Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 40057-40060 [E6-11136]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
40057
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 135 / Friday, July 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, entitled
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999). Executive Order 13132 requires
EPA to develop an accountable process
to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies
that have federalism implications’’ is
defined in the Executive order to
include regulations that have
‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’ This proposed
rule directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers and food
retailers, not States. This action does not
alter the relationships or distribution of
power and responsibilities established
by Congress in the preemption
provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the
FFDCA. For these same reasons, the
Agency has determined that this
proposed rule does not have any ‘‘tribal
implications’’ as described in Executive
Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments (65 FR 67249, November
6, 2000). Executive Order 13175,
requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and
timely input by tribal officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have tribal implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that
have tribal implications’’ is defined in
the Executive order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.’’ This
proposed rule will not have substantial
direct effects on tribal governments, on
the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this proposed rule.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:53 Jul 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
Dated: July 5, 2006.
James Jones,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Commodity
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR
chapter I be amended as follows:
PART 180—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
§ 180.143
Sheep, meat byproducts
Soybean, seed ................
Wheat, forage .................
Wheat, grain ...................
Wheat, straw ...................
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.2
*
*
*
*
*
4. Section 180.355 is amended by
revising the table in paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
[Removed]
2. Section 180.143 is removed.
3. Section 180.301 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§180.355 Bentazon; tolerances for
residues.
(a) General. *
§180.301 Carboxin; tolerances for
residues.
Commodity
Parts per million
Barley, grain ...................
Barley, straw ...................
Bean, dry, seed ..............
Bean, succulent ..............
Canola, seed ..................
Cattle, fat ........................
Cattle, meat ....................
Cattle, meat byproducts
Corn, field, forage ...........
Corn, field, grain .............
Corn, field, stover ...........
Corn, pop, grain ..............
Corn, pop, stover ............
Corn, sweet, forage ........
Corn, sweet, kernel plus
cob with husks removed .........................
Corn, sweet, stover ........
Cotton, undelinted seed
Egg .................................
Goat, fat ..........................
Goat, meat ......................
Goat, meat byproducts ...
Hog, fat ...........................
Hog, meat .......................
Hog, meat byproducts ....
Horse, fat ........................
Horse, meat ....................
Horse, meat byproducts
Milk .................................
Oat, forage ......................
Oat, grain ........................
Oat, straw .......................
Onion, bulb .....................
Peanut ............................
Peanut, hay ....................
Poultry, fat ......................
Poultry, meat ..................
Poultry, meat byproducts
Rice, grain ......................
Rice, straw ......................
Safflower, seed ...............
Sheep, fat .......................
Sheep, meat ...................
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
*
*
Commodity
(a) General. Tolerances are
established for the combined residues of
the fungicide carboxin (5,6-dihydro-2methyl-1,4-oxathiin-3-carboxanilide)
and its metabolites determined as
aniline and expressed as parent
compound, in or on food commodities
as follows:
PO 00000
Parts per million
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.05
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.05
0.05
Parts per million
Bean, dry, seed ..............
Bean, succulent ..............
Corn, field, forage ...........
Corn, field, grain .............
Corn, field, stover ...........
Corn, pop, grain ..............
Corn, sweet, kernel plus
cob with husks removed .........................
Cowpea, forage ..............
Cowpea, hay ...................
Flax, seed .......................
Pea, dry, seed ................
Pea, field, hay .................
Pea, field, vines ..............
Pea, succulent ................
Peanut ............................
Peanut, hay ....................
Pepper, nonbell ..............
Peppermint, tops ............
Rice, grain ......................
Rice, hulls .......................
Rice, straw ......................
Sorghum, forage .............
Sorghum, grain ...............
Sorghum, grain, stover ...
Soybean, seed ................
Soybean, forage .............
Soybean, hay ..................
Spearmint, tops ..............
*
*
*
*
0.05
0.5
3.0
0.05
3.0
0.05
0.05
10.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
8.0
3.0
3.0
0.05
3.0
0.05
1.0
0.05
0.25
3.0
0.20
0.05
0.05
0.05
8.0
8.0
1.0
*
§ § 180.1238 and 180.1239
[Removed]
5. Sections 180.1238 and 180.1239 are
removed.
