Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection |
|---|
Topics: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
|
Raymond R. Posten
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
6 April 2016
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19902-19904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07828]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0121]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Denial of petitions for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document denies petitions for reconsideration submitted
by bus manufacturers IC Bus, LLC (IC Bus), Daimler Trucks North America
(Daimler Trucks) and Prevost, concerning a November 25, 2013 final rule
requiring seat belts on large buses. IC Bus and Daimler Trucks
petitioned to modify the definition of ``over-the-road bus'' specified
in the final rule. NHTSA is denying these petitions because any change
to the definition may serve to reduce the standard's applicability,
contrary to Congressional and NHTSA intent, and the definition of
``over-the-road bus'' is sufficiently clear. Prevost petitioned to
revise the seat belt anchorage strength requirements for last row seats
having no passenger seating behind them. NHTSA is denying this petition
primarily because the requested force level reduction may set strength
levels below an acceptable level for a dynamic environment.
DATES: April 6, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Mr. Vinay
Nagabhushana, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-1452. Facsimile: (202) 493-2739.
For legal issues: Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992. Facsimile: (202)
366-3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document denies petitions for
reconsideration of a November 25, 2013 final rule requiring seat belts
on large buses (78 FR 70416). We first deny the petitions submitted by
bus manufacturers IC Bus and Daimler Trucks to modify the definition of
``over-the-road bus'' specified in the final rule. These petitions are
denied because any change to the definition may serve to reduce the
standard's applicability, contrary to Congressional intent and the
safety need addressed by the rule, and the current definition of
``over-the-road bus'' is sufficiently clear as to which buses must be
equipped with seat belts. Second, this document denies a petition for
reconsideration from bus manufacturer Prevost to revise the seat belt
anchorage strength requirements for last row seats having no passenger
seating behind them. This petition is denied because, as explained in
the 2013 final rule, the agency is concerned about the
interchangeability of these seats with those equipped with integrated
seat belts and the risk that a seat that is certified to a lesser
requirement could be moved to a row that has passenger seats behind it.
Further, we deny the petition because the requested force level
reduction may set strength levels below an acceptable level for a
dynamic environment.
I. Motorcoach Definition
On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed the ``Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act'' (MAP-21), which incorporates the
``Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of 2012'' in subtitle G. Section
32703(a) of this legislation calls for prescribing regulations for seat
belts at all designated seating positions in ``motorcoaches.'' Section
32702(6) states that ``[t]he term `motorcoach' has the meaning given
the term `over-the-road bus' in section 3038(a)(3) of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 5310 note)''
with two specific exceptions.\1\ Section 3038(a)(3) (49 U.S.C. 5310
note) defines the term ``over-the-road bus'' as a bus characterized by
an elevated passenger deck located over a baggage compartment.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The two exceptions are buses used for public transportation
provided by, or on behalf of, a public transportation agency, and
school buses.
\2\ The definition also appears in 49 CFR 37.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 25, 2013, NHTSA issued a final rule on occupant
protection in large buses, fulfilling the statutory mandate in section
32703(a) of MAP-21. The 2013 final rule amended Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' to
require lap/shoulder seat belts for each passenger seating position in
all new over-the road buses regardless of gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR). In the final rule, consistent with MAP-21, NHTSA incorporated
the term ``over-the-road bus'' into FMVSS No. 208 and the definition
for the term set forth in MAP-21. Further, finding a safety need to
improve occupant protection for passengers on other large buses, the
agency also required seat belts in new buses, other than over-the road
buses, with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kilograms (kg) (26,000 pounds
(lb)).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The exceptions in the final rule are non-over-the-road
transit buses, school buses, prison buses and perimeter seating
buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitions for Reconsideration
In response to the November 25, 2013 final rule, the agency
received petitions for reconsideration requesting the agency further
define the term ``over-the road bus'' with dimensional specificity and/
or with other bus attributes. IC Bus stated that the current definition
of over-the-road bus is ambiguous and the terms ``elevated passenger
deck'' and ``baggage compartment'' are undefined and subject to
interpretation. IC Bus petitioned the agency to--
modify the definition such that ``over the road bus means
a bus characterized by an elevated passenger deck to accommodate a
baggage compartment underneath, except a school bus,'' and
define the term ``elevated passenger deck'' based on
physical attributes of the bus such as passenger compartment floor
height as measured from the ground (scaled for different GVWR) or
define a passenger compartment floor height requirement with respect to
some specific vehicle reference point.
Daimler Trucks also petitioned the agency to modify the definition
of over-the road bus to include objective dimensional criteria for the
elevated passenger deck, such as floor height from the ground (variable
for different GVWR), and also to define baggage compartment in terms of
volume per seating position.
