|
|---|
|
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Designated Seating Position Publication: Federal Register Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Byline: Ricardo Martinez Date: 24 March 1995 Subject: American Government  • Buses • Safety
Topic: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards |
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15504-15509]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7350]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 93-78, Notice 02]
RIN No. 2127-AE96
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Designated Seating
Position
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the definition of ``designated seating
position'' found in 49 CFR 571.3, Definitions, to provide that for the
sole purpose of determining the vehicle type classification of a
vehicle sold to transport school children, any location in the vehicle
intended for securement of an occupied wheelchair during vehicle
operation will be regarded as 4 designated seating positions. NHTSA is
issuing this rule to ensure that smaller school buses remain classified
as school buses, and thus subject to the comprehensive school bus
safety standards, when seats are removed to install wheelchair
securement locations. This rule will assure that students being
transported in vehicles accommodating wheelchairs will be afforded the
same level of occupant protection as other students transported in
school buses.
DATES: The amendment promulgated by this final rule will become
effective March 25, 1996.
Manufacturers may voluntarily comply with the amendment promulgated
by this final rule on or after April 24, 1995.
Any petitions for reconsideration must be received by NHTSA not
later than April 24, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket and
number of this document and be submitted to: Administrator, Room 5220,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street
S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Charles Hott, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 5320,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-0247.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This rule amends the definition of ``designated seating position''
found in 49 CFR 571.3, Definitions, to respond to an issue that arose
in a rulemaking concerning a Federal motor vehicle safety standard
(Standard) applying to school buses. The rulemaking amended Standard
No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, to require
school buses designed to transport persons in wheelchairs to have
wheelchair securement devices (wheelchair restraints) and wheelchair
occupant restraint systems meeting specified performance requirements
(58 FR 4586; January 15, 1993). School bus manufacturers typically
remove seats from a vehicle to install wheelchair restraints. Removing
seats can affect a vehicle's classification and the standards that
apply to it.
One of the important factors used by NHTSA in classifying vehicles
is seating capacity. For example, NHTSA determines whether a vehicle is
a ``bus'' or a ``multipurpose passenger vehicle'' (MPV) based primarily
on passenger seating capacity. The definition of a bus is found in
title 49 CFR 571.3, ``Definitions.'' In that section, a bus is defined
as a passenger motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons
(i.e., 10 or more passengers and a driver). An MPV is designed to carry
10 or fewer persons.
The agency determines a vehicle's seating capacity by counting the
number of ``designated seating positions'' in the vehicle. That term is
defined in section 571.3 as follows:
[[Page 15505]] Designated seating position means any plan view
location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a
5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and
design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be
used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except
for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding
jump seats. Any bench or split-bench seat in a passenger car, truck
or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR less than 10,000
pounds, having greater than 50 inches of hip room (measured in
accordance with SAE Standard J1100(a)) shall have not less than
three designated seating positions, unless the seat design or
vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used for
seating.
NHTSA has interpreted this definition to mean that each position
for securing a wheelchair is one designated seating position. This
interpretation has a significant impact on whether some vehicles are
classified as an MPV or as a school bus.
NHTSA determines whether a vehicle is a ``school bus'' by first
determining whether the vehicle is a bus. In 49 CFR section 571.3, a
school bus is defined as a ``bus'' that is sold for purposes that
include carrying students to and from school or related events. When
seats are removed from a bus for any reason, including placing
wheelchair securement devices on the vehicle, so that the seating
capacity of the vehicle is reduced to 10 or fewer persons, the
classification of the vehicle changes from a bus to an MPV. The vehicle
would be an MPV and not a school bus even if sold for public
transportation purposes, and even if the vehicle had been originally
``designed'' as a bus and outwardly resembled a conventional bus. Thus,
as a result of the seat removal, the vehicle would be subject to the
standards for MPVs, and not the standards for school buses.
