seat belt
systems on motorcoach seats under a range of belted and unbelted
conditions, and to evaluate seat anchorage strength testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ GVWR means the value specified by the manufacturer as the
loaded weight of a single vehicle (49 CFR 571.3). Under NHTSA's
certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), the GVWR ``shall not be
less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load,
and 150 pounds times the number of the vehicle's designated seating
positions. However, for school buses the minimum occupant weight
allowance shall be 120 pounds per passenger and 150 pounds for the
driver.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transportation by buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000
lb) overall is a safe form of transportation. Data from NHTSA's Fatal
Analysis Reporting System (FARS) shows that over the 10-year period
between 2000 and 2009, there were 87 fatal crashes of buses covered by
this final rule, resulting in 209 fatalities.\8\ During this period, on
average, 21 fatalities have occurred annually to occupants of these
buses in crash and rollover events, with about 4 of these fatalities
being drivers and 17 being passengers. However, while transportation on
these buses is safe overall, given the typical high occupancy of the
subject buses and the intercity operation of many of them at high
speeds, when serious crashes do occur, a significant number of fatal or
serious injuries can result, particularly when occupants are ejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ These data have been updated from the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A primary goal of this rulemaking is to reduce occupant ejections
occurring in crashes of buses the NPRM identified as ``motorcoaches,''
i.e., buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). Data from
2000-2009 FARS show that most fatal crashes of large buses involve
buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) and most of the
fatal crashes involving these buses (55 percent) are rollover crashes.
Ejections account for 66 percent of the fatalities in rollover crashes
of these buses, 20 percent of the fatalities in non-rollover crashes
and 45 percent of all fatalities. The risk of ejection can be reduced
by seat belts, a simple and effective countermeasure. Seat belts are
estimated to be 77 percent effective \9\ in preventing fatal injuries
in rollover crashes, primarily by preventing ejection.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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.
    \10\ We estimate that even at a minimum seat belt usage rate of
only 6 percent, the rule will remain cost effective for the bus
passengers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another important goal is to improve passenger crash protection of
the buses in crashes generally, particularly frontal crashes. Frontal
crashes account for 42 percent of the fatalities involving buses with a
GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). Lap/shoulder \11\ belts are
estimated to be 29 percent effective in preventing fatal injuries in
frontal crashes of the subject buses.\12\ The ability of the belts to
improve the passenger crash protection of heavy buses was demonstrated
in our test program, which found that lap/shoulder belts prevented
critical head and neck injury values from being exceeded for belted
test dummies. (In contrast, unbelted test dummies and test dummies in
lap-only belts measured head and neck injury values surpassing critical
thresholds.) We also estimate lap/shoulder belts to be 42 percent
effective in preventing side fatalities.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ FMVSS No. 209, an equipment standard, currently applies to
all seat belt assemblies installed in buses. FMVSS No. 209 uses the
term ``Type 2 seat belt assembly'' to refer to a lap/shoulder belt
system. As defined in that standard, a Type 2 seat belt assembly is
``a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints.'' In this
preamble, we use the term ``lap/shoulder'' belt system rather than
``Type 2 seat belt assembly'' for plain language purposes. Documents
may occasionally refer to lap/shoulder belts as 3-point belts. Under
FMVSS No. 209, a ``Type 1'' seat belt assembly is ``a lap belt for
pelvic restraint.'' This preamble refers to Type 1 belts as ``lap-
only belts.''
    \12\ This is discussed in NHTSA's Final Regulatory Impact
Analysis (FRIA) that discusses issues relating to the estimated
costs, benefits and other impacts of this regulatory action. The
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.)
    \13\ Estimated based on Morgan, ``Effectiveness of Lap/Shoulder
Belts in the Back Outboard Seating Positions,'' June 1999,
Washington, DC, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. See
FRIA.

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

    Accordingly, to reduce the likelihood of occupant ejection and to
improve occupant protection in all crashes, particularly frontal
crashes, this final rule amends FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash
protection'' (49 CFR 571.208), under NHTSA's rulemaking authority set
forth in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (``Vehicle
Safety Act'') (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) and the Motorcoach Enhanced
Safety Act. The standard is amended to:
     Require a lap/shoulder belt at all designated seating
positions on all over-the-road buses,\14\ including over-the-road buses
used in public transportation,\15\ but excluding school buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ There is no lower GVWR bound on the definition of over-the-
road bus used in the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act and none adopted
by this final rule for such buses. Nonetheless, as a practical
matter, NHTSA is not aware of any bus meeting the over-the-road bus
definition with a GVWR of less than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb).
    \15\ We are mindful that the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act
excludes a bus used in public transportation provided by, or on
behalf of, a public transportation agency from the meaning of
``motorcoach.'' However, as discussed in the NPRM and in this final
rule, we are applying the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     For buses other than over-the-road buses, this final rule
requires a lap/shoulder belt at all passenger seating positions on new
buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), except for
certain excluded bus types.\16\ (For buses other than over-the-road
buses, we permit side-facing seats to be equipped with a lap belt, for
reasons discussed later in this document.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The exceptions are transit buses, school buses, ``prison
buses'' (buses manufactured for the purpose of transporting persons
subject to involuntary restraint or confinement), and ``perimeter-
seating buses'' (which the NPRM had referred to as buses with fewer
than two rows of forward-facing seats. As explained in a later
section of this preamble, we have decided it would be simpler to
define a perimeter-seating bus by reference to the number of
forward-facing seats it has than the number of rows it has. Note
that, as a result of the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, only buses
other than over-the-road buses (which we sometimes refer to as
``non-over-the-road buses'') can be included in this excepted
category of a perimeter-seating bus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Require a lap/shoulder belt at the driver's seating
position on subject buses.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The buses are all over-the-road buses, and non-over-the
road buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), except
transit buses and perimeter-seating buses. This final rule also
requires a lap/shoulder belt at the driver's seating position on
school buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Require the lap/shoulder belt system for passenger seats
to meet provisions for seat belt adjustment and fit, so that the seat
belts can accommodate children as well as large (95th-percentile) adult
males, be lockable for use with a child restraint system, and be
releasable at a single point and by a pushbutton action.
     Require the seat belt anchorages, both torso and lap, on
passenger seats to be integrated into the seat structure, so as not to
impede emergency egress.
    The ``performance requirement'' for the lap/shoulder seat belts is
the FMVSS No. 210 strength requirement, measured in a static ``pull''
test. The seat belt assembly anchorages must meet the following FMVSS
No. 210 requirement:
     Withstand a force of 13,345 Newtons (N) (3,000 lb) applied
to the lap portion and a force of 13,345 N (3,000 lb) applied
simultaneously to the torso portion of the seat belt assembly.
    This final rule does not adopt a ``motorcoach'' definition.
Comments responding to the NPRM expressed some confusion and
disagreement over attaching the name of ``motorcoach'' to buses that
may not have been widely thought of as motorcoaches in the past. In
addition, the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act uses the term
``motorcoach'' differently than the NPRM. After considering these
factors, we have determined that it is unnecessary to define the term
``motorcoach'' to accomplish the objective of this rulemaking. To avoid
potential confusion over use of the term, and since the term is
unnecessary, we have decided not to use the term ``motorcoach'' to
describe the applicability of the lap/shoulder seat belt requirements.
Instead, we have decided to simply amend FMVSS No. 208 such that the
provisions of FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210 relevant to lap/shoulder belt and
anchorages, respectively, are applied to (a) all over-the-road buses,
and to (b) non-over-the-road buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg
(26,000 lb), excepting the few bus types.
    We estimate that installing lap/shoulder seat belts on new subject
buses will save approximately 1.7 to 9.2 lives and prevent 146 to 858
injuries per year (3.46-25.17 equivalent lives), depending on the usage
of lap/shoulder belts in the buses (see Table 1 below).\18\ The cost of
installing lap/shoulder belts on new buses is estimated as follows (see
Table 2 below). The incremental cost of adding a shoulder belt to the
already required lap belt for drivers is estimated to be $18.86. With
about 60 percent of the driver seating positions already equipped with
lap/shoulder belts, the average bus cost will increase by $7.54. For
the driver position, the total cost to the fleet of adding a shoulder
belt to the driver seat for 40 percent of covered buses will add an
additional $16,597 ($18.86 x 2,200 x .4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See FRIA for this final rule. The FRIA assumes that the
seat belt use rate on buses regulated by today's rule will be
between 15 percent and the percent use in passenger vehicles, which
was 83 percent in 2008. These annual benefits accrue when all
subject buses in the fleet have lap/shoulder belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The incremental cost of adding lap/shoulder belts and to change the
seat anchorages for a two passenger seat is $78.14 or $39.07 per
seating position. On a 54-passenger bus the cost for the passenger
seats is $2,110 ($39.07 x 54). The total cost of adding lap/shoulder
belts to all new 54-passenger buses is about $4.4 million ($2,110 x
2,100). The cutaway buses have seats for an average of 45 passengers.
The incremental cost of adding lap/shoulder belts on a 45-passenger
cutaway bus with two passengers per seat is $1,758 ($39.07 x 45). The
total cost of adding passenger lap/shoulder belts to all new cutaway
covered buses is about $0.2 million ($1,758.15 x 100). Thus, the total
cost for all covered bus passenger positions is about $4.6 million. The
total cost of adding lap/shoulder belts for passengers and shoulder
belts to 40 percent of the driver's seats is $4.6 million ($4,606,353 +
$25,238).
    The agency has also estimated increased costs in fuel usage. The
increased fuel costs depend on added weight (estimated to be 161 lb
\19\) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See FRIA for this final rule. This estimate is based on
results from a NHTSA contractor conducting cost/weight teardown
studies of motorcoach seats. The weight added by lap/shoulder belts
was 5.96 per 2-person seat. This is the weight only of the seat belt
assembly itself and does not include changing the design of the
seat, reinforcing the floor, walls or other areas of the motorcoach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cost per equivalent life saved is estimated to be $0.3 million
to $1.8 million (see Table 3 below). Annualized costs and benefits are
provided in Table 4.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2--Estimated Costs
                            [2008 Economics]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Per         Total
                                                  average       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 3--Cost per Equivalent Life Saved
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Cost per equivalent life saved
------------------------------------------------------------------------
50% Belt use for drivers and 15%      $1.5 to $1.8 mill.
 Belt usage for passengers.
83% Belt usage for drivers and        $0.3 to $0.43 mill.
 passengers.
Breakeven Point in passenger belt     4 to 5%.
 usage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     Table 4--Annualized Costs and Benefits
                                         [In millions of $2008 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Annualized costs       Annualized 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have assessed the feasibility, benefits, and costs with respect
to the application of the seat belt requirements to buses manufactured
before the date on which this final rule applies to new vehicles. Based
on that assessment, we have decided not to require retrofitting of used
buses with seat belts. To learn more about retrofitting, the NPRM
requested comment on issues concerning the structural viability of used
buses to accommodate seat belts and the crash forces from belted
passengers, the reinforcement needed to the bus structure to
accommodate the loads, and the cost of retrofitting. Our hypothesis at
the time of the NPRM was that the cost of and engineering expertise
needed for a retrofitting operation would be beyond the means of bus
owners (for-hire operators), many of which are small businesses.\20\
The comments on the retrofit issue supported a finding that the impacts
would be unreasonable. After considering the low likelihood that a
retrofit requirement would be technically practicable at a reasonable
cost, the cost impacts on small businesses, and the low benefits that
would accrue from a retrofit requirement we have decided not to pursue
a retrofit requirement for seat belts. (See FRIA discussion of cost/
benefit of retrofit).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The agency estimated in the NPRM that the service life of a
motorcoach can be 20 years or longer. We estimated that the cost of
retrofitting can vary substantially. To retrofit a vehicle with lap
belts, we estimated it could cost between $6,000 (assuming that the
motorcoach structure is lap belt-ready, and can accommodate the
loads set forth in the NPRM) to $34,000 per vehicle to retrofit the
vehicle with the lap belts and with sufficient structure to meet the
NPRM's requirements. To retrofit it with lap/shoulder belts and
reinforced structure so as to meet FMVSS No. 210 to support the
loads during a crash, we estimated it could cost $40,000 per
vehicle. The existing fleet size was estimated to be 29,325
motorcoaches. Hence, the fleet cost of retrofitting lap belts was
estimated to range from $175,950,000 ($6,000 x 29,325) to
$997,050,000 ($34,000 x 29,325), while the fleet cost of
retrofitting lap/shoulder belts was estimated to be $1,173,000,000
($40,000 x 29,325). These costs did not include increased remaining
lifetime fuel costs incurred by adding structural weight to the
motorcoach. Later in the analysis we examine a range of costs and
include the lifetime fuel costs for the weight of the belts
themselves. Weight would vary depending upon the needed structural
changes, and lifetime fuel cost would vary depending upon the age of
motorcoaches that would be retrofitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. NHTSA's Statutory Authority

a. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act

    This final rule is issued under the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act (``Vehicle Safety Act'') (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.).
Under the Vehicle Safety Act, the Secretary of Transportation is
responsible for prescribing motor vehicle safety standards that are
practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and are stated in
objective terms.\21\ ``Motor vehicle safety'' is defined in the Vehicle
Safety Act as ``the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment in a way that protects 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, and includes nonoperational safety of a motor
vehicle.'' \22\ ``Motor vehicle safety standard'' means a minimum
performance standard for motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.\23\
When prescribing such standards, the Secretary must consider all
relevant, available motor vehicle safety information, and consider
whether a standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the
types of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for which it is
prescribed.\24\ The Secretary must also consider the extent to which
the standard will further the statutory purpose of reducing traffic
accidents and associated deaths and injuries.\25\ The responsibility
for promulgation of

Federal motor vehicle safety standards is delegated to NHTSA. (49 CFR
1.95)\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
    \22\ 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8).
    \23\ 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9).
    \24\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(b).
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ The Secretary also delegated to NHTSA the authority set out
for Section 101(f) of Public Law 106-159 to carry out, in
coordination with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator,
the authority vested in the Secretary by subchapter 311 and section
31502 of title 49, U.S.C., to promulgate safety standards for
commercial motor vehicles and equipment subsequent to initial
manufacture when the standards are based upon and similar to a
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard promulgated, either
simultaneously or previously, under chapter 301 of title 49, U.S.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of 2012

    On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed MAP-21, which incorporated
in Subtitle G the ``Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of 2012,'' P.L. 112-
141 (July 6, 2012). Section 32703(a) of the Act states that, not later
than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Act, the Secretary shall
prescribe regulations requiring safety belts to be installed in
motorcoaches at each designated seating position. The Motorcoach
Enhanced Safety Act also directs the Secretary to consider various
motorcoach rulemakings, in provided timeframes, relating to improved
roof support standards, advanced glazing standards and other portal
improvements to prevent partial and complete ejection of motorcoach
passengers, rollover stability enhancing technology, tire pressure
monitoring systems, and tire performance standards. The Act also
includes provisions on fire research, interior impact protection,
enhanced seating designs, and collision avoidance systems, and the
consideration of rulemaking based on such research. There also are
provisions in the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act relating to improved
oversight of motorcoach service providers, including enhancements to
driver licensing and training programs and motorcoach inspection
programs.
    In Section 32702, ``Definitions,'' of the Motorcoach Enhanced
Safety Act, the Act states at Section 32702(6) that ``the term
`motorcoach' has the meaning given the term `over-the-road bus' in
section 3038(a)(3) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (49 U.S.C. 5310 note), but does not include a bus used in
public transportation provided by, or on behalf of, a public
transportation agency; or a school bus, including a multifunction
school activity bus.'' Section 3038(a)(3) (49 U.S.C. 5310 note) states:
``The term `over-the-road bus' means a bus characterized by an elevated
passenger deck located over a baggage compartment.''
    Section 32702(2) of the Act states: ``The term `bus' has the
meaning given the term in section 571.3(b) of title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of
this Act).'' 49 CFR 571.3(b) is a NHTSA regulation that defines ``bus''
as: ``a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for
carrying more than 10 persons.''
    Section 32702(12) of the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act states:
``The term `safety belt' has the meaning given the term in section
153(i)(4)(B) of title 23, United States Code.'' Section 153(i)(4)(B) of
Title 23 defines ``safety belt'' as ``an occupant restraint system
consisting of integrated lap shoulder belts.''
    Under section 32703(e)(1) of the Act, any regulation prescribed in
accordance with section 32703(a) (and several other subsections) shall
apply to all motorcoaches manufactured more than 3 years after the date
on which the regulation is published as a final rule, take into account
the impact to seating capacity of changes to size and weight of
motorcoaches and the ability to comply with State and Federal size and
weight requirements, and be based on the best available science.
    Section 32703(e)(2), ``Retrofit Assessment For Existing
Motorcoaches,'' states: ``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).'' The requirements of today's final rule were
established under subsection (a).
    Section 32706, ``Concurrence of Research and Rulemaking,'' states
in paragraph (a) that, to the extent feasible, the Secretary shall
ensure that research programs are carried out concurrently, and in a
manner that concurrently assesses results, potential countermeasures,
costs, and benefits. Paragraph (b), ``Authority to Combine
Rulemakings,'' states: ``When considering each of the rulemaking
provisions, the Secretary may initiate a single rulemaking proceeding
encompassing all aspects or may combine the rulemakings as the
Secretary deems appropriate.'' Paragraph (c), ``Considerations,''
states: If the Secretary undertakes separate rulemaking proceedings,
the Secretary shall (1) consider whether each added aspect of
rulemaking may contribute to addressing the safety need determined to
require rulemaking; (2) consider the benefits obtained through the
safety belts rulemaking in section 32703(a); and (3) avoid duplicative
benefits, costs, and countermeasures.
    Section 32711 of the Act states: Any standard or regulation
prescribed or modified pursuant to the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act
of 2012 shall be prescribed or modified in accordance with section 553
of title 5, United States Code.

c. Agency Views

    At the time of the enactment of the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act,
the agency's August 18, 2010 NPRM to require lap/shoulder belts in new
buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) had been published
and work was close to completion in DOT on the final rule. Congress was
aware of our progress on the agency's 2007 NHTSA's Approach to
Motorcoach Safety Plan and the achievements of the Department's
Motorcoach Safety Plan when it passed the statute. Given that the
Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act provides a very short timeframe (1 year)
for issuance of a final rule, we believe that Congress intended that a
final rule based on the 2010 NPRM would complete the rulemaking
proceeding specified in section 32703(a) of the Act. This final rule
fulfills the rulemaking mandate of section 32703(a).
    We interpret the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act as providing us
discretion in most areas, while limiting it in some. This regulation
was initiated by NHTSA prior to enactment of Act and we are required by
the statute to complete it in 1 year, and to complete it in such a way
as to prescribe ``safety belts'' (lap/shoulder belts) at ``each
designated seating position'' in the buses the statute calls
``motorcoaches'' (over-the-road buses except for buses used in public
transportation provided by, or on behalf of, a public transportation
agency, or school buses). This final rule achieves the Congressional
goal that focuses on over-the-road buses \27\ and requires all
designated seating positions on the over-the-road buses to have lap/
shoulder belts regardless of the seating configuration of the bus or
the vehicle GVWR. To the extent discretion in our decision-making on a
particular issue for over-the-road buses is limited by the Act, we have
identified those circumstances in this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ An over-the-road bus is a bus characterized by an elevated
passenger deck over a baggage compartment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Yet, this regulation was initiated by NHTSA under the authority of
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et
seq.), prior to enactment of the Motorcoach