Agency Response
The petitioners did not provide information supporting the
requested action. They made broad suggestions as to how the definition
of over-the-road bus might be quantified, but specific criteria and
supporting data were lacking in the submissions. The petitioners did
not provide data on the floor height or luggage compartment volume for
any bus body type. They did not discuss what floor height or luggage
compartment volume should be used to distinguish an over-the-road bus
from
[[Page 19903]]
other buses, and the basis for the criterion.
NHTSA has limited discretion regarding the ``motorcoach''
definition and the application of the November 2013 final rule. Section
32702(6) of MAP-21 precisely defines the meaning of the term
``motorcoach,'' incorporating the ``over-the-road bus'' definition used
in 49 U.S.C. 5310 note (which the petitioners seek to change). Further,
section 32703(a) requires the Secretary to ``prescribe regulations
requiring safety belts to be installed in motorcoaches at each
designated seating position.'' We note that buses are built for
different purposes to different specifications, with varying floor
height, floor length, compartment sizes, etc. Adding dimensional limits
to the bus attributes as the petitioners suggest would reduce the
number of vehicles fitting under the definition, which in turn would
reduce the number of buses that would be required to have seat belts.
The agency is concerned that such a reduction in the number of buses
subject to the seat belt requirement would be contrary to Congress's
intent to enhance the safety of buses used for passenger transport for
compensation.\4\ MAP-21 specified the over-the-road bus definition to
be used by the agency, without regard to vehicle weight and without
indicating any additional specificity in regards to floor height or
luggage compartment volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Section 32702(7) of MAP-21 defines ``motorcoach services''
as ``passenger transportation by motorcoach for compensation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, NHTSA does not believe that the requested action is
needed to clarify the application of the seat belt requirement. The
applicability of the requirement is quite clear. As previously
discussed, all buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)
must have seat belts.\5\ For buses with GVWRs of 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)
or less, if the vehicle has ``an elevated passenger deck located over a
baggage compartment,'' it must have seat belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See footnote 3, supra, for exceptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that a bus manufacturer can determine whether the
vehicle they manufacture must have seat belts, based on the vehicle's
GVWR and whether the bus has a luggage compartment under any part of
the passenger deck. A bus that does not fit the definition is one
without a luggage-carrying compartment under any part of the passenger
deck.
Based on the above, the agency declines the petitioners' request to
modify the definition of over-the-road bus.
II. Reduced Anchorage Strength for Last Row Seats
As part of the motorcoach seat belt requirements, the agency
specified that the seat belt assembly anchorages must meet the
requirements of FMVSS No. 210, ``Seat belt assembly anchorages,'' to
ensure effective occupant restraint and to reduce the likelihood of
their failure. Further, the rule required that the seat belt anchorages
must be integrated to the seat structure, except for the belt
anchorages in the last row of the coach (if there is no wheelchair
position or side emergency door behind these seats) and in the driver
seating position. For the excluded seats in the last row, the final
rule provided manufacturers the option of either having an integrated
seat belt or attaching the seat belt anchorages to the bus side or back
structure, as such placement would not impede ingress or egress of
passengers in the coach.
Petition for Reconsideration
In response to the final rule, Prevost petitioned asking for
reduced ``seat retention'' requirements for last row seats where there
is no possibility of any passengers being behind them. Prevost is
concerned that ``the very last seats are secured over a thin metal
bulkhead which did not require being very rigid when there were no seat
belts'' \6\ and believes that this bulkhead will require reinforcement.
It claimed that ``[a]ny strength requirement is transmitted into added
weight which in turn transferred into fuel consumption.'' The
petitioner argued that FMVSS No. 210 would be applicable to any other
seats in the motorcoach where there would be combined belted occupant
and inertial loading of the seat plus loading from the unbelted
occupant behind, but for last row seats, there is no possibility of
occupant loading from behind so the FMVSS No. 210 load should be
reduced. No supporting data was provided in the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0121-005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Response
The agency has carefully considered the petitioner's request to
reduce the seat belt anchorage forces for the subject seats. We are
denying the request for the reasons explained below.
We first note that Prevost's petition is essentially a repeat of
the comments it made to the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) \7\
preceding the final rule. The agency responded to that comment in the
preamble of the final rule as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 75 FR 50958 (August 18, 2010).