[FR Doc. E6–11016 Filed 7–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA 2006–24342]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
40058
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 135 / Friday, July 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Denial of Petitions for
Rulemaking and Defect Determination.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
ACTION:
SUMMARY: This document denies a
petition for rulemaking and defect
determinations submitted by Mr. James
E. Hofferberth to prevent the installation
by States of seat belts in large school
buses and declare school buses
equipped with seat belts to be safety
defects. After reviewing the petition,
NHTSA concludes that there is no
justification for changing its
longstanding position that States may
require seat belts at passenger seating
positions in large public school buses.
We also conclude that there is no basis
to declare that school buses equipped
with seat belts have safety-related
defects, or to recall existing school
buses installed with seat belts. The
petitioner did not provide any data that
NHTSA has not considered in the past.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
legal issues: Ms. Dorothy Nakama,
Office of the Chief Counsel, phone (202)
366–2992.
For technical issues: Mr. Charles R.
Hott, Office of Crashworthiness
Standards, NVS–113, phone (202) 366–
0247.
You can reach both of these officials
at the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April
26, 2005, NHTSA received a petition
from Mr. James E. Hofferberth to
preempt and prevent the installation of
seat belts in large school buses (gross
vehicle weight rating greater than 4,536
kg (10,000 pounds) (also called ‘‘fullsized school buses’’ by the petitioner)
and declare school buses equipped with
seat belts defective. He petitioned to:
1. Preempt, prevent and preclude the
possibility of the installation of seat
belts or safety belts in full sized school
buses.
2. Declare school buses equipped with
seat belts or safety belts as defective
relative to safety and order that all such
vehicles be recalled and repaired
immediately to full compliance with
letter and intent of the applicable motor
vehicle safety standard.
3. Initiate criminal, civil or any
alternative punitive action available to
[the Secretary of Transportation] under
the law against any individual or
organization that ordered or performed
the installation of seat belts or safety
belts in school buses.
4. Require that any device installed in
full sized school buses be proven to
neither reduce the overall safety of
children of all relevant sizes and ages
during transportation related to school
activities with due consideration to all
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:53 Jul 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
factors affecting that safety nor preclude
or diminish in any way the safety
provision of the motor vehicle safety
standards related to school buses.
In his petition, Mr. Hofferberth stated
his belief that several State and local
governments have enacted or are
considering requirements for seat belts
or safety belts in full sized school buses,
that full sized school buses are subject
to established Federal motor vehicle
safety standards (FMVSS), that
installation of seat belts or safety belts
in full sized school buses overrides or
precludes the effectiveness of the safety
features required in full sized school
buses, and that the installation of seat
belts or safety belts in full sized school
buses creates an unnecessary and
unacceptable risk of injury and fatality
to school bus passengers.
He also submitted supplemental
information and analysis on November
16, 2005 1. He reviewed cited tests in the
agency’s April 2002 report to Congress,
‘‘School Bus Safety: Crashworthiness
Research,’’ and concluded that
abdominal injury measurements, which
he alleged were not included in the
report to Congress, for lap and shoulder
belted occupants were between 1.6 and
2.3 times higher than for comparable
unbelted occupants. For lap belted
occupants, he stated that the abdominal
injury measurements were between 2.9
and 5.6 times higher than for
comparable unbelted occupants, and
that these loadings of the belted
occupants were well above the
threshold of serious to fatal injury. He
stated that abdominal loading of the
unbelted child was 135 pounds, and
this type of loading is substantially less
injurious than when belts are used to
apply the loads, and would not be likely
to cause serious abdominal injury. He
believed that the increases in injury
severity for belted occupants are
consistent with ‘‘seat belt syndrome’’
and provided a bibliography of various
research reports and articles on the
subject.
Mr. Hofferberth argued that the
modification of standard seats to
accommodate belt loading increased the
head, neck and chest injury readings for
all unbelted occupants and degraded the
level of safety performance provided by
standard seats designed for use with the
compartmentalization requirements of
FMVSS No. 222.
The petitioner stated that section
103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act (recodified at 49
U.S.C. 30103(b)) provides that no ‘‘State
1 For a full copy of Mr. Hofferberth’s
supplemental information, please refer to
dms.dot.gov (Docket Number 24342).