Enhanced Safety Act, and Congress was aware of the NPRM when it enacted
the 2012 statute. NHTSA issued the NPRM under rulemaking authority that
has existed and continues to exist prior to and separate from the 2012
Act. There is no provision in the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act
limiting NHTSA's rulemaking authority under the Vehicle Safety Act to
require belts on buses, other than specific mandate for ``over-the-road
buses,'' which the statute defines. Thus, we believe that the
Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act calls for a regulation for ``over-the-
road buses'' without limiting our authority under the Vehicle Safety
Act to apply the regulation to other buses as NHTSA finds appropriate
under the Vehicle Safety Act, including over-the-road buses used in
public transportation, and buses other than over-the-road buses (e.g.,
body-on-frame buses) with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb).
    Accordingly, this final rule requires lap/shoulder belts on buses
other than those called ``motorcoaches'' in the Motorcoach Enhanced
Safety Act. We also believe that NHTSA has wider decision-making
discretion regarding those ``other buses,'' and is able to exclude a
particular type of non-over-the-road bus from a requirement of the
final rule if the agency finds good reason to do so. For example, for
sound, practical reasons, including the safety of prison guards, this
regulation does not require designated seating positions for prisoners
on ``prison buses'' to have seat belts.
    NHTSA is authorized under the Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor
vehicle safety standards that ``shall be practicable, meet the need for
motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms'' (49 U.S.C.
30111(a)). When prescribing a motor vehicle safety standard, NHTSA
considers, inter alia, relevant available motor vehicle safety
information, whether a standard is reasonable, practicable, and
appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment for which it is prescribed, and the extent to which the
standard will carry out the purpose and policy of the Act, i.e., reduce
traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic
accidents (49 U.S.C. 30111(b)). In exercising this authority, we have
responded to the comments on the NPRM and assessed other information
relevant to this rulemaking in a manner that ensures that the final
rule meets the criteria of the Vehicle Safety Act, the Administrative
Procedure Act, other relevant statutes and orders, and the particular
statutory instructions of the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act.
    As to the latter, among the matters we have taken into account are
the impact on seating capacity and the impact on the size and weight of
motorcoaches. We have considered the best available science. We have
weighed the cumulative effect of our rulemakings and whether rulemaking
could be combined. We have analyzed retrofit requirements. In sum, we
have issued this final rule after careful deliberation of the factors
emphasized for consideration in the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act,
which we note are also factors NHTSA investigates carefully and as a
matter of course when the agency conducts rulemaking under the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

III. Background

a. The Agency's 2007 ``NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach Safety'' Plan

    In 2007, NHTSA undertook a comprehensive review of motorcoach
(intercity bus) safety issues and the course of action that the agency
could pursue to address them. The agency considered various prevention,
mitigation, and evacuation approaches in developing the course of
action. Many considerations were factored into determining the
priorities, including: Cost and duration of testing, development, and
analysis required; likelihood that the effort would lead to the desired
and successful conclusion; target population and possible benefits that
might be realized; and anticipated cost of implementing the ensuing
requirements into the bus fleet.
    The result was NHTSA's 2007 ``NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach
Safety'' plan (Docket No. NHTSA-2007-28793-001), in which we identified
the following areas as the highest priorities for possible near term
regulatory action to enhance the safety of the vehicles: (1) Passenger
ejection; (2) rollover structural integrity; (3) emergency egress; and
(4) fire safety. For passenger ejection (action (1)), we pursued the
incorporation of passenger seat belts as the most effective and
expeditious way to mitigate ejection.
    Today's final rule completes the agency's initiative in achieving
the first goal of the plan.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ NHTSA is completing work on a proposal with regard to
action (2) on improving rollover structural integrity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. DOT's 2009 Task Force Action Plan

    In 2009, DOT issued a Departmental Motorcoach Safety Action Plan,
which outlined a Department-wide strategy to enhance motorcoach
safety.\29\ In addition to the four priority action items specified in
NHTSA's 2007 ``NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach Safety'' plan, the DOT
plan identified other strategies the Department will pursue to enhance
motorcoach safety, such as pursuing electronic stability control (ESC)
systems, event data recorders (EDR), and programs addressing driver
fatigue and operator maintenance. On May 23, 2012, NHTSA issued an NPRM
to establish a new Federal motor vehicle safety standard on ESC, to
reduce rollover and loss of directional control crashes of truck
tractors and large buses, including motorcoaches (77 FR 30766, Docket
number NHTSA-2012-0065). Work is underway in NHTSA and the other DOT
agencies on other motorcoach safety initiatives discussed in the plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/documents/safety-security/MotorcoachSafetyActionPlan_finalreport-508.pdf. In the DOT plan,
``motorcoach'' is generally used to describe over-the-road buses
(buses characterized by an elevated passenger deck over a baggage
compartment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. NTSB Recommendations

    The following NTSB recommendations relate to this final rule.
     H-90-75: Revise Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208,
Occupant Crash Protection, to include a requirement that lap shoulder
belt systems for the driver position be installed in all newly
manufactured buses, including city, intercity, small, and large. (Class
II, Priority Action).
     H-99-47 (``Most Wanted''): In 2 years, develop performance
standards for motorcoach occupant protection systems that account for
frontal impact collisions, side impact collisions, rear impact
collisions, and rollovers.
     H-99-48: Once pertinent standards have been developed for
motorcoach occupant protection systems, require newly manufactured
motorcoaches to have an occupant crash protection system that meets the
newly developed performance standards and retains passengers, including
those in child safety restraint systems, within the seating compartment
throughout the accident sequence for all accident scenarios.
     H-05-01: Develop performance standards for passenger seat
anchorages in motorcoaches.
     H-10-002: To maintain consistency in bus body
classifications and to clarify the scope of bus safety initiatives,
develop regulatory definitions and classifications for each of the
different bus body types that would apply to all U.S. Department of
Transportation agencies and promote use of the

definitions among the bus industry and state governments.
     H-10-003: In NHTSA's rulemaking to improve motorcoach
occupant protection, include all buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000
lb, other than school buses.
H-90-75, H-99-47, H-99-48, H-05-01, H-10-002, and H-10-003
    It should be noted that, at the time NTSB recommendations H-90-75,
H-99-47, H-99-48, and H-05-01 were issued, there were no crash test
data or countermeasure studies available. Today, the testing we
conducted as part of the ``NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach Safety'' plan
provides extensive data upon which the agency has assessed the
practicability of installing lap/shoulder belt systems on the affected
buses and the potential effectiveness of the belts at passenger seating
positions.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ NHTSA's research program evaluating the performance of seat
belt systems on motorcoach passenger seats is discussed in detail in
the NPRM, Section V. See 75 FR at 50967. See also the FRIA for this
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    H-90-75 recommended that we amend FMVSS No. 208 to require that
lap/shoulder belt systems for the driver position be installed in all
newly manufactured buses. This final rule adopts a lap/shoulder belt
requirement for the driver's position of large school buses, all over-
the-road buses, and non-over-the-road buses with a GVWR greater than
11,793 kg (26,000 lb) with certain exceptions.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Exceptions are transit buses and perimeter-seating buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    H-99-47 and H-99-48 requested us to develop performance standards
for motorcoach occupant protection systems that account for frontal
impact collisions, side impact collisions, rear impact collisions, and
rollovers, and apply those standards to new motorcoaches. Today's final
rule requires lap/shoulder belts at each passenger seating position in
the affected buses, which includes all over-the-road buses. In the
NHTSA test program conducted as part of our ``Approach to Motorcoach
Safety'' plan, lap/shoulder belts on forward-facing seats were found to
prevent elevated head and neck injury values and provided enhanced
occupant protection compared to lap belts.
    Addressing H-99-48, this final rule requires the lap/shoulder belts
on passenger seating positions to meet FMVSS No. 208's ``lockability''
requirement (S<IP_ADDRESS>, 49 CFR 571.208). The requirement is for the lap
belt to be lockable so as to secure child restraint systems tightly,
without the need to attach a clip or any other device to the vehicle's
seat belt webbing.
    This final rule addresses H-05-01, which recommended that NHTSA
develop performance standards for passenger seat anchorages in
motorcoaches. This final rule requires that the lap/shoulder seat belt
anchorages on the affected buses meet the anchorage strength
requirements for lap/shoulder belts in FMVSS No. 210. Those existing
strength requirements specify that each lap/shoulder belt be tested
with a load of 13,345 N (3,000 lb) applied simultaneously to the lap
and shoulder belt, for a total load of 26,690 N (6,000 lb). This
requirement is based on test data from our research program, discussed
in ``NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach Safety'' plan, showing the 13,345 N
(3,000 lb) strength requirement is needed to address loads that can
occur in serious frontal crashes.
    In issuing today's final rule, NHTSA carefully considered H-10-002,
which asked NHTSA to develop regulatory definitions and classifications
for each of the different bus body types that would apply to all DOT
agencies. This issue is discussed in a later section of this preamble
on the proposed ``motorcoach'' definition.
    We also carefully considered H-10-003, which asked NHTSA to include
buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or more in rulemaking to
improve motorcoach occupant protection. NTSB and others raised this
issue in comments on the NPRM, and our response on this issue is
provided in the definition section of this preamble.

d. Congressional Mandate

    On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed the ``Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act'' (MAP-21),'' which incorporated in
Subtitle G the ``Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of 2012.'' Section II
of this preamble, above, summarizes the provisions of the Act relevant
to this final rule.

IV. Safety Need

a. Introduction

    Each year, the commercial bus industry transports millions of
people between and in cities, for long and short distance tours, school
field trips, commuter, and entertainment-related trips. According to
the American Bus Association (ABA), there were approximately 3,400
motorcoach \32\ carriers in the United States and Canada in 2007.\33\
These motorcoach carriers operated over 33,000 motorcoaches, they
logged nearly 750 million passenger trips, and they traveled over 1.8
billion miles yearly. Approximately 3,100 of the carriers were
chartered U.S. carriers that operated about 29,000 motorcoaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ As used in the report, ``motorcoach'' refers to an over-
the-road bus. When we discuss this report, we use the term
motorcoach to mean an over-the-road bus.
    \33\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the ABA report, the services provided by these
commercial buses in 2007 included charter services (pre-formed group
(organization, association, tour company, shuttle service, church,
school, etc.) that hires a motorcoach for exclusive use under a fixed
contract) (46.4 percent of the miles driven), scheduled service
(specified, ticketed, predetermined regular-route service between
cities or terminals) (26.5 percent of the miles driven), commuter
service (transporting people between home and work) (10.3 percent of
the miles driven), tour/sightseeing service (planned trip at fixed
price for leisure and/or sightseeing) (8.2 percent of the miles
driven), special operations (published, regular-route service to
special events, or service for employees to work sites) (3.5 percent of
the miles driven), and airport shuttle services (private motorcoaches
used to enhance public transportation system service to and from the
airport) (3.4 percent of the miles driven). In 2007, each motorcoach
was driven an average of 56,000 miles. The majority of the motorcoach
trips (65 percent) were made by children and senior citizens.
    Although commercial bus transportation overall is a safe form of
transportation in the U.S., a number of crashes in recent years have
illustrated that fatal crashes of high-capacity buses, while a
relatively rare event, can cause a significant number of fatal or
serious injuries in a single event. Pursuant to the requirements of the
Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA developed its ``Approach to Motorcoach
Safety'' plan and commenced the associated safety rulemakings to
explore whether there are unreasonable safety risks associated with
these buses, and if there are, whether the risks can be reduced in a
reasonable manner by the issuance of crashworthiness and crash
avoidance safety standards.
    We started by analyzing fatal accident crash data from 2000-2009 to
assess whether there are unreasonable safety risks associated with
high-occupancy bus transportation. We analyzed data for buses with a
GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). The 2000-2009 FARS