In the rulemaking that set performance requirements for wheelchair
restraints, both the NPRM and final rule for that rulemaking raised the
issue of whether it would be desirable for a vehicle that was
originally manufactured as a school bus remain a school bus, even if
its seating capacity were reduced to that of an MPV. In that NPRM,
NHTSA discussed the decision of the Eleventh National Conference on
School Transportation (NCST) to answer that issue in the affirmative.
The NCST requires any vehicle that changes classification from a school
bus to an MPV due to the installation of wheelchair restraints to
comply with the school bus standards. The NPRM requested comments on
the issue.
The Washington Superintendent of Public Instruction (WSPI)
submitted the only comment on the issue (Docket No. 90-05-N03-051).
WSPI supported the idea that the determination of whether a vehicle
should be classified as a school bus should be based on the vehicle's
theoretical or design maximum capacity. In other words, WSPI believed
that a school bus should remain a school bus even when enough seats are
removed to reduce the seating capacity to 10 or fewer persons.
In the preamble to the final rule on wheelchair restraints, NHTSA
again expressed concern about how removing seats from a bus can change
a vehicle's classification from a school bus to an MPV. The agency
decided, however, not to address the issue in that final rule but to
address it in a separate rulemaking action where it could receive more
focused attention.
Proposal for This Rule
On October 28, 1993, NHTSA published the NPRM (58 FR 57975) that
provides the basis for today's rule on school bus classification. NHTSA
proposed to amend the definition of ``designated seating position'' in
49 CFR 571.3 to specify that, for the sole purpose of classifying
school vehicles, any vehicle location intended for securing an occupied
wheelchair during vehicle operation would be counted as 4 designated
seating positions. The intent of the NPRM was to ensure that if a
vehicle would have been classified as a school bus had it been fully
equipped with bench seats, it would still be regarded as a school bus
if it were equipped with fewer bench seats so that it could transport
students in wheelchairs. ``By requiring [seating restricted] vehicles
to comply with all school bus standards, NHTSA believes that all
student users of wheelchairs transported in those vehicles would be
provided the same level of occupant protection as students transported
in other school buses.'' Id.
NHTSA selected the 4-to-1 ratio of designated seating positions to
wheelchair positions based on the comment that the WSPI submitted to
the rulemaking on wheelchair restraints. The WSPI submitted information
on the number of wheelchair locations that can be installed on a bus
when a specified number of bench seats have been removed to accommodate
those locations. WSPI defined ``bench seats'' as those with two
designated seating positions, and stated that the average ratio of
seating positions on bench seats to wheelchairs is 4-to-1 if the
wheelchair is forward-facing or 3-to-1 if the wheelchair is side-
facing. In the final rule for wheelchair restraints, NHTSA mandated
that wheelchair restraints be situated so as to secure a wheelchair in
a forward-facing position (see S5.4.1.2(a) of Standard No. 222). Given
that requirement, NHTSA proposed the 4-to-1 seats-to-wheelchair ratio
for wheelchair locations.
Evaluation of Comments
Two state agencies (Delaware Department of Public Instruction,
California Highway Patrol), one trade association (National School
Transportation Association), one charter bus company (D.B. Fisher
Inc.), and one school bus manufacturer (Mid Bus Inc.) commented on the
NPRM. Except for D.B. Fisher, Inc., commenters generally supported the
intent of the NPRM, although some expressed concern about how the
proposal could affect the use of school vehicles. Some commenters made
suggestions about issues that were outside the scope of the NPRM.
Proposed 4-to-1 Ratio
Commenters addressed NHTSA's proposal that each location intended
to secure a wheelchair would be counted as four designed seating
positions. Mid Bus Inc. and the National School Transportation
Association (NSTA) supported that proposal. The Delaware and California
state agencies expressed concern about it.
