81 FR 19902 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 66 (April 6, 2016)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 66 (April 6, 2016)
| Page Range | 19902-19904 | |
| FR Document | 2016-07828 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2016)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 19902-19904] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [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
![19902 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
alternative must cease before March 2, buses (78 FR 70416). We first deny the regardless of gross vehicle weight rating
2020. petitions submitted by bus (GVWR). In the final rule, consistent
* * * * * manufacturers IC Bus and Daimler with MAP–21, NHTSA incorporated the
[FR Doc. 2016–07847 Filed 4–5–16; 8:45 am] Trucks to modify the definition of term ‘‘over-the-road bus’’ into FMVSS
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P ‘‘over-the-road bus’’ specified in the No. 208 and the definition for the term
final rule. These petitions are denied set forth in MAP–21. Further, finding a
because any change to the definition safety need to improve occupant
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION may serve to reduce the standard’s protection for passengers on other large
applicability, contrary to Congressional buses, the agency also required seat
National Highway Traffic Safety intent and the safety need addressed by belts in new buses, other than over-the
Administration the rule, and the current definition of road buses, with a GVWR greater than
‘‘over-the-road bus’’ is sufficiently clear 11,793 kilograms (kg) (26,000 pounds
49 CFR Part 571 as to which buses must be equipped (lb)).3
with seat belts. Second, this document
[Docket No. NHTSA–2013–0121] Petitions for Reconsideration
denies a petition for reconsideration
from bus manufacturer Prevost to revise In response to the November 25, 2013
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
the seat belt anchorage strength final rule, the agency received petitions
Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
requirements for last row seats having for reconsideration requesting the
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic no passenger seating behind them. This agency further define the term ‘‘over-the
Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. petition is denied because, as explained road bus’’ with dimensional specificity
ACTION: Denial of petitions for in the 2013 final rule, the agency is and/or with other bus attributes. IC Bus
reconsideration. concerned about the interchangeability stated that the current definition of
of these seats with those equipped with over-the-road bus is ambiguous and the
SUMMARY: This document denies integrated seat belts and the risk that a terms ‘‘elevated passenger deck’’ and
petitions for reconsideration submitted seat that is certified to a lesser ‘‘baggage compartment’’ are undefined
by bus manufacturers IC Bus, LLC (IC requirement could be moved to a row and subject to interpretation. IC Bus
Bus), Daimler Trucks North America that has passenger seats behind it. petitioned the agency to—
(Daimler Trucks) and Prevost, Further, we deny the petition because • modify the definition such that
concerning a November 25, 2013 final the requested force level reduction may ‘‘over the road bus means a bus
rule requiring seat belts on large buses. set strength levels below an acceptable characterized by an elevated passenger
IC Bus and Daimler Trucks petitioned to level for a dynamic environment. deck to accommodate a baggage
modify the definition of ‘‘over-the-road compartment underneath, except a
bus’’ specified in the final rule. NHTSA I. Motorcoach Definition school bus,’’ and
is denying these petitions because any On July 6, 2012, President Obama • define the term ‘‘elevated passenger
change to the definition may serve to signed the ‘‘Moving Ahead for Progress deck’’ based on physical attributes of
reduce the standard’s applicability, in the 21st Century Act’’ (MAP–21), the bus such as passenger compartment
contrary to Congressional and NHTSA which incorporates the ‘‘Motorcoach floor height as measured from the
intent, and the definition of ‘‘over-the- Enhanced Safety Act of 2012’’ in ground (scaled for different GVWR) or
road bus’’ is sufficiently clear. Prevost subtitle G. Section 32703(a) of this define a passenger compartment floor
petitioned to revise the seat belt legislation calls for prescribing height requirement with respect to some
anchorage strength requirements for last regulations for seat belts at all specific vehicle reference point.
row seats having no passenger seating designated seating positions in Daimler Trucks also petitioned the
behind them. NHTSA is denying this ‘‘motorcoaches.’’ Section 32702(6) states agency to modify the definition of over-
petition primarily because the requested that ‘‘[t]he term ‘motorcoach’ has the the road bus to include objective
force level reduction may set strength meaning given the term ‘over-the-road dimensional criteria for the elevated
levels below an acceptable level for a bus’ in section 3038(a)(3) of the passenger deck, such as floor height
dynamic environment. Transportation Equity Act for the 21st from the ground (variable for different
DATES: April 6, 2016. Century (49 U.S.C. 5310 note)’’ with two GVWR), and also to define baggage
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For specific exceptions.1 Section 3038(a)(3) compartment in terms of volume per
non-legal issues: Mr. Vinay (49 U.S.C. 5310 note) defines the term seating position.