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
or political subdivisions [sic] of a State
shall have any authority either to
establish or continue in effect, with
respect to any motor vehicle or item of
motor vehicle equipment any motor
vehicle [sic] safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of [performance of
such vehicle or item of] equipment
which is not identical to the Federal
standard.’’ It was his opinion that the
‘‘aspect’’ which overlaps the ‘‘motor
vehicle or item of motor vehicle
equipment’’ regulated by FMVSS No.
222 is the level of injury protection
provided by the school buses and the
compartmentalization restraint
equipment and performance required by
FMVSS No. 222. Therefore, he argued
that FMVSS No. 222 preempts all State
and local requirements relating to the
installation of belt restraints in full size
school buses, and that the use of belt
restraints installed in full size school
buses should be prohibited until such
time as the belts can be removed or
otherwise rendered inoperable.
Analysis of the Petition for Rulemaking
The agency has conducted a review of
the rulemaking petition in accordance
with 49 CFR Section 552.6. We are
denying the petition, based on that
review.
NHTSA is responsible for establishing
Federal motor vehicle safety standards
(FMVSSs) to reduce the number of
fatalities and injuries from motor
vehicle crashes, including those
involving school buses. NHTSA also
works with the States on school bus
safety and occupant protection
programs. New school buses must meet
safety standards for various aspects of
school bus safety, including the
passenger crash protection requirements
of FMVSS No. 222. Rather than
requiring passenger seat belts on large
school buses, FMVSS No. 222 provides
crash protection through a concept
called ‘‘compartmentalization.’’
Children are compartmentalized in a
protective envelope consisting of strong,
closely-spaced seats that have energyabsorbing seat backs. Through
compartmentalization, children are
protected without the need to buckle
up.
Currently, there are four States that
require seat belts in all school buses.
New York, New Jersey and Florida
require lap belts, and California requires
lap and shoulder belts in all school
buses. NHTSA does not maintain a
record of local school boards that also
may require seat belts on buses.
However, a University of South Florida
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 135 / Friday, July 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(USF) study 2 revealed that many
districts might require such systems
even though it is not mandatory in their
State. At the time of the USF study, only
New York required seat belts in all
school buses.
Federal preemption of State motor
vehicle safety standards is governed by
Section 30103(b) of 49 U.S.C. 30101 et
seq. (the ‘‘Vehicle Safety Act’’). Section
30103(b)(1) states:
When a motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect under this chapter [49 USCS §§ 30101
et seq.], a State or a political subdivision of
a State may prescribe or continue in effect a
standard applicable to the same aspect of
performance of a motor vehicle or motor
vehicle equipment only if the standard is
identical to the standard prescribed under
this chapter [49 USCS §§ 30101 et seq.].
However, the United States Government, a
State, or a political subdivision of a State
may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle
or motor vehicle equipment obtained for its
own use that imposes a higher performance
requirement than that required by the
otherwise applicable standard under this
chapter [49 USCS §§ 30101 et seq.].
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
NHTSA has previously addressed the
preemption issue raised by the
petitioner 3. A State law that requires
seat belts on all large school buses
conflicts with FMVSS No. 222 and is
preempted. However, the last sentence
of § 30103(b) permits a State to prescribe
a standard for school buses obtained for
its own use that imposes a higher
performance requirement than that
required by the otherwise applicable
FMVSS. (We have interpreted the
phrase ‘‘vehicles procured for (the
State’s) own use’’ to include public
school buses and those under contract
to transport children to and from public
school. However, school buses
purchased by private schools would not
be included). Thus, as the last sentence
of § 30103(b) makes clear, States are free
to require seat belts on school buses
which the State purchases for its own
use.
NHTSA has permitted the coexistence of seat belts with
compartmentalization requirements on
large school buses since the beginning
of FMVSS No. 222. NHTSA published
the final rule establishing FMVSS No.
222 on January 28, 1976 (41 FR 4016).
This regulation became effective for all
newly manufactured school buses on
and after April 1, 1977. In the
rulemaking leading to the 1976 final
2 ‘‘To Belt or Not To Belt, Experiences of School
Districts that Operate Large School Buses Equipped
with Seat Belts,’’ Final Report, August 1994, Center
for Urban Transportation Research, College of
Engineering, University of South Florida.