The Delaware Department of Public Instruction (DDPI) was concerned
that the proposal could unnecessarily restrict the seating capacity of
school buses. The commenter believed that the proposal equates a
wheelchair position with too many seating positions, which would not be
space efficient. ``That [4 to 1] ratio is translated into fifty inches
(50'') per wheelchair space. Several manufacturers allow that forty-
four inches (44'') is adequate.'' DDPI said it did not want to lose
more space than is necessary. ``Anytime more space per pupil is
required, more school buses are needed.'' DDPI suggested that a per-
inch spacing formula would be more space-efficient than the 4-to-1 or
even 3-to-1 ratios.
NHTSA does not agree that this rule unnecessarily restricts the
seating capacity of school buses. The 4-to-1 ratio of designated
seating positions to wheelchair positions was based on a finding that,
on average, four is the number of seating positions typically removed
when a single securement location is installed. However, this rule does
not require four conventional designating seating positions to be
removed and used for each wheelchair position. Instead, the rule simply
requires four positions to be counted for [[Page 15506]] each
wheelchair position. Since the rule does not require any specific
amount of space to be devoted to a wheelchair position, the
substitution of a per-inch approach for this rule's approach would have
no effect on the amount of space used for a wheelchair position.
The California Highway Patrol (CHP) asserted that allowing only 4
designated seating positions for each wheelchair location did not go
far enough. CHP stated that the California definition of a school bus
is similar to the Federal definition, but it also includes a vehicle
transporting 2 or more pupils confined to wheelchair location as 4
seating positions would require California to change its law in that a
vehicle with 2 wheelchair positions and a bench seat with 2 designated
seating positions would, under the Federal criteria, be classified as
an MPV, while, under the California definition, it would be classified
as a school bus. CHP suggested, therefore, that NHTSA amend its
definition of a school bus to include a vehicle designed to carry 2 or
more wheelchair positions or one that would carry 6 seated passengers
and 1 wheelchair passenger.
CHP is mistaken in suggesting that a school vehicle designed to
carry six seated passengers and one wheelchair passenger would be
classified as an MPV under today's rule. Such a vehicle would be a
school bus under today's amendment, since its number of designated
seating positions would be 10, plus the driver (a school bus has a
carrying capacity of more than 10 persons).
In any event, CHP's suggestion that NHTSA amend the agency's school
bus definition is outside of the scope of this rulemaking. NHTSA
proposed to amend the ``designated seating position'' definition, not
the school bus definition. NHTSA believes there is insufficient notice
for it to adopt the suggestion to amend the school bus definition at
this time, even if the agency wished to do so.
NHTSA offers the following observations about CHP's suggestion. To
the extent that CHP is impliedly suggesting that each location intended
to secure a wheelchair should be counted as five designated seating
positions (DSP's), the commenter did not provide and NHTSA does not
know of any reason for equating a wheelchair position with five DSP's.
Accordingly, NHTSA declines to pursue making the suggested change.
The agency further notes that NHTSA is considering an issue related
to CHP's comment about vehicles designed to carry only two students in
wheelchairs. As discussed below in the ``Other issues'' section of this
preamble, some commenters suggested that a wheelchair lift should be
counted as four DSP's since a lift typically uses the space of four
DSP's. NHTSA is studying this matter to decide whether an NPRM should
be issued to amend the DSP definition to incorporate this idea. If the
agency issued the NPRM, the agency might decide, after notice and
comment on the issue, that a lift ought to be equated with four DSP's.
If that were to occur, a vehicle designed to carry two wheelchair
positions and a wheelchair lift as four, for a total of 12 DSP's for
passengers.
The D.B. Fisher Charter Bus Company, Inc. (Fisher) opposed the 4
designated seating positions per wheelchair location proposal, since it
would result in more vehicles being designated school buses than is
presently the case. Fisher asserted that this would convert a ``non-
commercial'' vehicle into a ``commercial'' vehicle (Fisher's terms)
required to have lighting systems to control traffic. Fisher argued
that the extra time it takes to stop a school bus in the roadway, which
also stops traffic, in order to load and unload wheelchair passengers
would cause serious traffic delays, especially in cities. The commenter
believed that that would inconvenience the public and make them
unwilling to stop and wait for these vehicles. As a result, Fisher
argued, children would be exposed to increased risk from general
traffic.