Nagabhushana, Office of ‘‘over-the-road bus’’ as a bus
Agency Response
Crashworthiness Standards, National characterized by an elevated passenger
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, deck located over a baggage The petitioners did not provide
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., compartment.2 information supporting the requested
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: On November 25, 2013, NHTSA action. They made broad suggestions as
(202) 366–1452. Facsimile: (202) 493– issued a final rule on occupant to how the definition of over-the-road
2739. protection in large buses, fulfilling the bus might be quantified, but specific
For legal issues: Ms. Deirdre Fujita, statutory mandate in section 32703(a) of criteria and supporting data were
Office of Chief Counsel, National MAP–21. The 2013 final rule amended lacking in the submissions. The
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard petitioners did not provide data on the
(FMVSS) No. 208, ‘‘Occupant crash floor height or luggage compartment
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: protection,’’ to require lap/shoulder seat volume for any bus body type. They did
(202) 366–2992. Facsimile: (202) 366– belts for each passenger seating position not discuss what floor height or luggage
3820. in all new over-the road buses compartment volume should be used to
distinguish an over-the-road bus from
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 1 The two exceptions are buses used for public
document denies petitions for transportation provided by, or on behalf of, a public 3 The exceptions in the final rule are non-over-
reconsideration of a November 25, 2013 transportation agency, and school buses. the-road transit buses, school buses, prison buses
final rule requiring seat belts on large 2 The definition also appears in 49 CFR 37.3. and perimeter seating buses.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:28 Apr 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR1.SGM 06APR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_19968/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 19903
other buses, and the basis for the II. Reduced Anchorage Strength for We are unable to agree to Prevost’s
criterion. Last Row Seats suggestion that the strength requirements be
adjusted (reduced) for seats where there are
NHTSA has limited discretion As part of the motorcoach seat belt no other seats behind it (and therefore no
regarding the ‘‘motorcoach’’ definition requirements, the agency specified that unbelted passengers seated behind it). We are
and the application of the November the seat belt assembly anchorages must aware that some operators of covered buses
2013 final rule. Section 32702(6) of meet the requirements of FMVSS No. have changed the passenger seating
MAP–21 precisely defines the meaning 210, ‘‘Seat belt assembly anchorages,’’ to configuration from that set by the factory or
have removed and reinstalled seats. If
of the term ‘‘motorcoach,’’ incorporating ensure effective occupant restraint and ‘‘weaker’’ seats are moved after the factory
the ‘‘over-the-road bus’’ definition used to reduce the likelihood of their failure. installation to a position that had a passenger
in 49 U.S.C. 5310 note (which the Further, the rule required that the seat seat behind it, the weaker seat would not
petitioners seek to change). Further, belt anchorages must be integrated to provide the performance required by FMVSS
section 32703(a) requires the Secretary the seat structure, except for the belt No. 210. Furthermore, this final rule provides
to ‘‘prescribe regulations requiring anchorages in the last row of the coach some of the flexibility Prevost seeks. Under
safety belts to be installed in (if there is no wheelchair position or this final rule, seats with no other seats
behind them are not required to have the lap/
motorcoaches at each designated seating side emergency door behind these seats)
shoulder belt anchorages attached to the seat
position.’’ We note that buses are built and in the driver seating position. For structure. For these seats, the lap/shoulder
for different purposes to different the excluded seats in the last row, the belt anchorages can be attached directly to
specifications, with varying floor height, final rule provided manufacturers the the vehicle structure. (78 FR at 70455)
floor length, compartment sizes, etc. option of either having an integrated Consistent with our final rule
Adding dimensional limits to the bus seat belt or attaching the seat belt response, we remain concerned about
attributes as the petitioners suggest anchorages to the bus side or back the interchangeability of the seats with
would reduce the number of vehicles structure, as such placement would not integrated seat belts, particularly in
fitting under the definition, which in impede ingress or egress of passengers consideration of the long life of these
turn would reduce the number of buses in the coach. vehicles (20+ years) and subsequent
that would be required to have seat Petition for Reconsideration sales to operators that may need to
belts. The agency is concerned that such reconfigure seating. If the operator
a reduction in the number of buses In response to the final rule, Prevost moved the reduced-strength seat to a
subject to the seat belt requirement petitioned asking for reduced ‘‘seat position that had a passenger seat
would be contrary to Congress’s intent retention’’ requirements for last row behind it, the moved seat will not have
to enhance the safety of buses used for seats where there is no possibility of any the characteristics needed to withstand
passenger transport for compensation.4 passengers being behind them. Prevost the loading from the aft passengers. If
MAP–21 specified the over-the-road bus is concerned that ‘‘the very last seats are the reduced-strength seat were in a
definition to be used by the agency, secured over a thin metal bulkhead position that had a storage space behind
without regard to vehicle weight and which did not require being very rigid it, loose items may create forward
without indicating any additional when there were no seat belts’’ 6 and loading in a crash, similarly to rear
specificity in regards to floor height or believes that this bulkhead will require occupant loading. The petitioner did not
luggage compartment volume. reinforcement. It claimed that ‘‘[a]ny address this point. Similarly, no
strength requirement is transmitted into information or analysis was provided to
Additionally, NHTSA does not added weight which in turn transferred
believe that the requested action is suggest a value by which the seat belt
into fuel consumption.’’ The petitioner anchorage strength requirement should
needed to clarify the application of the argued that FMVSS No. 210 would be
seat belt requirement. The applicability be reduced.
