[Federal Register: August 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 159)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 50958-50982]
[DOCID:fr18au10-41]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

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

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

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 am and 5 p.m. Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document.
    You may call the Docket at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under Rulemaking
Analyses and Notices.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, Mr. David
Sutula, Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>)
(fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>). Mr. Sutula's mailing address is National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, NVS-112, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
    For legal issues, Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the Chief Counsel
(telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) (fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>). Ms. Nakama's mailing
address is National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NCC-112,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
III. Safety Need
    a. Rollovers and Ejection
    b. Motorcoach Crash Backgrounds
    c. NTSB Recommendations
IV. Motorcoach Safety Initiatives
    a. NHTSA's 2007 Motorcoach Safety Plan
    b. 2009 Departmental Task Force Action Plan
V. NHTSA Research Results

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

I. Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. Background

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

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

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

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

III. Safety Need

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

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

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

a. Rollovers and Ejection

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18AU10.001

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

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

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

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

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

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

b. Motorcoach Crash Backgrounds

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

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

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

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

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

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

c. NTSB Recommendations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV. Motorcoach Safety Initiatives

a. NHTSA's 2007 Motorcoach Safety Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

b. 2009 Departmental Task Force Action Plan

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

V. NHTSA Research Results

a. Overview

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

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

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

b. Stage 1: Full Scale Motorcoach Crash Test

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

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

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

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

c. Stage 2: Frontal Sled Tests

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

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

    \27\ The performance of newer seats with stiffer seat backs
could be different from that studied.
    \28\ For the 5th percentile female and the 50th percentile male
dummies, the injury assessment reference values (IARVs) for these
measurements are the thresholds used in FMVSS No. 208 to assess
frontal occupant protection provided by new motor vehicles. (The
95th percentile male dummy is not used in FMVSS No. 208.)
HIC15 is a measure of the risk of head injury, Chest g is
a measure of chest injury risk, and Nij is a measure of neck injury
risk. For HIC15, a score of 700 is equivalent to a 30
percent risk of a serious head injury (skull fracture and concussion
onset), Chest g of 60 equates to a 60 percent risk of a serious
chest injury and Nij of 1 equates to a 22 percent risk of a serious
neck injury. For all these measurements, higher scores indicate a
higher likelihood of risk. More information regarding these injury
measures can be found in NHTSA's technical document, ``Development
of Improved Injury Criteria for the Assessment of Advanced
Automotive Restraint Systems--II,'' Docket No. NHTSA-1999-6407-0005,
1999.

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

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

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

VI. Proposed Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

b. Requiring Seat Belts at Passenger Seating Positions

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

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

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

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

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

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

c. Requiring Lap/Shoulder Belts for Driver Position

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

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

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

d. Anchorage Strength Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

e. Regulatory Alternatives

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

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

VII. Other Issues

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

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

b. Energy Absorption Capability of Seat Backs

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

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

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

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

c. Retrofitting Used Buses

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

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

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

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

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

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