Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Motorcoach Definition; Occupant Crash Protection, 50958-50982 [2010-20375]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 18, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50958-50982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-20375]


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

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 https://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: (202) 493-2251.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the 
docket number of this document.
    You may call the Docket at 202-366-9324.
    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 https://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: 202-366-0247) 
(fax: 202-366-4921). 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: 202-366-2992) (fax: 202-366-3820). 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

[[Page 50959]]

    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.


[[Page 50960]]


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

    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

[[Page 50961]]

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, https://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.

[[Page 50962]]

[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

[[Page 50963]]

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

[[Page 50964]]

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\ https://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2009/HAR0902.htm.

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

[[Page 50965]]

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\ https://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 (S7.1.1.5, 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

[[Page 50966]]

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. https://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

[[Page 50967]]

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 (https://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

[[Page 50968]]

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

[[Page 50969]]

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 forwar