NHTSA does not believe that the amendment adopted in this final
rule would be detrimental to motor vehicle safety, as Fisher believes.
It is true that crediting each wheelchair location as being equal to
four designated seating positions could result in a vehicle's being
classified as a school bus instead of an MPV as under the current
regulations. It is also true, that since more vehicles would be school
buses, more vehicles would be required to have school bus lamps under
NHTSA's safety standard for vehicle lighting systems (Standard No. 108,
49 CFR Sec. 571.108). However, the requirements mandating the use of
school bus lamps, and how and where a school bus operator must maneuver
a vehicle in traffic to load or unload students, are state law
requirements, not those of NHTSA. There is no Federal requirement
regarding school buses stopping on public roadways for the pickup and
discharge of children, nor is there a Federal requirement that traffic
in both directions stop for the loading and unloading of school buses.
Such requirements are matters of state rather than Federal authority.
While NHTSA does not have the authority to regulate the use of
school buses, the agency recognizes that safe driving practices by
motorists around an operating school bus are crucial to school bus
safety. Accordingly, the agency has issued Highway Safety Program
Guideline No. 17, ``Pupil Transportation Safety'' (23 CFR Part 1204),
which recommends that states develop plans for minimizing highway use
hazards to students, including providing loading and unloading zones
off the main traveled part of highways, whenever it is practicable to
do so. In addition, Guideline No. 17 recommends that states require
motorists meeting or overtaking a school bus that is loading or
unloading passengers and which is operating red warning lights, to stop
their vehicles before reaching the school bus and not proceed until the
warning signals are deactivated. Guideline No. 17 is not binding on the
states. Individual states have decided to adopt some or all of the
guideline, as best serves the needs of their pupil transportation
program. Since Fisher's safety concerns relate to the use of the
vehicles, the commenter should address those concerns to state
authorities, who can best decide which transportation practices would
achieve the highest level of safety possible for its pupils.
Nevertheless, NHTSA considered Fisher's comment to assess perceived
safety effects of the rule. NHTSA concludes that Fisher's predictions
are unsupported at this time. Further, the agency does not anticipate
that those predictions will be borne out. This rule will only slightly
increase the number of vehicles classified as school buses, and is thus
unlikely to have a significant effect on the public's willingness to
stop their vehicles for loading and unloading students. NHTSA believes
the matter will be ultimately resolved through on-road experience. It
will bear out whether school vehicles accommodating wheelchairs cause
the inordinate traffic delays and associated problems that Fisher
fears, and whether some action on NHTSA's part to address the alleged
problems would be appropriate.
Costs
The October 1993 NPRM included a comprehensive discussion of
estimated costs associated with this rulemaking action. The agency
estimated that approximately 520 vehicles per year would be affected by
this rulemaking. This estimate was based on sales data indicating that
15.2 percent of the 38,000 school buses sold annually are small buses,
and that about 9 percent of these are lift equipped. The agency
believes that each of those lift-equipped [[Page 15507]] buses has one
or more wheelchair positions. The NPRM stated that while not all these
vehicles might have their seating capacity reduced to that of an MPV,
there will probably be other vehicles outside this class that will be
affected, such as MPV's that are not lift-equipped. The agency does not
know how many of these vehicles are currently sold as MPVs, but
believes that the number is probably very small.
DDPI believed NHTSA underestimated the number of buses that would
be affected by the proposed change. NHTSA believes that 520 is valid
estimate of the approximate number of new school buses affected
annually by this amendment. That value is based on annual sales of
small school buses and the proportion of such buses that are currently
equipped with wheelchair lifts. Not all these vehicles would have their
seating capacities reduced to the point of becoming MPVs. NHTSA
believes that DDPI may be erroneously including existing school buses
in their calculations. This final rule, as with all NHTSA's rules,
affects only new vehicles and is effective only prospectively. There is
no requirement to retrofit existing vehicles.