data revealed that 83 percent of the fatalities in the buses were in
buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). We focused our
rulemaking on those buses, effectively using agency resources.
    FARS data show that over half of the fatalities in buses with a
GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) were attributable to rollovers,
and that the vast majority of fatalities in rollovers were due to
ejections.
    NHTSA's research on passenger vehicle and motorcoach rollovers has
shown that there exists a proven countermeasure (a lap/shoulder seat
belt) that is readily available, practicable, and cost effective, that
successfully mitigates the risk of ejection in rollovers. We have also
found that nearly half of the fatalities in the covered vehicles were
in non-rollover crashes, and that more than half of the fatalities in
the 2000-2009 FARS files were not ejected. The potential benefit of
lap/shoulder seat belts in reducing those non-ejection fatalities is
also remarkable.
    This final rule addresses the present occupant fatality risk in
over-the-road buses and in other buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793
kg (26,000 lb), given the occurrence of fatality and serious injury in
rollover and frontal crashes, and the proven protection afforded by
lap/shoulder seat belts. Various commenters have urged us also to
require lap/shoulder seat belts on all buses with a GVWR between 4,536
kg and 11,793 kg (10,000 lb and 26,000 lb). Although we decline to do
so in today's rulemaking, we can continue our evaluation of whether
belts should be required for all buses with a GVWR less than 11,793 kg
(26,000 lb) after this final rule.

b. FARS Data

    To identify the vehicles to which this rulemaking should apply, the
agency examined FARS data files to understand characteristics and
trends associated with bus fatal crashes.\34\ FARS contains data on a
census of fatal traffic crashes within the 50 States, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico. To be included in FARS, a crash must involve
a motor vehicle traveling on a traffic way customarily open to the
public, and must result in the death of an occupant of a vehicle or a
non-occupant within 30 days of the crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Previous discussion of the FARS data is set forth in the
2010 seat belt NPRM and in the DOT 2009 Motorcoach Action Plan,
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/reports/HS811177.pdf. In
the DOT 2009 Motorcoach Action Plan, ``motorcoach'' referred to
over-the-road buses only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing this rulemaking, we analyzed 10 years of FARS data
for all high-occupancy buses, i.e., buses with a GVWR greater than
4,536 kg (10,000 lb). We analyzed these FARS data to understand the
involvement of these buses in fatal crashes, and to develop a focused
strategy for improving the crashworthiness and crash-avoidance
attributes of such buses involved in fatal crashes. We did not include
data for transit and school buses in this analysis, as these vehicles
are not used as motorcoaches or coded as such in FARS, and were not the
vehicles targeted by the NHTSA and DOT safety plans, or by the
Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of 2012, as the subjects of this
rulemaking initiative.
    The FARS data analysis for fatalities of occupants in buses with a
GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) showed that 83 percent of the
occupant fatalities were in buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg
(26,000 lb). That is, in these 10 years of data, one noteworthy
attribute of the high-occupancy vehicles involved in fatal crashes was
that in an overwhelming majority of cases, the GVWR of the vehicles was
more than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). Thus, based on these data, NHTSA
determined that the vehicles of significance for this immediate
rulemaking were buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000
lb).\35\ The FARS data indicated that these buses have a substantially
higher involvement in fatal crashes involving passenger fatalities than
buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg to 11,793 kg (10,000 lb to 26,000 lb).
The buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) also had more
involvement in rollover crashes resulting in occupant ejection than
buses with a lighter GVWR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ In the NPRM, NHTSA described the GVWR criterion as 11,793
kg (26,000 lb) or greater, which was not consistent with FMCSA's
criterion describing the affected class of commercial vehicles (GVWR
greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)). This final rule uses the FMCSA
criterion (GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) in describing the
affected vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Updated FARS Data

    For the NPRM, the agency assumed that the vehicles of significance
were coded in FARS as ``cross-country/intercity buses'' in the body
type variable.\36\ ``Cross-country/intercity buses'' is defined in FARS
as buses designed to travel long distances between cities (e.g.
Greyhound) and is represented by the over-the-road bus characterized by
an elevated passenger deck located over a baggage compartment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The FARS database has five bus body type categories: (1)
cross-country/intercity bus, (2) transit bus, (3) school bus, (4)
other bus, and (5) unknown bus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the NPRM was published, we became aware that we had missed
some FARS data that had been filed in the ``other buses'' and ``unknown
buses'' FARS body type categories by crash investigators. To address
this, when we updated the FARS data for this final rule to include the
2009 FARS data, we also examined 2000-2009 FARS data for ``other
buses'' and ``unknown buses'' FARS bus body types. We expanded our
analysis to make sure that we identified and examined FARS data for all
high-occupancy bus crashes (GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000
lb)).\37\ We considered data from all three bus body type categories to
assess the fatal crash involvement of buses with a GVWR greater than
4,536 kg (10,000 lb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ By considering the data for buses categorized as cross-
country/intercity buses, other buses, and unknown buses as relevant
data, we are analyzing FARS data for all buses in FARS except data
for transit buses and school buses. It is reasonable to exclude
transit bus and school bus body types because those bus types are
easily recognized and categorized as such by crash investigators and
those coding the FARS data. By considering all data for the cross-
country/intercity bus, other bus and unknown bus categories, today's
final rule analyzes all available FARS data relevant to
``motorcoach'' and other bus fatal crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The findings of the reanalyzed 2000-2009 FARS data of all buses
with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) still showed the merits
of focusing this particular rulemaking on buses with a GVWR greater
than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). These buses have a substantially higher
involvement in fatal crashes involving passenger fatalities than buses
with a GVWR of 4,536 kg to 11,793 kg (10,000 lb to 26,000 lb). Over the
10-year period (2000-2009), there were a total of 42 (7 drivers, 35
passengers) fatalities in cross-country/intercity buses, other buses,
and unknown buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg to 11,793 kg (10,000 lb to
26,000 lb). In contrast, among the cross-country/intercity buses, other
buses, and unknown buses categories with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg
(26,000 lb), there were a total of 209 (41 drivers, 168 passengers)
occupant fatalities \38\ in crashes during the 10-year period (2000-
2009). This number includes 134 occupant fatalities in cross-country/
intercity buses, 47 in other buses, and 28 in unknown buses (see Table
5 and Figure 1 below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ There were 232 occupant fatalities in the affected buses in
this 10-year period but 23 fatalities occurred due to a fire
(Wilmer, Texas motorcoach fire) and were not related to a crash
event. To accurately assess the fatality, NHTSA did not include the
23 Wilmer, Texas fatalities since those were not crash-related.

               Table 5--Number of Bus Occupant Fatalities in Crashes by Bus Body Type, GVWR, and Occupant Type. FARS 2000-2009 Data Files
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Bus body type
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        GVWR (lb)                              Cross-country               Other                  Unknown                  Total
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Driver       Pass       Driver       Pass       Driver       Pass       Driver       Pass
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10,000-26,000...........................................           0           2           5          26           2           7           7          35
>26,000.................................................          22         112          11          36           8          20          41         168
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO13.000

    To promulgate a ``motorcoach'' lap/shoulder seat belt standard most
effectively, expeditiously, and most closely aligned with NHTSA's
Vehicle Safety Act, the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, and the NHTSA
and DOT motorcoach safety plans, the agency has focused this particular
rulemaking on all over-the-road buses and other buses with a GVWR
greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). The present crash data indicate a
current need to require lap/shoulder seat belts in buses with a GVWR
greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb).\39\ We can examine buses with a
GVWR less than or equal to 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) in a separate action,
where information specific to those buses could be more closely
analyzed. Safety is our highest priority, and we will continuously work
to adopt practical measures that make our transportation systems safer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ We note that, consistent with the Motorcoach Enhanced
Safety Act, today's final rule includes over-the-road buses with a
GVWR less than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). However, the FARS data in
Table 1 shows only 2 fatalities in over-the-road buses (coded as
cross-country by FARS) with a GVWR of 4,536 kg to 11,793 kg (10,000
lb to 26,000 lb). These are most likely miscoded. Thus, the field
data analysis focuses on buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg
(26,000 lb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fatality Trends for Buses With a GVWR Greater Than 11,793 kg (26,000
lb)
    Among the 209 occupant fatalities in buses with a GVWR greater than
11,793 kg (26,000 lb) in the 10-year period (2000-2009), the FARS data
show that 168 (80 percent) were passengers, and 41 (20 percent) were
drivers. In addition, the data show that 64 percent of the fatalities
were in cross-country/intercity buses and 36 percent were in the other
bus and unknown bus categories (see Table 5 above).
    As shown in Figure 1, fatalities in the affected vehicles in
certain years were significantly higher than average. There were 28 or
more occupant fatalities in the covered buses in 2002, 2004, and 2008.
We note that such increases in the fatality statistics were often
attributable to a small number of serious crashes during the year which
caused a large number of fatalities.
    For example, the majority of fatalities in 2004 resulted from a
crash in Arkansas, which involved an over-the-road bus hitting a
highway signpost and subsequently rolling over. The rollover and
partial detachment of the roof resulted in the ejection of all 30
occupants. This crash resulted in 15 fatalities, including the driver.
All 14 passengers who died in this crash were ejected.
    The 42 passenger fatalities in the covered buses in 2008 were
mainly a result of 3 separate crashes. The first event was a rollover
crash that occurred in Mexican Hat, Utah, where the over-the-road bus
overturned as it departed the roadway and rolled one full turn,
striking several rocks in a drainage ditch bed at the bottom of the
embankment, and came to rest on its wheels. The roof of the bus
separated from the body, and 51 of the 53 occupants were ejected. Nine
passengers were fatally injured

and 43 passengers and the driver received various injuries.
    The second 2008 event was a crash in Sherman, Texas, where the
over-the-road bus went through the bridge railing and off the bridge
about 15 feet above a creek, then rolled onto its side. Seventeen
passengers died in the crash.
    The third 2008 event was a rollover crash near Williams,
California, where the over-the-road bus flipped and rolled into a
ditch, killing 9 people and injuring more than 30 others. Approximately
a dozen passengers were ejected from the bus.
Rollover and Ejection Statistics
    Using the aforementioned FARS bus body type categories (cross-
county/intercity, other buses and unknown buses), the agency examined
the 2000-2009 FARS data for vehicles with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg
(26,000 lb) to understand more about the fatal crashes. The FARS data
show that rollovers account for more than half of the occupant
fatalities in crashes of the affected buses. Figure 2, below, shows the
209 fatalities in the affected buses categorized by rollover/first
impact point for the 10-year period 2000-2009. If a bus had been
involved in a rollover, it is categorized as a rollover crash since a
rollover is generally the most harmful event in a crash and results in
most of the passenger fatalities. Buses not involved in a rollover are
categorized by first impact point (front, side, and rear).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO13.001