3 Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, September
10, 1981 46 FR 4571, interpretation letter to Mr.
Martin Chauvin, February 20, 1987.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:53 Jul 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
rule, four notices of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) were published.4
Throughout the course of that
rulemaking, the issue of requiring seat
belts and/or belt anchorages on large
school buses was extensively
contemplated. Although the agency
decided not to require the belts or
anchorage systems, the agency clearly
intended to allow State and local
jurisdictions the choice of installing seat
belts. For example 5, in the October 1975
NPRM, the agency confirmed State and
local jurisdictional choice to install
belts when it stated (46 FR at 45171):
A greater measure of protection may be
obtained [over compartmentalization alone]
if a particular end user chooses to use the
anchorages by installation of seat belts
together with a system to assure that seat
belts are worn, properly adjusted, and not
misused. School bus users are free to choose
whether or not to install belts.
NHTSA has consistently construed the
FMVSS as not preempting State
requirements concerning seat belts in
large school buses where there is no
showing that those requirements
adversely impact compliance with the
FMVSS. Seat belts on large school buses
can be considered to satisfy the ‘‘higher
performance’’ threshold of the last
sentence of § 30103(b) because, when
properly worn, they can supplement
compartmentalization by restraining
passengers in crashes other than frontal
crashes, e.g., in rollovers. In its 1999
report on seat belts on large school
buses, the National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) 6 concluded that
the compartmentalization requirement
for school buses in FMVSS No. 222 is
incomplete because it does not protect
school bus passengers in rollovers or in
lateral impacts from large vehicles,
because in such accidents passengers do
not always remain completely within
the seating compartment. Despite the
NTSB conclusion, NHTSA has not
found that a sufficient safety need exists
with respect to those non-frontal crashes
to warrant requiring seat belts on large
school buses.7 However, we have
4 February 22, 1973 (38 FR 4776), July 30, 1974
(39 FR 27586), April 23, 1975 (40 FR 17855) and
October 8, 1975 (40 FR 47141).
5 See also April 23, 1975 NPRM, in which
NHTSA proposed (but subsequently did not adopt)
a provision for built-in seat belt anchorages in
addition to compartmentalization requirements
stating that it ‘‘finds it desirable to allow local
school boards the option of installing belts, if they
decide the additional protection is worth the extra
expense.’’
6 NTSB/SIR–99/04, Highway Safety Report, Bus
Crashworthiness Issues, September 1999, National
Transportation Safety Board.
7 In its 1987 report on the crashworthiness of
large, post-April 1, 1977 school buses, NTSB
concluded that passengers in the cases studied
would have received no net benefit from lap belt
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40059
always permitted States to choose to
require the safety devices over and
above the Federal requirements in the
school buses they purchase.
NHTSA’s April 2002 report to
Congress 8 found that the addition of lap
belts slightly raised the potential risk for
head injury. However, these were severe
frontal impacts that were studied for the
report. Conversely, lap belts have been
on large school buses for over 30 years
without any documented injuries
resulting from the use of the seat belt
restraint systems.9 We cannot make a
determination, based on the results of
limited testing with belt restraints in a
severe frontal condition that showed
performance only slightly reduced from
that of compartmentalization, that the
addition of seat belts in large school
buses reduces overall occupant
protection.
As for abdominal loading, NHTSA
does not know the basis for the
petitioner’s conclusions regarding the
significance of the dummy abdominal
measures. The abdominal measurements
made in these tests were for
comparative research purposes, have
not been biomechanically validated, and
have no injury criteria associated with
them. This was discussed on page 43 of
the report to Congress.
School buses constitute a very safe
form of transportation. A recent NAS
study 10 shows that there are about 815
school transportation fatal injuries per
year. Only 2 percent are associated with
school buses, compared to 22 percent
due to walking/bicycling, and 75
percent from passenger car
transportation. Every year,
approximately 450,000 public school
buses travel about 4.3 billion miles to
transport 23.5 million children to and
use, and that most of the severe injuries and
fatalities were due to passengers being seated
directly in the impact zone (NTSB/SS–87/01, Safety
Study, Crashworthiness of Large Post-standard
School Buses, March 1987, National Transportation
Safety Board). Likewise, the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) concluded that the overall potential
benefits of requiring seat belts on large school buses
are insufficient to justify a Federal requirement for
mandatory installation. Special Report 222,
Improving School Bus Safety, National Academy of
Sciences, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC, 1989. NAS also stated that the
funds used to purchase and maintain seat belts
might better be spent on other school bus safety
programs and devices that could save more lives
and reduce more injuries.