applicable to any other seats in the The agency is not convinced of the
of the requirement is quite clear. As motorcoach where there would be
previously discussed, all buses with a merits of lowering the strength
combined belted occupant and inertial requirement per se. NHTSA conducted
GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) loading of the seat plus loading from the a full scale 48 kilometers per hour (km/
must have seat belts.5 For buses with unbelted occupant behind, but for last h) (30 miles per hour) crash test of a
GVWRs of 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) or less, row seats, there is no possibility of 2000 Model Year MCI 102EL3
if the vehicle has ‘‘an elevated passenger occupant loading from behind so the Renaissance motorcoach (capacity of 54
deck located over a baggage FMVSS No. 210 load should be reduced. passengers seats). Post-test examination
compartment,’’ it must have seat belts. No supporting data was provided in the of the bus 8 found shoulder belt D-ring
We believe that a bus manufacturer petition. excursion for one of the seats (seating
can determine whether the vehicle they position 11R). The top bolt of the D-ring
Agency Response
manufacture must have seat belts, based shoulder belt mount attached to the seat
on the vehicle’s GVWR and whether the The agency has carefully considered back by two bolts sheared resulting in
bus has a luggage compartment under the petitioner’s request to reduce the forward excursion of the D-ring. This
any part of the passenger deck. A bus seat belt anchorage forces for the subject was a row of 7G Amaya seats with two
that does not fit the definition is one seats. We are denying the request for the 50th percentile dummies restrained
without a luggage-carrying compartment reasons explained below. with lap/shoulder belts. There was no
under any part of the passenger deck. We first note that Prevost’s petition is added reinforcement to the floor or to
Based on the above, the agency essentially a repeat of the comments it the side structure and no occupant
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
declines the petitioners’ request to made to the notice of proposed loading from behind. This seat design
modify the definition of over-the-road rulemaking (NPRM) 7 preceding the passed the FMVSS No. 210 force
bus. final rule. The agency responded to that requirements in our static pull tests.
comment in the preamble of the final Although the D-ring mount failure did
4 Section 32702(7) of MAP–21 defines
rule as follows: not result in dummy contact with the
‘‘motorcoach services’’ as ‘‘passenger transportation
by motorcoach for compensation.’’ 6 Docket No. NHTSA–2013–0121–005. 8 Figure 7 in Technical Report DOT HS 813 335,
5 See footnote 3, supra, for exceptions. 7 75 FR 50958 (August 18, 2010). Docket NHTSA–2013–0121.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:28 Apr 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR1.SGM 06APR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_19968/page/2.svg)
![19904 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
seats in front of them or result in high to the bus rear wall is problematic. U.S.C. 11161, to maintain cost
injury values, it suggests that the Regardless, we emphasize that the accounting rules for rail carriers.1
dynamic loading was sufficient to cause petitioners have not shown that there Sections 11142 and 11161 both require
partial failure of the torso anchorage will be a weight penalty for seat belt the Board to conform its accounting
hardware without any loading from anchorages integrated into the vehicle rules to GAAP ‘‘[t]o the maximum
dummies in the row behind. Thus, the structure. The increased flexibility of extent practicable.’’ The USOA is set
agency is concerned that any reduction attachment to the vehicle rather than the forth in the Board’s regulations at 49
in the seat belt loading below the seat has expanded the opportunity for CFR part 1201—Subpart A. The USOA
FMVSS No. 210 level may reduce the efficient, innovative and practicable is used by the Class I Railroads 2 to
torso anchorage strength to an designs for manufacturers choosing to comply with their statutory requirement
unacceptable level. attach the belts to the vehicle structure. to provide the Board an annual report,
In addition, data indicate that the last For the reasons stated above, NHTSA known as the R–1 report, that contains
row of seats may be subject to loading hereby denies all petitions for information about their finances and
unique to the rear of the bus. The reconsideration of the November 25, operating statistics. 49 U.S.C.
vehicle accelerometer data from the full 2013 final rule amending FMVSS No. 11145(b)(1) and 49 CFR 1241.11.
scale crash test were suggestive of 208. In a notice of proposed rulemaking
forward flexing and dynamic rebound Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
served on July 8, 2015 (NPR), the Board
near the rear wall of the passenger 30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at proposed to make a number of changes
compartment, compared to the front of 49 CFR 1.95. to the USOA. First, the Board noted that
the passenger compartment.9 The static the existing USOA does not specifically
Issued on: March 31, 2016.