    Among the 209 occupant fatalities in buses with a GVWR greater than
11,793 kg (26,000 lb) (2000-2009 FARS data), rollovers accounted for
114 fatalities (55 percent). There were no fatalities in side impacts
in cross-country and unknown bus body type categories and no fatalities
in rear impacts for all three bus body type categories.
    The agency further examined these data and found that a majority of
fatalities in rollover crashes of buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793
kg (26,000 lb) involved occupant ejections. Figure 3 shows the
distribution of fatalities in rollover crashes of cross-country, other,
and unknown buses with a GVWR greater than 26,000 lb, by occupant type
and ejection status. For the 10-year period from 2000 to 2009, there
were 32 fatal rollover crashes, resulting in 114 fatalities. In these
rollover crashes, two-thirds (75 out of 114) of the fatalities were
occupants who were ejected. Three drivers (3 percent) involved in
rollover crashes were ejected.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO13.002

    Figure 4 shows ejection status as related to the occurrence of
rollovers of the covered buses. For non-rollover crashes there were 95
fatalities, or 45.5 percent (95/209) of the total. In non-rollover
crashes only 20.0 percent (19/95) of the 95 fatalities were ejected.
Considering all crash types, fatalities were split nearly equally
between ejected (45.0 percent (94/209)) and non-ejected (55.0 percent
(115/209)).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO13.003

V. Summary of the NPRM

    The FARS data showed that rollovers accounted for 55 percent of
fatalities in buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb).
Further, the vast majority of fatalities in rollover crashes of these
covered buses involved occupant ejections. NHTSA proposed in the August
18, 2010 NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 208 to require lap/shoulder belts at
all passenger seating positions on ``motorcoaches,'' which the NPRM
identified as buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb).\40\
The agency focused the NPRM on these buses to address the ejection
safety problem as quickly as possible, and to improve occupant
protection in frontal crashes. NHTSA's bus research showed that lap/
shoulder belts would improve the survivability of occupants in frontal
crashes even when a rollover was not involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Exceptions were transit and school buses and buses with
fewer than two rows of forward-facing seats. Also, as noted earlier,
the NPRM stated ``GVWR of 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) or more,'' when it
should have stated ``GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)'' to be
consistent with FMCSA regulations. The latter term is also
consistent with other NHTSA standards, which use the ``GVWR greater
than'' phrasing rather than the ``GVWR of X or more.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To define the types of vehicles to which the amended requirements
would apply, the NPRM proposed to add a definition of ``motorcoach'' to
49 CFR Part 571.3 and to apply FMVSS No. 208`s amended requirements to
``motorcoaches.'' The proposed definition was as follows:

    [Proposed definition] Motorcoach means a bus with a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 11,793 kilograms (26,000 pounds) or
greater, 16 or more designated seating positions (including the
driver), and at least 2 rows of passenger seats, rearward of the
driver's seating position, that are forward-facing or can convert to
forward-facing without the use of tools. Motorcoach includes buses
sold for intercity, tour, and commuter bus service, but does not
include a school bus, or an urban transit bus sold for operation as
a common carrier in urban transportation along a fixed route with
frequent stops.

    The NPRM proposed to modify FMVSS No. 208 to require lap/shoulder
belts at each seating position (except side-facing seats were permitted
to have either a lap or a lap/shoulder belt), require the belts to be
integral to the seat (except the driver seat) and to meet current FMVSS
No. 208 provisions for seat belt adjustment, fit, lockability, and
release. By virtue of the FMVSS No. 208 requirement for lap/shoulder
belts at each seat, the NPRM proposed the lap/shoulder belt anchorages
meet FMVSS No. 210, which specifies a force of 13,345 N (3,000 lb)
applied simultaneously to the lap and torso portions of the belt
assembly.

VI. Overview of the Comments

    NHTSA received approximately 130 comments on the NPRM. Comments
were received from consumer and other groups, individuals, bus seat
suppliers, bus manufacturers and industry groups, and motorcoach owners
and operators.
    This section provides a high-level overview of the comments, and
focuses mainly on the reaction of the commenters to the general issue
of whether lap/shoulder belts should be required for motorcoach
passengers. We note below the general support or opposition to that
issue, but readers should keep in mind that there were many issues in
the NPRM to which commenters replied. Summaries of responses to sub-
issues are provided, to the extent relevant, in the appropriate
sections of this preamble.
    Many consumer and other groups strongly supported the proposal that
lap/shoulder belts be provided for motorcoach passengers. Commenters
supporting the proposal included: NTSB, Consumers Union, Advocates for
Highway Safety, Center for Automotive Safety, National Association of
Bus Crash Families/West Brook Bus Crash Families, groups representing
pediatricians, child passenger safety advocates, and school bus
transportation organizations, and private individuals. Of the
approximately 42 individual members of the public commenting on the
NPRM, over 31 supported the proposed requirement for lap/shoulder
belts.
    The 10 individual members of the public opposing the proposed
requirement for lap/shoulder belts generally cited the low annual
number of motorcoach fatalities, low seat belt use, poor comfort,
difficulty of enforcing use, and a perceived high cost per life saved.
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's Republic of
China opposed the NPRM, stating that seat belts should be optional
except for seats in rows that lack ``obvious shielding'' (e.g., the
first row).
    Seat suppliers IMMI \41\ and American Seating supported the
proposed seat belt requirement, as did the Automotive Occupant
Restraints Council.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ IMMI was founded as Indiana Mills and Manufacturing, Inc.
IMMI also manufactures seat belt systems.
    \42\ In 2011 the organization changed its name to the Automotive
Safety Council (ASC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bus manufacturers and associations mostly did not overtly support
or oppose the proposal, but most expressed concern about one or more
aspects of it. Motor Coach Industries (MCI), a motorcoach manufacturer,
stated that the NPRM's claiming that seat belts would enhance rollover
protection was speculative and that NHTSA should conduct more research
on this subject. Turtle Top, a bus manufacturer, asked that seat belts
be a safety option. Blue Bird, a bus and school bus manufacturer,
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. Several bus
manufacturers asked for a ``prison bus'' exclusion.
    Motorcoach transportation providers were divided in their reaction
to the proposed requirement for lap/shoulder seat belts. The operators
of the larger fleets in the industry were supportive of the proposal.
There was concern about costs associated with the upkeep and
maintenance of seat belts and enforcement of belt use. 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, and expressed
concerns about increased cost, possible low seat 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.
    An issue in the NPRM on which many commented was: To which vehicles
should lap/shoulder seat belt requirements apply, i.e., the proposed
definition of ``motorcoach.'' Many consumer groups, seat suppliers, and
some bus manufacturers supported applying the seat belt requirements to
all buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). Many bus
manufacturers believed that the proposal did not clearly differentiate
between motorcoaches and ``transit buses.'' A number of bus
manufacturers

wanted to reduce the reach of the definition and exclude more bus
types. Many commenters had questions about or suggested changes to
various components of the proposed definition.

VII. Differences Between the Final Rule and the NPRM

    The most significant differences between this final rule and the
NPRM are described briefly below. Less significant changes are
discussed in the appropriate sections of this preamble.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ For the convenience of the reader, we have placed in the
docket for this final rule a memorandum that describes this final
rule's changes to the organization of FMVSS No. 208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule does not adopt a ``motorcoach'' definition. We have
determined that it is unnecessary to define ``motorcoach'' to
accomplish the objective of this rulemaking. Instead, it amends FMVSS
No. 208 to require seat belts and the associated requirements at all
seating positions on over-the-road buses and on buses, other than over-
the-road buses, with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), with
the exception of certain bus types.\44\ Further, simply applying FMVSS
No. 208 and 210 to all over-the-road buses and to other buses based on
the GVWR criterion avoids some confusion associated with using the term
``motorcoach'' to describe certain buses that may not have been widely
thought of as motorcoaches in the past or described as such by the
Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ The exceptions are transit buses, school buses, ``prison
buses'' (buses manufactured for the purpose of transporting persons
subject to involuntary restraint or confinement), and ``perimeter-
seating buses'' (which the NPRM had referred to as buses with fewer
than two rows of forward-facing seats). Note that under the
Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, only non-over-the-road buses can be
included in these excepted categories of prison bus and perimeter-
seating bus. The Act requires each designated seating position on an
over-the-road bus to have a lap/shoulder belt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed GVWR criterion of 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) has been
slightly changed to ``GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)'' from
``GVWR of 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) or greater.'' The one-pound change was
made to make the GVWR cut-off more consistent with the regulations of
FMCSA, which refer to the ``greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)''
terminology in applying its regulations to commercial vehicles.
    The definition of ``motorcoach'' proposed in the NPRM excluded
buses with fewer than two rows of passenger seats, rearward of the
driver's seat, that are forward-facing or can convert to forward-
facing. The intent of this exclusion was to assure that buses whose
seating configuration was primarily around the perimeter of the bus
would not need to install seat belts.\45\ For simplification, we have
decided to exclude such perimeter-seating buses by referring to the
number of forward-facing designated seating positions (DSPs) rearward
of the driver (7 or fewer DSPs) rather than refer to the term ``row,''
which is not defined in 49 CFR 571.3. However, as noted in the footnote
above, because of the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, only non-over-
the-road buses can be included in this excepted category of a
perimeter-seating bus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Perimeter seating is exemplified by a single forward-facing
row of seats at the back of the vehicle, inward-facing seats and a
large luggage rack, along the side walls. This configuration is
intended to increase the speed and ease of passenger boarding and
alighting, such as for airport shuttle buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The transit bus exclusion now refers to a simple description of a
physical feature typically present on a transit bus--the passenger
``stop request'' system--to identify a transit bus under the rule.
    The passenger seats in buses used for the transport of passengers
under physical restraint (prison buses) are also excluded from the seat
belt requirements adopted today. However, as noted in the footnote
above, because of the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, only non-over-
the-road buses can be included in this excepted category of prison bus.