The NPRM also contained a detailed analysis of the cost impacts for
the affected vehicles. None of the commenters discussed those impacts.
The agency is not aware of information indicating the assumptions
underlying the cost estimates are incorrect. However, the estimated
total cost savings was inaccurate. Instead of the $390 to $580 range in
the NPRM, the total cost savings should have been estimated to be
approximately $90 per vehicle. The cost impacts of this rule are
discussed in detail in the ``Rulemaking Analyses and Notices'' section
of this preamble.
Other Issues
Compatibility with compartmental- ization. As noted above, DDPI
believed that one wheelchair position should be equated with fewer than
four seating positions. DDPI was primarily concerned about
unnecessarily restricting the seating capacity of school buses.
However, DDPI also believed that excessive space allowed for wheelchair
locations would conflict with the principles of compartmentalization.
NHTSA emphasizes that this rule does not require any specific
amount of space to be set aside for each wheelchair position. This rule
only requires that 4 designated seating positions be counted for each
wheelchair position in determining vehicle classification. Accordingly,
NHTSA believes that the compartmentalization requirements of Standard
No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, will not be
affected by this rulemaking.
Wheelchair lifts. As noted above, some commenters suggested that,
on a school vehicle, the DSP's removed for installation of a wheelchair
lift be counted toward a determination of a vehicle's passenger
capacity. Mid Bus and NSTA suggested that if wheelchair securement
positions are installed in a vehicle, a lift mechanism of some type
must also be present. Therefore, both suggested that the wheelchair
lift also be credited with 4 designated seating positions.
The agency neither proposed nor discussed this issue in the NPRM.
However, NHTSA is studying the matter. If, after due consideration,
NHTSA decides to propose such an amendment, it will do so in a separate
rulemaking.
Other methods of transport. CHP suggested that NHTSA study other
methods of transporting disabled students, such as gurneys that could
be used to transport prone or supine passengers. CHP stated that
schools are receiving demands for transportation of disabled students
in other than standard wheelchairs. Such devices pose hardships for bus
operators, take up more space than wheelchairs, and securement/tiedown
is difficult. Federal standards in this area would assist the school
bus industry, increase safety, and establish uniformity.
The agency is aware that students are transported in mobility
devices other than wheelchairs. The requirements of Standard No. 222
mandate forward-facing wheelchair restraints, but do not specify how
the wheelchair securement devices should be used. This is an
operational issue that is the responsibility of the state or local
school district. However, NHTSA has a Disabilities Working Group that
serves as a clearinghouse for information on the safe transportation of
disabled persons. The diversity of the mobility devices available makes
it impossible for a standard tiedown system to provide adequate
securement of all the different types of mobility aids. There are many
mobility devices that are made specifically for the individual's
disability. Parties that are responsible for the safe transportation of
occupants in mobility devices that are unique should consult with the
restraint manufacturer, the physician, and a qualified expert in the
field of transportation for the disabled prior to transporting such
individuals.
Wheelchair safety. CHP stated that it is encountering a wide
variety in the construction, configurations, and sizes of wheelchairs,
and is concerned that ``many of the wheelchairs in the California (and
nationwide) marketplace may not be capable of withstanding the forces
associated with anchoring an occupant restraint system to them.'' NHTSA
believes that CHP is referring to the crashworthiness of wheelchairs.
CHP suggested, therefore, that NHTSA develop minimum standards for
wheelchairs.
NHTSA addressed this issue in the final rule of January 15, 1993
(58 FR 4591), in discussing comments submitted in response to the NPRM
of September 24, 1991. The agency recognizes now, as then, that some
wheelchairs may not perform as well as others in a crash situation.
However, the agency still considers it inappropriate to specify
requirements for wheelchairs and other mobile seating devices that
could be utilized on school buses. NHTSA's authority extends only to
issuing performance requirements for motor vehicles and items of motor
vehicle equipment as defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102 (6) and (7). The agency
has authority to specify performance requirements for seating devices
that are designed for use in vehicles, such as child safety seats.