We are unable to agree to Prevost's suggestion that the strength
requirements be adjusted (reduced) for seats where there are no
other seats behind it (and therefore no unbelted passengers seated
behind it). We are aware that some operators of covered buses have
changed the passenger seating configuration from that set by the
factory or have removed and reinstalled seats. If ``weaker'' seats
are moved after the factory installation to a position that had a
passenger seat behind it, the weaker seat would not provide the
performance required by FMVSS No. 210. Furthermore, this final rule
provides some of the flexibility Prevost seeks. Under this final
rule, seats with no other seats behind them are not required to have
the lap/shoulder belt anchorages attached to the seat structure. For
these seats, the lap/shoulder belt anchorages can be attached
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
directly to the vehicle structure. (78 FR at 70455)
Consistent with our final rule response, we remain concerned about
the interchangeability of the seats with integrated seat belts,
particularly in consideration of the long life of these vehicles (20+
years) and subsequent sales to operators that may need to reconfigure
seating. If the operator moved the reduced-strength seat to a position
that had a passenger seat behind it, the moved seat will not have the
characteristics needed to withstand the loading from the aft
passengers. If the reduced-strength seat were in a position that had a
storage space behind it, loose items may create forward loading in a
crash, similarly to rear occupant loading. The petitioner did not
address this point. Similarly, no information or analysis was provided
to suggest a value by which the seat belt anchorage strength
requirement should be reduced.
The agency is not convinced of the merits of lowering the strength
requirement per se. NHTSA conducted a full scale 48 kilometers per hour
(km/h) (30 miles per hour) crash test of a 2000 Model Year MCI 102EL3
Renaissance motorcoach (capacity of 54 passengers seats). Post-test
examination of the bus \8\ found shoulder belt D-ring excursion for one
of the seats (seating position 11R). The top bolt of the D-ring
shoulder belt mount attached to the seat back by two bolts sheared
resulting in forward excursion of the D-ring. This was a row of 7G
Amaya seats with two 50th percentile dummies restrained with lap/
shoulder belts. There was no added reinforcement to the floor or to the
side structure and no occupant loading from behind. This seat design
passed the FMVSS No. 210 force requirements in our static pull tests.
Although the D-ring mount failure did not result in dummy contact with
the
[[Page 19904]]
seats in front of them or result in high injury values, it suggests
that the dynamic loading was sufficient to cause partial failure of the
torso anchorage hardware without any loading from dummies in the row
behind. Thus, the agency is concerned that any reduction in the seat
belt loading below the FMVSS No. 210 level may reduce the torso
anchorage strength to an unacceptable level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Figure 7 in Technical Report DOT HS 813 335, Docket NHTSA-
2013-0121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, data indicate that the last row of seats may be
subject to loading unique to the rear of the bus. The vehicle
accelerometer data from the full scale crash test were suggestive of
forward flexing and dynamic rebound near the rear wall of the passenger
compartment, compared to the front of the passenger compartment.\9\ The
static FMVSS No. 210 test cannot account for the dynamic forward
displacement and rebound of the vehicle structure to which the seat or
seat belt may be anchored and any weakening of the attachments that may
result from such dynamic phenomena. Thus, reducing the anchorage
strength requirements for this last row of seats may set strength
levels below an acceptable level for a dynamic environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The maximum dynamic deflection near the front of the
passenger compartment was 1,727 mm (68 inches) and the maximum
dynamic displacement near the rear wall was 1,930 mm (76 inches).
The rear wall separates the engine compartment in large over-the-
road buses and in other buses from the cargo compartment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its petition, Prevost states that reducing the strength
requirement of FMVSS No. 210 for last row seats would result in a
weight reduction and fuel savings. The agency is not convinced that
there would be a significant weight reduction or fuel savings. Prevost
did not provide information substantiating its claims, such as data on
the thickness changes to the metal bulkhead (for example) required to
secure seat belts designed to comply with the FMVSS No. 210
requirements compared to current designs.
Further, the final rule permits--rather than requires--
manufacturers to attach the seat belts to the vehicle structure for
last-row seats. In the final rule, NHTSA stated that ``[l]ap/shoulder
belt equipped seats that meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 210 are
available in the U.S. that are equivalent in weight to the European
seats.'' (78 FR at 70460.) We concluded that, depending on the
efficiency of the structural design, there would be little or no weight
penalty associated with the structural changes needed to meet FMVSS No.
210. Thus, the petitioner could use the integrated seat belt design for
the last row seats if attaching the belt to the bus rear wall is
problematic. Regardless, we emphasize that the petitioners have not
shown that there will be a weight penalty for seat belt anchorages
integrated into the vehicle structure. The increased flexibility of
attachment to the vehicle rather than the seat has expanded the
opportunity for efficient, innovative and practicable designs for
manufacturers choosing to attach the belts to the vehicle structure.
For the reasons stated above, NHTSA hereby denies all petitions for
reconsideration of the November 25, 2013 final rule amending FMVSS No.
208.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
Issued on: March 31, 2016.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2016-07828 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P