VIII. Motorcoach Definition

    The Vehicle Safety Act requires the FMVSSs to be appropriate for
the vehicle type to which they apply. Each FMVSS specifies the vehicle
types subject to the standard.
    The vehicles affected by this final rule currently fall under the
definition of ``bus'' for the purposes of applying the FMVSSs (49 CFR
Section 571.3) and must comply with the FMVSSs that apply to buses,
consistent with GVWR specifications. A ``bus'' is defined in Sec.
571.3 as ``a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer,
designed for carrying more than 10 persons.'' Some FMVSSs (or
requirements within those standards) apply to buses with a GVWR equal
to or less than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb), others apply to buses with a GVWR
greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb), and some apply to buses without
distinguishing GVWR.
    The agency issued the NPRM to reduce the risk of ejection in
intercity transport buses (75 FR at 50969). A ``motorcoach'' definition
was proposed ``to define the vehicle type to which the proposed
requirements apply and to distinguish motorcoaches from other bus
types.'' Id.
    NHTSA typically analyzes the construction type and the purpose for
which the vehicle is being built when the agency establishes a vehicle
class for the FMVSSs. NHTSA has defined a number of motor vehicle types
in 49 CFR 571.3, including: passenger cars, multipurpose passenger
vehicles (MPVs), trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. For the most
part, for purposes of objectivity and to facilitate the ability of
manufacturers to know at the time of vehicle manufacture which FMVSS
the vehicle must meet, and the ability of dealers knowing at the time
of vehicle sale which vehicles may be sold, the agency seeks to define
vehicles by their attributes and construction features rather than by
their purported intended use.\46\ To make manufacturers' and dealers'
responsibilities in meeting the Vehicle Safety Act as clear as
possible, NHTSA sought to define ``motorcoach'' using reference to
relevant visible attributes and construction characteristics rather
than by the intended use of the vehicles, or some other factor
determined after manufacture or sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ An exception is the ``school bus'' definition, which is
statutory in origin and which refers to the intended purpose for
which the vehicle is sold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA reviewed various definitions used in motorcoach safety
legislation. The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act defines the term
``motorcoach'' as the meaning given the term ``over-the-road bus'' in
section 3038(a)(3) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21).\47\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act states also that the
term does not include a bus used in public transportation provided
by, or on behalf of, a public transportation agency; or a school
bus, including a multifunction school activity bus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TEA-21's definitions also include the following:
     The term ``intercity, fixed-route over-the-road bus
service'' means regularly scheduled bus service for the general public,
using an ``over-the-road bus,'' that (a) operates with limited stops
over fixed routes connecting two or more urban areas not in close
proximity; (b) has the capacity for transporting baggage carried by
passengers; and (c) makes meaningful connections with scheduled
intercity bus service to more distant points.
     The term ``other over-the-road bus service'' means any
other transportation using over-the-road buses including local fixed-
route service, commuter service, and charter or tour service (including
tour or excursion service that

includes features in addition to bus transportation such as meals,
lodging, admission to points of interest or special attractions or the
services of a tour guide).
    We believed that the definitions referring to over-the-road buses
or over-the-road bus service were too narrow for our purpose, because a
number of intercity transport buses involved in fatal crashes were
body-on-chassis buses that lacked an elevated passenger deck over a
baggage compartment. The issue of body-on-chassis buses is discussed
further below. Further, as explained above, definitions that were based
on the intended use of the vehicle could pose difficulties for
manufacturers and dealers, since the intended use of a vehicle might
not be known at the time of vehicle manufacture or sale. We wanted to
make sure as reasonably possible that the buses we most wanted to
affect (high-capacity buses associated with known fatality and injury
risks) would meet the ``motorcoach'' safety standards, without having
to depend on the state of knowledge of persons in the manufacturing and
distribution chain about the prospective use of the bus.
    We were also concerned that the meaning of some of the terms used
in the above definitions was not sufficiently objective for use in the
FMVSSs. Examples of these are: ``regularly scheduled,'' ``two or more
urban areas not in close proximity,'' and ``meaningful connections . .
. to more distant points.''
    Currently, there is no common Departmental or industry definition
of ``motorcoach.'' FMCSA does not have a definition for motorcoach in
its regulations, but it considers a ``motorcoach'' to be an over-the-
road bus. As noted above, over-the-road buses are a subset of the buses
NHTSA believed should be regulated as ``motorcoaches,'' encompassing a
part of but not enough of the heavy bus safety problem we seek to
address.
    In developing criteria for defining motorcoaches, we also examined
other countries' approaches. For countries that have adopted United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) regulations, motorcoaches
are defined as Class III, M3 vehicles. Class III, M3 vehicles are
defined as having occupant seating locations for more than 8
passengers, vehicle weights in excess of 5 metric tons (11,023 lb) and
are not designed to carry standing passengers. We consider this ECE
definition too broad for us to use as a definition of motorcoach, as it
captures vehicles that are not subject to today's lap/shoulder seat
belt standard. The ECE definition includes vehicles that are not
``buses'' under 49 CFR 571.3.\48\ Our discussion of the GVWR criterion
is discussed further later in this section. Further, the reference to
``not designed to carry standing passengers'' would not be sufficiently
objective for our purposes, as people could reasonably disagree as to
whether a particular design allowed or did not allow standees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Under 571.3, a bus is designed to carry 10 or more
passengers. Vehicles designed to carry fewer than 10 passengers are
multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) or passenger cars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We examined the terms used in FARS. The FARS database uses the
following description of a motorcoach: ``Cross Country/Intercity Bus
(e.g., Greyhound).'' Other descriptive information is also collected in
the bus use sub-category, i.e., commuter, tour, scheduled service,
shuttle, etc. For our purposes, as explained in the NPRM (75 FR at
50970), the FARS bus body type definition for ``Cross Country/
Intercity'' and the use-based sub-categories are not appropriate. One
problem is that these terms lack sufficient specificity. In addition,
the use-based subcategories are problematic simply because they
describe use and not physical characteristics, which limits their
potential efficacy in determining the appropriate applicability of the
FMVSS at time of vehicle manufacture and sale. The FARS designations
are not clear enough to give manufacturers and dealers knowledge of the
FMVSSs the bus must meet at the time of manufacture or sale of the
vehicle.
    In developing the NPRM, NHTSA sought to develop a motorcoach
definition as an expedient means of applying FMVSSs to the vehicles
targeted by the agency's safety plan. The vehicles of interest were
high-occupancy buses associated with a known fatality and injury risk.
The buses typically carried a large number of passengers and were
operated at highway speeds. Specific safety risks addressed by the
NHTSA plan were the risks of ejection, prolonged emergency egress from
the vehicles, fire risk, and structural vulnerability to roof loading
in a rollover event.
    To develop a definition for application of these safety
initiatives, we examined the involvement of high-occupancy buses \49\
in fatal crashes over a 10-year period (FARS data files, for the NPRM,
1999-2008; for the final rule, 2000-2009). In this examination of high-
occupancy bus data, we inspected crash data for buses with a GVWR
greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). We analyzed the construction type
and various attributes of the vehicles. The 2000-2009 FARS data show
that for buses over 4,536 kg (10,000 lb), only 17 percent of the
passenger fatalities were in buses with a GVWR less than 11,793 kg
(26,000 lb), but that 83 percent of the fatalities were in buses with a
GVWR greater than 11, 793 kg (26,000 lb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Other than transit buses and school buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We reviewed the underlying chassis structure of high-occupancy
vehicles involved in fatal crashes. Some had a monocoque \50\ structure
with a luggage compartment under the elevated passenger deck (``over-
the-road buses''). However, an elevated passenger deck over a baggage
compartment was not an element common to the buses involved in fatal
intercity transport. In FARS data for buses with a GVWR greater than
11,793 kg (26,000 lb), 36 percent of the fatalities were in the other
bus and unknown bus categories, i.e., not in the over-the-road bus
category. Some buses were built using body-on-chassis configurations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Monocoque means a type of vehicular construction in which
the body is combined with the chassis as a single unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that body-on-chassis configurations are newer entrants
into the motorcoach services market. They appear to be increasing in
number. A cursory review of the types of buses being used in the
Washington, DC area for motorcoach services showed that traditional
motorcoaches are generally used for fixed-route services between major
metropolitan areas. However, for charter, tour, and commuter
transportation from outlying areas, many bus types are used. Some are
of monocoque structure, while others are of body-on-chassis structure.
    The review of the FARS files performed for the NPRM also showed
other characteristics that were common to high-occupancy buses involved
in fatal crashes: 16 or more designated seating positions, and two or
more rows of forward-facing seats that were rearward of the driver's
seating position (i.e., this feature distinguishes the bus from a bus
with perimeter seating).
    With this information, we included these criteria in the proposed
definition, noting that the 16 or more capacity criterion also was
consistent with FMCSA regulations for commercial driver's licenses. We
intended the definition to include buses sold for ``intercity, tour,
and commuter bus service'' (75 FR at 50970) and listed those types of
service in the definition. We proposed to exclude school buses and
urban transit buses from the definition, for reasons explained in the
NPRM.