Wheelchairs in general are not designed specifically for use in motor
vehicles. Their use in motor vehicles is only incidental to their
primary function of providing mobility. Accordingly, NHTSA may not
regulate in this area.
Agency Decision
After carefully considering the comments submitted in response to
the NPRM, NHTSA has decided to amend the definition of ``designated
seating position'' found in 49 CFR 571.3, as proposed in the NPRM.
NHTSA believes this rule is needed to ensure that the vehicles which
are used to transport students in wheelchairs afford the same
protection as identical vehicles which are equipped with conventional
bench seats and are classified as school buses. Some commenters
expressed concerns about the impacts of the rule on school bus usage by
increasing transportation time, causing traffic problems, and requiring
more buses to transport the same number of children. However, these
comments did not controvert the safety need for this action nor
establish that the results would not be cost effective.
Effective Date
49 U.S.C. 30111(d) provides that each order prescribing a Federal
motor vehicle safety standard may not become effective before the 180th
day or later than one year after the standard is
[[Page 15508]] prescribed unless, for good cause shown, a different
effective date is in the public interest. NHTSA has concluded that one
year after the date of publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register is an appropriate effective date for this amendment in order
to provide manufacturers adequate time to plan and implement any
necessary design changes to their vehicles. Manufacturers may, however,
at their opinion, comply with this amendment at any time after 30 days
following publication of this final rule in the Federal Register.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866,
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' The agency has considered the
impact of this rulemaking action under the DOT's regulatory policies
and procedures and has determined that it is not ``significant'' under
those policies and procedures.
The additional costs from having to comply with school bus safety
standards and the cost savings from not having to comply with the MPV
safety standards are estimated to result in net additional costs of a
maximum of $2,198 per vehicle ($2,288 maximum additional costs, less
$90 per vehicle in cost savings, as discussed below), for a total
maximum of $1,142,960 ($2,198 x 520). The agency believes, however,
that only a very small number of vehicles per year would incur the full
additional cost. Accordingly, the economic effects of this rulemaking
action are so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation is not
required.
Costs. The primary additional costs of the rule are estimated to be
a maximum of $2,288 per vehicle, for a total maximum of $1,189,760
($2,288 x 520). Those costs result from equipping each vehicle with
the following school bus features: red and amber school bus signal
lamps required by Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and
associated equipment ($140); school bus mirrors required by Standard
No. 111, Rearview mirrors (between $22 and $52); stop signal arms
required by Standard No. 131, School bus pedestrian safety devices
($205); for vehicles over 6,000 pounds GVWR, a reinforced roof and roof
pillar structure required by Standard No. 220, School bus rollover
protection (from $22 to $1,549); additional rivets and glue for body
panel strength in accordance with Standard No. 221, School bus body
joint strength ($365); and compartmentalized passenger seats required
by Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection
($35 per seat, or $280 for a vehicle with eight rear seating
positions). NHTSA's data suggests, however, that many, if not most,
vehicles used as school buses that have fewer than 11 designated
seating positions, counting a wheelchair position as one designated
seating position, already voluntarily comply with Federal school bus
safety standards. Thus, the average additional costs for the affected
vehicles would be significantly less than the theoretical maximum.
Cost savings. The potential cost savings realized from changing the
classification result from differences between the occupant restraint
requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, for MPV's
and school buses. An MPV with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less is
required to have lap/shoulder belts at all outboard seating positions
and a lap/shoulder belt for the driver. In contrast, a school bus with
a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less is required to have a lap/shoulder belt
at the driver's position and a lap belt at all other positions.
NHTSA believes that the maximum number of affected rear outboard
seating positions is six, assuming that a vehicle with 10 seating
positions has two 3-person bench seats, two single seats, a wheelchair
position, and a driver's seat. These six outboard seating positions
would require a lap/shoulder belt for MPV's and a lap belt for buses.