8 School Bus Safety: Crashworthiness Research,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
April 2002.
9 Crash data show that there are approximately
26,000 school bus crashes annually, involved in
frontal, side, rear, and rollover collisions.
10 Special Report 269, ‘‘The Relative Risks of
School Travel: A National Perspective and
Guidance for Local Community Risk Assessment,’’
Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, 2002.
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
40060
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 135 / Friday, July 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules
from school and school-related
activities. The school bus occupant
fatality rate of 0.2 fatalities per 100
million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is
much lower than the rates for passenger
cars (1.46 per 100 million VMT) or light
trucks and vans (1.3 per 100 million
VMT). These results reflect the safety
record of large school buses that, for the
most part, are not being fitted with any
seat belts at passenger seating positions.
The petitioner believes that the
dollars spent installing belts on large
school buses could be more effectively
spent purchasing additional buses to
transport more children in the safest
means available (in school buses). On
our Web site information about seat
belts in large school buses 11, NHTSA
does advise consideration of the overall
safety consequences of bus purchasing
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
11 https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov: click Traffic Safety
tab: click School Buses under Browse Topics menu:
click Seat Belts On School Buses
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:53 Jul 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
decisions, to ensure that seat belt
restraints are worn properly, and that no
child is left seeking a less safe form of
transportation. At the same time, the
agency concludes that there is no
justification for changing its
longstanding position that States may
order seat belts at passenger seating
positions in large public school buses.
For these reasons, and since the
petitioner did not provide any data that
NHTSA has not considered in the past,
the agency is denying the rulemaking
petition.
Analysis of the Petition for Defect
Determination
The agency has conducted a technical
review of the defect petition in
accordance with 49 CFR 552.6. The
Office of Defects Investigation (ODI)
reviewed its databases for reports and
complaints related to alleged problems
with school buses equipped with seat
belts. That review did not reveal any
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
reports or complaints that would
warrant opening a safety-related defects
investigation. Moreover, the petitioner
has not presented any data or argument
that supports his basis for concluding
that seat belts may pose an unreasonable
risk to the safety of occupants of those
buses. Based on ODI’s review and lack
of data to the contrary, the agency
believes that there is insufficient data to
warrant NHTSA commencing a defect
investigation and is denying the
petition.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30117, 30118, and 30162; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: July 10, 2006.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E6–11136 Filed 7–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 135 (Friday, July 14, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40057-40060]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-11136]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA 2006-24342]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
[[Page 40058]]
ACTION: Denial of Petitions for Rulemaking and Defect Determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for rulemaking and defect
determinations submitted by Mr. James E. Hofferberth to prevent the
installation by States of seat belts in large school buses and declare
school buses equipped with seat belts to be safety defects. After
reviewing the petition, NHTSA concludes that there is no justification
for changing its longstanding position that States may require seat
belts at passenger seating positions in large public school buses. We
also conclude that there is no basis to declare that school buses
equipped with seat belts have safety-related defects, or to recall
existing school buses installed with seat belts. The petitioner did not
provide any data that NHTSA has not considered in the past.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For legal issues: Ms. Dorothy Nakama,
Office of the Chief Counsel, phone (202) 366-2992.
For technical issues: Mr. Charles R. Hott, Office of
Crashworthiness Standards, NVS-113, phone (202) 366-0247.
You can reach both of these officials at the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC
20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 26, 2005, NHTSA received a petition
from Mr. James E. Hofferberth to preempt and prevent the installation
of seat belts in large school buses (gross vehicle weight rating
greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) (also called ``full-sized school
buses'' by the petitioner) and declare school buses equipped with seat
belts defective. He petitioned to:
1. Preempt, prevent and preclude the possibility of the
installation of seat belts or safety belts in full sized school buses.