a. GVWR

    Approximately 11 commenters addressed the proposed GVWR criterion
of 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) or greater. Some commenters expressed their
support for the criteria proposed in the NPRM, including the 11,793 kg
(26,000 lb) GVWR cut-off, without providing specific reasons for their
agreement. Many commenters believed that the criterion should be
lowered to 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) from 11,793 kg (26,000 lb).
    NTSB commented in favor of a 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) GVWR criterion,
stating that ``all buses with a GVWR above 10,000 pounds should be
defined and have standards addressing roof strength, occupant
protection, and window glazing.'' NTSB stated that the 11,793 kg
(26,000 lb) GVWR criterion in the motorcoach definition will exclude
some medium-sized buses from the proposed lap/shoulder seat belt
requirements while including other buses that ``are essentially the
same.'' The commenter stated that medium-size buses should be
categorized as motorcoaches because of the buses' interior design, use
for tour operations, and seating capacity.
    The National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation
Services, Safe Ride News, and Advocates for Highway Safety (Advocates)
also supported lowering the GVWR criterion to 4,536 kg (10,000 lb).
These commenters stated that the proposed definition would exclude
buses that serve the same function and are similar in design to buses
that transport many passengers on high-speed roads.
    Seat suppliers Freedman Seating Company (Freedman) and IMMI
supported lowering the criterion to 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). Freedman
stated that the definition of motorcoach proposed in the NPRM would
leave a class of vehicles with a GVWR between 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) and
11,793 kg (26,000 lb) that would not be required to have seat belts.
Seat supplier American Seating suggested a GVWR criterion of 8,618 kg
(19,000 lb) or greater in order to include vehicles of similar
construction and design intent as ``motorcoaches.''
    Bus manufacturers IC Bus and MCI suggested various vehicle
attributes and features of a ``traditional motorcoach'' for use in a
definition (e.g., 40+ passenger seats, an elevated passenger deck over
a baggage compartment, buses engaged in highway speed). These features
are typically associated with over-the-road buses. Alternatively, IC
Bus suggested that, if NHTSA believes there is a need to ``expand the
motorcoach definition beyond what we would consider the traditional
motorcoach,'' then IC Bus would support a mandate for seat belts on all
forward-facing passenger seats on all buses with a GVWR over 10,000 lb,
excluding urban transit buses and school buses. Similarly, MCI stated
that the GVWR criterion should be lowered to include buses with a GVWR
less than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) if the vehicles are sold for and/or are
engaged in highway speed operations that are the same as or similar to
the typical operation as motorcoaches.
    United Motorcoach Association (UMA) commented in favor of applying
the rulemaking to buses with a GVWR between 4,536 kg and 11,793 kg
(10,000 lb and 26,000 lb), stating that these buses are being
increasingly used in intercity charter and tour bus applications and
have been in accidents.
Agency Response
    We begin by separating two entwined subjects addressed in the
comments on the proposed definition. First is a matter about which
buses should be called ``motorcoaches,'' and the second concerns the
vehicles to which this rulemaking ought to apply.
1. Response to Comments on Looking Like A Traditional Motorcoach
    As to the first matter, some commenters were troubled that certain
buses would be ``motorcoaches'' under the proposed definition when
``motorcoaches'' were traditionally understood by various industry and
user groups to be over-the-road buses (characterized by an elevated
passenger deck located over a baggage compartment) and not trolley
buses (buses configured to look like trolley cars), double-decker
buses, buses using body-on-chassis design, entertainment buses, and the
like. MCI, IC Bus, and UMA presented their arguments in a manner that
appeared to reserve the term ``motorcoach'' for buses that they
described as a ``traditional motorcoach,'' i.e., an ``over-the-road''
bus. IC Bus further recommended that ``motorcoach'' be defined as a
``Class 8'' bus, which has a GVWR greater than 33,000 lb.
    Several commenters identified physical features \51\ of a
``motorcoach'' that they believed would be helpful to use in a
motorcoach definition, such as vehicle floor height (low or high
height) (e.g., a passenger compartment that is more than 45 inches
above the ground); engine location; body/chassis construction
(monocoque versus body-on-chassis); 40 or more passenger seats; whether
the bus has equipment for standees; center of gravity (CG), the number
of entrance/exit doors, the presence of a lavatory, and the presence of
three axles. Some of these features were suggested to distinguish
motorcoaches from transit buses. Some appeared to be suggested by
commenters seeking to avoid having their buses called motorcoaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Some commenters also suggested operating speed and where
the bus is driven (such as exclusively in urban areas), but these
features were not helpful. Since these issues relate to how the
vehicle would be used, as discussed earlier, these use-based
suggestions are not conducive toward determining the applicability
of the FMVSSs during vehicle manufacture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the NPRM, NHTSA and FMCSA met to determine whether it was
necessary to define the term ``motorcoach'' in the final rule given the
public comments and the types of buses NHTSA intended to cover under
its rulemaking. Although FMCSA does not define the term motorcoach, it
uses the term in its programs and many of its constituency groups have
long understood the term ``motorcoach'' to mean an over-the-road bus.
FMCSA informed NHTSA that defining ``motorcoach'' to mean buses other
than over-the-road buses could cause some consternation among user
groups (e.g., bus operators and inspectors) who are accustomed to
thinking of a motorcoach as an over-the-road bus. For instance, if
NHTSA considered all buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000
lb) ``motorcoaches,'' confusion in the field may arise as to whether
FMCSA's in-use requirements for ``motorcoaches'' apply to the vehicles.
    Although each agency in DOT is able to define specific terms in
their regulations that have legal relevance only in the context of that
agency's regulations, NHTSA agrees that confusion should be avoided as
reasonably possible over the use of the word ``motorcoach'' by the
agencies of DOT.
    Thus, after evaluating the above information, we have made the
following conclusions.
    NHTSA seeks to require passenger lap/shoulder seat belts in high-
occupancy buses that, according to accident data, are associated with
an unreasonable risk of passenger fatality and injury due to ejection.
Accident data indicate that these buses, which we proposed in the NPRM
to call ``motorcoaches,'' are buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg
(26,000 lb). FARS data did not show that any feature other than GVWR--
such as floor height, seating capacity, CG, number of axles or
emergency exits, body/chassis construction, or presence of a toilet--

was relevant in distinguishing these buses from buses that did not pose
the increased fatality risk.
    As explained previously and in the NPRM, we believe that limiting
the scope of this rulemaking only to ``traditional motorcoaches''
(over-the-road buses) would only be a partial, incomplete response to
the safety problem. FARS data for 2000-2009 show that buses other than
over-the-road coaches were involved in high speed crashes involving
multiple passenger fatalities due to rollover, ejection and frontal
impacts. FARS data show that 64 percent of the fatalities were in
cross-country/intercity buses (traditional over-the-road type buses)
and 36 percent were in the ``other bus'' and ``unknown bus''
categories. We do not find good reason to exclude from today's seat
belt requirements buses that are of a similar size, seating
configuration, and function as an over-the-road bus type, and that are
associated with the same safety risk as an over-the-road bus, only
because they have a non-traditional (e.g., body-on-chassis) design and
appearance.
    To illustrate, the IC Bus HC Series is an example of large ``mid-
sized'' body-on-chassis bus that approaches the size of a traditional
over-the-road motorcoach. This vehicle can be ordered with a GVWR up to
13,608 kg (30,000 lb), an occupant capacity of 37 or 45, and an
interior that has many of the same features as a traditional
motorcoach. IC Bus advertises this bus on its Web site \52\ as suitable
for tours, shuttle service, sports team transport, high-frequency
trips, ski trips, church group transport, and scheduled route and
transit service. The bus is advertised as having luxury features found
on traditional motorcoaches, such as an audio-video entertainment
system with DVD and AM/FM/CD stereo, overhead parcel rack with aircraft
style air conditioning controls, reading light, plush seating, and
availability of WiFi, satellite TV, and wide-screen television. In
short, this bus can be ordered in a configuration which lends itself to
use as a motorcoach with motorcoach features. There is no reason to
believe that it poses a lesser ejection crash safety risk than a
traditional over-the-road motorcoach. The main difference between this
bus and an over-the-road bus is body-on-chassis construction and a
dedicated luggage compartment in the rear.\53\ There are similarly
sized buses from other manufacturers which even offer luggage storage
under the passenger deck.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ www.icbus.com/ICBus/buses/commercial/hcseries/features.
Last accessed July 10, 2012.
    \53\ Similar buses are being offered by several other
manufacturers, including Turtle Top, Glaval Bus, Starcraft Bus,
Krystal Koach, and Thor Industries and their subsidiaries.
    \54\ www.turtletop.com/OdysseyXLT/Options.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An elevated passenger deck over a baggage compartment was not an
element common to the buses involved in fatal crashes. We believe it
would be short-sighted for our regulation to refer to an under-
compartment storage location for baggage as determinative of the
applicability of this regulation since a separate storage location has
been irrelevant to distinguishing the buses' involvement in fatal
crashes. Also, tour buses are frequently equipped with just an overhead
rack for passengers to store personal belongings. Some buses offer the
baggage compartment as an option to the purchaser.
    We also determined that a self-contained toilet was only prevalent
on long distance travel buses and was not present in all tour or
commuter buses. Other equipment such as reading lights, video displays,
ventilation ports and adjustable seat backs were also not common to all
motorcoach type buses. Accordingly, identifying a motorcoach by the
presence of these features could exclude many of the buses that have
been in fatal crashes over the years. We also wanted to avoid a
definition that could be easily circumvented by persons seeking to have
their buses excluded from the motorcoach category. Such a definition
would be one that specified that a motorcoach is a vehicle with a
feature that a manufacturer could readily leave off of the vehicle.
    Yet, after reviewing the comments, the information from FMCSA, the
Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, and other information, we have decided
to adopt a different approach to apply the requirements of this final
rule than defining ``motorcoach'' as proposed in the NPRM. We have
determined it is unnecessary to define the term to accomplish our
rulemaking objectives, and that it is simpler not to define the term at
all.
    In the NPRM, the agency's proposed definition basically sought to
apply FMVSS No. 208's passenger lap/shoulder belt requirements to buses
with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), excepting certain bus
types. After reviewing the comments, we decided that if those excepted
bus types were defined (e.g., transit bus, school bus \55\), a
preferred approach would be to simply apply FMVSS No. 208's
requirements to buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)
and exclude those excepted bus types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ ``School bus'' is already defined in 49 CFR 571.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After passage of the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, it became
necessary to modify this approach slightly for buses meeting the Act's
over-the-road bus definition. The Act does not place a 11,793 kg
(26,000 lb) lower limit on over-the-road buses, and does not permit
other than lap/shoulder belts on designated seating positions in those
buses. With the Act's provisions in mind, we decided to apply FMVSS No.
208's requirements separately to over-the-road and to non-over-the-road
buses. This is the approach adopted by this final rule.
    This approach is preferable to the NPRM's approach for several
reasons. Some commenters had trouble reconciling the traditional view
of a motorcoach with our proposed definition of a motorcoach and were
confused or perplexed that a bus they had never considered to be a
motorcoach would be a motorcoach under the regulation. We decided that,
with people having pre-conceived ideas of what a ``motorcoach'' is or
should be, it is best not to use the traditional term to describe a
nontraditional universe of buses. This approach accords with plain
writing principles.
    Some manufacturers objected to having their buses called
motorcoaches and having them subject to this rulemaking. In reality, it
does not matter for the application of the standard what name we called
the vehicles. The term was intended as an abbreviated way to apply the
seat belt requirements to the buses that crash data indicate need seat
belts, i.e., buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb).
After considering the comments, we decided we did not need to use the
term ``motorcoach'' to accomplish our rulemaking objectives, and that
it was best to avoid adopting a definition of ``motorcoach'' that
differed from a commonly held understanding of the term.
    This approach is also more practical than the NPRM's because of
enactment of the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, which refers
specifically to over-the-road \56\ buses without a limitation on GVWR,
and calls specifically for lap/shoulder belts at all designated seating
positions on these vehicles. To our knowledge, all buses
``characterized by an elevated passenger deck located over a baggage
compartment'' currently manufactured in the U.S. have GVWRs

greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). It also does not seem likely that
an ``over-the-road'' bus would be produced in the future with a GVWR
under 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). However, markets change, and we are aware
of buses apparently meeting the ``elevated passenger deck located over
a baggage compartment'' description with GVWRs below 11,793 kg (26,000
lb) being sold for use in other countries. Thus, to ensure that all
over-the-road buses in the U.S. in the future are equipped with lap/
shoulder belts at all designated seating positions, we are adopting the
TEA-21 definition of over-the-road bus and explicitly applying today's
regulation to that bus type, as well as to buses other than over-the-
road buses with GVWRs greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). This approach
not only ensures that Congress's intent to enhance the safety of over-
the-road buses is realized now and in the future, but better attains
our overarching goal under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act of enhancing the safety of intercity buses used for
motorcoach transportation.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ An over-the-road bus is statutorily defined as ``a bus
characterized by an elevated passenger deck located over a baggage
compartment.'' See section 3038 of the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 5310 note).
    \57\ Furthermore, another practical advantage is this approach
enables us to refine the requirements of today's final rule in a
clearer manner. We read the Motorcoach Enhancement Safety Act as
limiting the final rule's allowance of lap belts on over-the-road
buses. We have more discretion for other bus types, and we have used
our discretion, as appropriate, to allow lap belts for side-facing
seats on non-over-the-road buses, and to exclude certain buses
(e.g., prison buses) from requirements for seat belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, we are amending FMVSS No. 208 to require lap/shoulder belts
at all seating positions on: (a) Over-the-road buses; and (b) non-over-
the-road buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) (with the
exception of excluded bus types). By extending FMVSS No. 208 to these
vehicles, we are also extending associated requirements to the seat
belt systems on the vehicles, such as the FMVSS No. 210 anchorage
strength requirements. This approach makes the applicability of the
amended FMVSS No. 208 requirements very clear. Under today's final
rule, if the bus is an over-the-road bus, the seat belt system
requirements apply. If the bus is not an over-the-road bus, if its GVWR
is greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), the seat belt system
requirements apply unless the bus is in an excluded category of bus
(transit bus, school bus, perimeter-seating bus, prison bus). This
clear-cut approach accords with plain writing principles.
    Today's approach is more aligned with NTSB H-10-002 than a
situation where the term ``motorcoach'' had different meanings in the
NHTSA and FMCSA programs. Today's approach avoids potential confusion
among the public that might result from a NHTSA definition of
``motorcoach'' that differed from the understanding of the FMCSA
community or from the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act.
    Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, this final rule does
not adopt a ``motorcoach'' definition. It amends FMVSS No. 208 to apply
seat belts and associated requirements at all seating positions and
thereby applies the FMVSS No. 210 anchorage strength requirements to
over-the-road buses, and to non-over-the-road buses with a GVWR greater
than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) with the exception of certain excluded bus
types.
    As indicated above, the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act also directs
the Secretary to consider various other motorcoach rulemakings aside
from today's final rule, and directs us to conduct those rulemakings in
accordance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We
note that in future rulemaking actions targeted at over-the-road buses
and other large buses taken pursuant to these statutory authorities,
there might be a need for the agency to clarify one or more descriptive
parameters in the definition of over-the-road bus, such as the terms
``elevated'' and ``baggage compartment'' in deciding the applicability
of the amended rules. Clarification might be needed so as to avoid
possible conflict among the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for
buses of various types and weights, or to make the applicability of a
standard easier to understand.
2. On Lowering the GVWR Criterion
    The second matter of concern expressed in the comments was: To
which vehicles should this rule apply. Many comments expressed the
position that, since the agency is undertaking a rulemaking to install
lap/shoulder belts on all seats of large buses, now is the time to
require installation of such belts on all buses.\58\ It seemed that
some commenters wanted the GVWR criterion lowered from 11,793 kg
(26,000 lb) to 4,536 kg (10,000 lb), so that when belts are required
and other safety efforts are initiated for ``motorcoaches,'' the seat
belts and safety improvements would be required for all buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ FMVSS No. 208 requires lap/shoulder belts for all seats on
buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less. It also requires
lap belts at the driver seat of buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536
kg (10,000 lb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule requires all over-the-road buses to have lap/
shoulder belts without reference to GVWR, in accordance with the
Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act. For buses other than over-the-road
buses, this rule adopts the GVWR criterion of 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)
\59\ and does not lower it to 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). Our reasons for not
lowering the GVWR criterion for buses other than over-the-road buses
are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ This final rule slightly changes the proposed GVWR
criterion ``GVWR of 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) or greater'' to ``GVWR
greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb).'' The change referring to the 1-
lb difference was made to make the GVWR cut-off more consistent with
the regulations of FMCSA, which use a criterion of ``26,001 lb'' in
its definition of ``commercial motor vehicle.'' See 49 CFR 383.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rulemaking originated to focus on the risk of fatality
associated with ``motorcoaches,'' which NHTSA's 2007 Motorcoach Safety
Plan had called intercity transport buses. This rulemaking was not
intended to address whether seat belts should be required on buses
regardless of vehicle weight class. This final rule also responds to
the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, which requires NHTSA to issue a
final rule ``requiring safety belts to be installed in motorcoaches''
within one year after date of enactment of the Act. Congress was aware
of the August 2010 NPRM preceding this final rule, and the short
timeframe provided by the Act indicates that Congress was aware that
NHTSA intended this rulemaking to be focused on heavy buses and that
Congress wanted NHTSA to complete it quickly.
    The decision to focus this rulemaking on buses with a GVWR greater
than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) is data-driven. In developing this
rulemaking, NHTSA analyzed accident data that identified unique safety
risks affecting buses that were not sufficiently addressed by the
current FMVSSs. These risks include the risks of occupant ejection,
prolonged emergency egress from the vehicles, and structural
vulnerability to roof loading in a rollover event.
    As to which buses posed these risks, we examined accident data from
a 10-year period to see which buses were involved in fatal crashes, the
type of crashes that caused the harm, and the specific mechanics of the
injury-causing event. FARS data showed that most passenger fatalities
involved buses with a GVWR of more than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). This
final rule applies the seat belt regulation to these buses associated
with that risk.
    The decision to focus this rulemaking on buses with a GVWR greater
than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) is based on a sound and focused agency
policy. NHTSA established the 2007 ``NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach
Safety'' plan after a comprehensive review of safety issues associated
with bus

transportation and the course of action that the agency could pursue to
address them, as well as projects that should be priority actions. Many
considerations were factored into determining the priorities,
including: cost and duration of testing, development, and analysis
required; likelihood that the effort would lead to the desired and
successful conclusion; target population and possible benefits that
might be realized; and anticipated cost of implementing the ensuing
requirements into the motorcoach fleet. The agency has focused today's
rulemaking on the subject buses (GVWR above 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)) to
achieve the specific goals of NHTSA's 2007 plan efficiently and
expeditiously.
    Expanding this rulemaking into a major undertaking on seat belts on
all buses would delay issuance of this final rule and the benefits
attained, which would not accord with the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety
Act. We believe that a belt requirement for buses with a GVWR of 4,536
kg to 11,793 kg (10,000 lb to 26,000 lb) is an important issue, our
understanding of which would benefit from a fuller discussion of
related issues. We would like to consider more fully matters related to
the current and future use of the buses, belt use, any technical
issues, and the benefits and costs of a belt requirement. Also, as the
majority of manufacturers of ``mid-size buses'' (between 10,000 and
26,000 lb GVWR) are small businesses, a separate action on mid-size
buses might result in many small businesses commenting on the
initiative, with NHTSA gaining more information from participation of
these entities in the rulemaking process.
    In support of its argument that the GVWR criterion should be
lowered to include buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb),
NTSB provided data from the crashes of two body-on-chassis buses (both
with a GVWR between 4,536 kg and 11,793 kg (10,000 lb to 26,000 lb) as
evidence of a safety need to lower the GVWR weight limit to 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb). These crashes resulted in a total of 10 fatalities in 2009
and 2010. As discussed above, the information from NTSB prompted NHTSA
to perform a revised data review, to include data from the ``other
bus'' and ``unknown bus'' FARS bus categories, both at the 4,536 kg to
11,793 kg (10,000 lb to 26,000 lb) and over 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) GVWR
levels.\60\ The updated data from the three FARS bus categories
continue to show that buses with a GVWR between 4,536 kg and 11,793 kg
(10,000 lb to 26,000 lb) do not constitute a large part of the overall
safety problem that we were addressing in the ``NHTSA's Approach to
Motorcoach Safety Plan.'' (In this discussion, when we refer to the
FARS data for buses, we are excluding transit bus and school bus body
types, for the reasons discussed in the NPRM.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See the previous discussion of this issue in the section
titled, ``Updated FARS Data.'' For the NPRM, only data from the
``cross-country/intercity'' FARS bus category were analyzed, as
NHTSA had thought that this cross-country/intercity FARS bus
category contained the relevant data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the earlier section of this preamble, ``Updated
FARS Data,'' the new analysis showed that from 2000 through 2009, there
were 251 occupant fatalities in buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb). Only 42 (17 percent) of these occupant fatalities occurred
in buses with a GVWR between 4,536 kg and 11,793 kg (10,000 lb to
26,000 lb). In contrast, 209 (83 percent) occupant fatalities were in
buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). Among the 137
fatalities occurring in rollover crashes in buses with a GVWR greater
than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb), 114 (83 percent) were in buses with a GVWR
greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb).\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Notwithstanding the agency's determinations about limiting
the GVWR limit for non-over-the-road buses, this final rule also
responds to the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act. That Act requires
lap/shoulder belts on over-the-road buses and provides no explicit
limit on GVWR. As mentioned earlier, we are not aware of any over-
the-road bus being sold in the U.S. with a GVWR below 11,793 kg
(26,000 lb). Thus, as a practical matter, the buses affected by this
final rule are buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has examined the benefits and costs of our final rule in
accordance with the principles for regulatory decision-making set forth