The difference in cost between a lap/shoulder belt and a lap belt is
about $15, or $90 per vehicle.
For vehicles with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds, cost savings
will also result from changing a vehicle from an MPV to a school bus.
If an MPV, the vehicle is required to have lap belts at all seating
positions, including the driver's position. The seats on a school bus,
except for the driver's position, are not required to have lap belts.
Thus, the cost savings for a vehicle with eight rear seating positions
will be between $69.00 and $90.00 per vehicle.
The agency does not know the GVWR distribution of the affected
lift-equipped school buses. In any event, the maximum cost savings
would not exceed $90 per vehicle for a total possible maximum of
$46,800 (520 buses x $90 each).
Safety Impact. The agency believes that there will be no
significant loss of safety benefits from requiring vehicles
accommodating wheelchairs to be classified as school buses. The agency
believes that the school bus accident avoidance equipment of red and
amber signal lamps, rearview mirrors and stop signal arms would
compensate for any potential loss of safety benefits from the
difference in safety belt requirements between MPVs and school buses.
Since it takes slightly longer to mount and dismount wheelchair
occupants, the red and amber stop signal lamps and stop signal arms are
of even greater importance for school buses. The agency recognizes that
while outboard seating positions on MPVs are required to have lap/
shoulder belts, those positions on small buses (under 10,000 pounds
GVWR) are only required to have lap belts. NHTSA estimates the fatality
effectiveness of rear seat lap belts to be 32 percent, while the
effectiveness of rear seat lap/shoulder belts is estimated to be 41
percent. However, because school buses are involved in so few
potentially fatal crashes due to their mostly daytime operation and
scheduled routes, the potential loss of safety benefits is minimal.
For vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds, school buses are
required to meet the seat compartmentalization of Standard No. 222,
while MPVs must provide lap belts for the rear seat occupants. The
agency believes that those two restraint concepts provide equivalent
safety for the heavier vehicles.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has considered the effects of this regulatory action under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that the amendment
promulgated by this final rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As explained above, NHTSA expects
only a very modest economic impact as a result of this rulemaking
action because of the small number of affected vehicles (maximum of
520), and since many such vehicles already voluntarily meet the school
bus standards. Accordingly, the agency has not prepared a regulatory
flexibility analysis.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This rulemaking action has been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria of Executive Order 12612, and the agency has
determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act, and has determined that
implementation of this action will not have any significant
[[Page 15509]] impact on the quality of the human environment.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, P.L. 96-
511, the agency notes that there are no information collection
requirements associated with this rulemaking action.
Civil Justice Reform
This rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C.
30103(b), whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a state or political subdivision of a state may prescribe or
continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of
performance of a motor vehicle only if the standard is identical to the
Federal standard. However, a state may prescribe a standard for a motor
vehicle or equipment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher
performance requirement than the Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets
forth a procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing,
amending or revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. A petition
for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings is not required
before parties may file suit in court.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber
products, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 571 is amended as
follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.3 is amended by revising the definition of
``designated seating position'' in Section 571.3(b) to read as follows:
Sec. 571.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
Designated seating position means any plan view location capable of
accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult
female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design
is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position
while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating
accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. Any bench or
split-bench seat in a passenger car, truck or multipurpose passenger
vehicle with a GVWR less than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds), having
greater than 127 centimeters (50 inches) of hip room (measured in
accordance with SAE Standard J1100(a)) shall have not less than three
designated seating positions, unless the seat design or vehicle design
is such that the center position cannot be used for seating. For the
sole purpose of determining the classification of any vehicle sold or
introduced into interstate commerce for purposes that include carrying
students to and from school or related events, any location in such
vehicle intended for securement of an occupied wheelchair during
vehicle operation shall be regarded as four designated seating
positions.
* * * * *
Issued on March 20, 1995.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-7350 Filed 3-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M