2. Declare school buses equipped with seat belts or safety belts as
defective relative to safety and order that all such vehicles be
recalled and repaired immediately to full compliance with letter and
intent of the applicable motor vehicle safety standard.
3. Initiate criminal, civil or any alternative punitive action
available to [the Secretary of Transportation] under the law against
any individual or organization that ordered or performed the
installation of seat belts or safety belts in school buses.
4. Require that any device installed in full sized school buses be
proven to neither reduce the overall safety of children of all relevant
sizes and ages during transportation related to school activities with
due consideration to all factors affecting that safety nor preclude or
diminish in any way the safety provision of the motor vehicle safety
standards related to school buses.
In his petition, Mr. Hofferberth stated his belief that several
State and local governments have enacted or are considering
requirements for seat belts or safety belts in full sized school buses,
that full sized school buses are subject to established Federal motor
vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), that installation of seat belts or
safety belts in full sized school buses overrides or precludes the
effectiveness of the safety features required in full sized school
buses, and that the installation of seat belts or safety belts in full
sized school buses creates an unnecessary and unacceptable risk of
injury and fatality to school bus passengers.
He also submitted supplemental information and analysis on November
16, 2005 \1\. He reviewed cited tests in the agency's April 2002 report
to Congress, ``School Bus Safety: Crashworthiness Research,'' and
concluded that abdominal injury measurements, which he alleged were not
included in the report to Congress, for lap and shoulder belted
occupants were between 1.6 and 2.3 times higher than for comparable
unbelted occupants. For lap belted occupants, he stated that the
abdominal injury measurements were between 2.9 and 5.6 times higher
than for comparable unbelted occupants, and that these loadings of the
belted occupants were well above the threshold of serious to fatal
injury. He stated that abdominal loading of the unbelted child was 135
pounds, and this type of loading is substantially less injurious than
when belts are used to apply the loads, and would not be likely to
cause serious abdominal injury. He believed that the increases in
injury severity for belted occupants are consistent with ``seat belt
syndrome'' and provided a bibliography of various research reports and
articles on the subject.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For a full copy of Mr. Hofferberth's supplemental
information, please refer to dms.dot.gov (Docket Number 24342).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hofferberth argued that the modification of standard seats to
accommodate belt loading increased the head, neck and chest injury
readings for all unbelted occupants and degraded the level of safety
performance provided by standard seats designed for use with the
compartmentalization requirements of FMVSS No. 222.
The petitioner stated that section 103(d) of the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (recodified at 49 U.S.C. 30103(b))
provides that no ``State or political subdivisions [sic] of a State
shall have any authority either to establish or continue in effect,
with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment
any motor vehicle [sic] safety standard applicable to the same aspect
of [performance of such vehicle or item of] equipment which is not
identical to the Federal standard.'' It was his opinion that the
``aspect'' which overlaps the ``motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle
equipment'' regulated by FMVSS No. 222 is the level of injury
protection provided by the school buses and the compartmentalization
restraint equipment and performance required by FMVSS No. 222.
Therefore, he argued that FMVSS No. 222 preempts all State and local
requirements relating to the installation of belt restraints in full
size school buses, and that the use of belt restraints installed in
full size school buses should be prohibited until such time as the
belts can be removed or otherwise rendered inoperable.
Analysis of the Petition for Rulemaking
The agency has conducted a review of the rulemaking petition in
accordance with 49 CFR Section 552.6. We are denying the petition,
based on that review.
NHTSA is responsible for establishing Federal motor vehicle safety
standards (FMVSSs) to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries from
motor vehicle crashes, including those involving school buses. NHTSA
also works with the States on school bus safety and occupant protection
programs. New school buses must meet safety standards for various
aspects of school bus safety, including the passenger crash protection
requirements of FMVSS No. 222. Rather than requiring passenger seat
belts on large school buses, FMVSS No. 222 provides crash protection
through a concept called ``compartmentalization.'' Children are
compartmentalized in a protective envelope consisting of strong,
closely-spaced seats that have energy-absorbing seat backs. Through
compartmentalization, children are protected without the need to buckle
up.
Currently, there are four States that require seat belts in all
school buses. New York, New Jersey and Florida require lap belts, and
California requires lap and shoulder belts in all school buses. NHTSA
does not maintain a record of local school boards that also may require
seat belts on buses. However, a University of South Florida
[[Page 40059]]
(USF) study \2\ revealed that many districts might require such systems
even though it is not mandatory in their State. At the time of the USF
study, only New York required seat belts in all school buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``To Belt or Not To Belt, Experiences of School Districts
that Operate Large School Buses Equipped with Seat Belts,'' Final
Report, August 1994, Center for Urban Transportation Research,
College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards is
governed by Section 30103(b) of 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. (the ``Vehicle
Safety Act''). Section 30103(b)(1) states:
When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this
chapter [49 USCS Sec. Sec. 30101 et seq.], a State or a political
subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a
standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor
vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical
to the standard prescribed under this chapter [49 USCS Sec. Sec.
30101 et seq.]. However, the United States Government, a State, or a
political subdivision of a State may prescribe a standard for a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment obtained for its own use
that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by
the otherwise applicable standard under this chapter [49 USCS
Sec. Sec. 30101 et seq.].
NHTSA has previously addressed the preemption issue raised by the
petitioner \3\. A State law that requires seat belts on all large
school buses conflicts with FMVSS No. 222 and is preempted. However,
the last sentence of Sec. 30103(b) permits a State to prescribe a
standard for school buses obtained for its own use that imposes a
higher performance requirement than that required by the otherwise
applicable FMVSS. (We have interpreted the phrase ``vehicles procured
for (the State's) own use'' to include public school buses and those
under contract to transport children to and from public school.
However, school buses purchased by private schools would not be
included). Thus, as the last sentence of Sec. 30103(b) makes clear,
States are free to require seat belts on school buses which the State
purchases for its own use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, September 10, 1981 46 FR
4571, interpretation letter to Mr. Martin Chauvin, February 20,
1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has permitted the co-existence of seat belts with
compartmentalization requirements on large school buses since the
beginning of FMVSS No. 222. NHTSA published the final rule establishing
FMVSS No. 222 on January 28, 1976 (41 FR 4016). This regulation became
effective for all newly manufactured school buses on and after April 1,
1977. In the rulemaking leading to the 1976 final rule, four notices of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) were published.\4\ Throughout the course of
that rulemaking, the issue of requiring seat belts and/or belt
anchorages on large school buses was extensively contemplated. Although
the agency decided not to require the belts or anchorage systems, the
agency clearly intended to allow State and local jurisdictions the
choice of installing seat belts. For example \5\, in the October 1975
NPRM, the agency confirmed State and local jurisdictional choice to
install belts when it stated (46 FR at 45171):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ February 22, 1973 (38 FR 4776), July 30, 1974 (39 FR 27586),
April 23, 1975 (40 FR 17855) and October 8, 1975 (40 FR 47141).
\5\ See also April 23, 1975 NPRM, in which NHTSA proposed (but
subsequently did not adopt) a provision for built-in seat belt
anchorages in addition to compartmentalization requirements stating
that it ``finds it desirable to allow local school boards the option
of installing belts, if they decide the additional protection is
worth the extra expense.''
A greater measure of protection may be obtained [over
compartmentalization alone] if a particular end user chooses to use
the anchorages by installation of seat belts together with a system
to assure that seat belts are worn, properly adjusted, and not
misused. School bus users are free to choose whether or not to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
install belts.
NHTSA has consistently construed the FMVSS as not preempting State
requirements concerning seat belts in large school buses where there is
no showing that those requirements adversely impact compliance with the
FMVSS. Seat belts on large school buses can be considered to satisfy
the ``higher performance'' threshold of the last sentence of Sec.
30103(b) because, when properly worn, they can supplement
compartmentalization by restraining passengers in crashes other than
frontal crashes, e.g., in rollovers. In its 1999 report on seat belts
on large school buses, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
\6\ concluded that the compartmentalization requirement for school
buses in FMVSS No. 222 is incomplete because it does not protect school
bus passengers in rollovers or in lateral impacts from large vehicles,
because in such accidents passengers do not always remain completely
within the seating compartment. Despite the NTSB conclusion, NHTSA has
not found that a sufficient safety need exists with respect to those
non-frontal crashes to warrant requiring seat belts on large school
buses.\7\ However, we have always permitted States to choose to require
the safety devices over and above the Federal requirements in the
school buses they purchase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ NTSB/SIR-99/04, Highway Safety Report, Bus Crashworthiness
Issues, September 1999, National Transportation Safety Board.
\7\ In its 1987 report on the crashworthiness of large, post-
April 1, 1977 school buses, NTSB concluded that passengers in the
cases studied would have received no net benefit from lap belt use,
and that most of the severe injuries and fatalities were due to
passengers being seated directly in the impact zone (NTSB/SS-87/01,
Safety Study, Crashworthiness of Large Post-standard School Buses,
March 1987, National Transportation Safety Board). Likewise, the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded that the overall
potential benefits of requiring seat belts on large school buses are
insufficient to justify a Federal requirement for mandatory
installation. Special Report 222, Improving School Bus Safety,
National Academy of Sciences, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC, 1989. NAS also stated that the funds used to
purchase and maintain seat belts might better be spent on other
school bus safety programs and devices that could save more lives
and reduce more injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA's April 2002 report to Congress \8\ found that the addition
of lap belts slightly raised the potential risk for head injury.
However, these were severe frontal impacts that were studied for the
report. Conversely, lap belts have been on large school buses for over
30 years without any documented injuries resulting from the use of the
seat belt restraint systems.\9\ We cannot make a determination, based
on the results of limited testing with belt restraints in a severe
frontal condition that showed performance only slightly reduced from
that of compartmentalization, that the addition of seat belts in large
school buses reduces overall occupant protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ School Bus Safety: Crashworthiness Research, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, April 2002.
\9\ Crash data show that there are approximately 26,000 school
bus crashes annually, involved in frontal, side, rear, and rollover
collisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for abdominal loading, NHTSA does not know the basis for the
petitioner's conclusions regarding the significance of the dummy
abdominal measures. The abdominal measurements made in these tests were
for comparative research purposes, have not been biomechanically
validated, and have no injury criteria associated with them. This was
discussed on page 43 of the report to Congress.
School buses constitute a very safe form of transportation. A
recent NAS study \10\ shows that there are about 815 school
transportation fatal injuries per year. Only 2 percent are associated
with school buses, compared to 22 percent due to walking/bicycling, and
75 percent from passenger car transportation. Every year, approximately
450,000 public school buses travel about 4.3 billion miles to transport
23.5 million children to and
[[Page 40060]]
from school and school-related activities. The school bus occupant
fatality rate of 0.2 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) is much lower than the rates for passenger cars (1.46 per 100
million VMT) or light trucks and vans (1.3 per 100 million VMT). These
results reflect the safety record of large school buses that, for the
most part, are not being fitted with any seat belts at passenger
seating positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Special Report 269, ``The Relative Risks of School Travel:
A National Perspective and Guidance for Local Community Risk
Assessment,'' Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner believes that the dollars spent installing belts on
large school buses could be more effectively spent purchasing
additional buses to transport more children in the safest means
available (in school buses). On our Web site information about seat
belts in large school buses \11\, NHTSA does advise consideration of
the overall safety consequences of bus purchasing decisions, to ensure
that seat belt restraints are worn properly, and that no child is left
seeking a less safe form of transportation. At the same time, the
agency concludes that there is no justification for changing its
longstanding position that States may order seat belts at passenger
seating positions in large public school buses. For these reasons, and
since the petitioner did not provide any data that NHTSA has not
considered in the past, the agency is denying the rulemaking petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov: click Traffic Safety tab: click
School Buses under Browse Topics menu: click Seat Belts On School
Buses
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of the Petition for Defect Determination
The agency has conducted a technical review of the defect petition
in accordance with 49 CFR 552.6. The Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) reviewed its databases for reports and complaints related to
alleged problems with school buses equipped with seat belts. That
review did not reveal any reports or complaints that would warrant
opening a safety-related defects investigation. Moreover, the
petitioner has not presented any data or argument that supports his
basis for concluding that seat belts may pose an unreasonable risk to
the safety of occupants of those buses. Based on ODI's review and lack
of data to the contrary, the agency believes that there is insufficient
data to warrant NHTSA commencing a defect investigation and is denying
the petition.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30118, and 30162;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: July 10, 2006.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E6-11136 Filed 7-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