FMVSS No. 210 test cannot account for address the proper accounting and
the dynamic forward displacement and Raymond R. Posten, reporting for changes in the fair value of
rebound of the vehicle structure to Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. certain security investments, derivative
which the seat or seat belt may be [FR Doc. 2016–07828 Filed 4–5–16; 8:45 am] instruments, and hedging activities, nor
anchored and any weakening of the BILLING CODE P does it contain specific accounts to
attachments that may result from such record amounts related to items of Other
dynamic phenomena. Thus, reducing Comprehensive Income or provide a
the anchorage strength requirements for SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD format to display comprehensive
this last row of seats may set strength income in the Form R–1. Without
levels below an acceptable level for a 49 CFR Part 1201 specific instructions and accounts for
dynamic environment. [Docket No. EP 720] recording and reporting these
In its petition, Prevost states that transactions and events, inconsistent
reducing the strength requirement of Accounting and Reporting of Business and incomplete accounting would
FMVSS No. 210 for last row seats would Combinations, Security Investments, result. Thus, the Board proposed to
result in a weight reduction and fuel Comprehensive Income, Derivative amend its USOA and Form R–1 to
savings. The agency is not convinced Instruments, and Hedging Activities account for those types of transactions
that there would be a significant weight and events. Specifically, the Board
AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.
reduction or fuel savings. Prevost did proposed updating the USOA to provide
not provide information substantiating ACTION: Final rule.
for: (1) Fair value presentation of certain
its claims, such as data on the thickness SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation security investments, derivative
changes to the metal bulkhead (for Board (STB or Board) is adopting final instruments, and hedging activities; and
example) required to secure seat belts rules that update the accounting and (2) presentation of comprehensive
designed to comply with the FMVSS reporting requirements in its Uniform income and components of other
No. 210 requirements compared to System of Accounts (USOA) for Class I comprehensive income.
current designs. Railroads so that they are more The Board proposed these revisions
Further, the final rule permits—rather consistent with current generally based on the GAAP promulgated by the
than requires—manufacturers to attach accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Financial Accounting Standards Board
the seat belts to the vehicle structure for The Board is also revising the schedules (FASB) 3 in the following Accounting
last-row seats. In the final rule, NHTSA and instructions for the Annual Report
stated that ‘‘[l]ap/shoulder belt for Class I Railroads (R–1 or Form R–1) 1 The Board has broad economic oversight of
equipped seats that meet the to better meet regulatory requirements railroads, 49 U.S.C. 10101–11908, and prescribes a
requirements of FMVSS No. 210 are uniform accounting system for rail carriers to use
and industry needs. for regulatory purposes, 49 U.S.C. 11141–43,
available in the U.S. that are equivalent 11161–64; 49 CFR parts 1200–1201. In addition, the
DATES: This rule is effective on May 6,
in weight to the European seats.’’ (78 FR Board requires Class I railroads to submit quarterly
2016.
at 70460.) We concluded that, and annual reports containing financial and
depending on the efficiency of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: operating statistics, including employment and
structural design, there would be little Pedro Ramirez at (202) 245–0333. traffic data. 49 U.S.C. 11145; 49 CFR 1241–1246,
Assistance for the hearing impaired is 1248.
or no weight penalty associated with the 2 The Board designates three classes of freight
structural changes needed to meet available through the Federal railroads based upon their operating revenues, for
FMVSS No. 210. Thus, the petitioner Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– three consecutive years, in 1991 dollars, using the
could use the integrated seat belt design 800–877–8339. following scale: Class I—$250 million or more;
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Class II—less than $250 million but more than $20
for the last row seats if attaching the belt million; and Class III—$20 million or less. These
Interstate Commerce Act, as amended operating revenue thresholds are adjusted annually
9 The maximum dynamic deflection near the front by the ICC Termination Act of 1995 for inflation. 49 CFR pt. 1201, 1–1. Adjusted for
of the passenger compartment was 1,727 mm (68 (ICCTA), Public Law 104–88, 109 Stat. inflation, the revenue threshold for a Class I rail
inches) and the maximum dynamic displacement 803, authorizes the Board, in 49 U.S.C. carrier using 2014 data is $475,754,803. Today,
near the rear wall was 1,930 mm (76 inches). The there are seven Class I carriers.
rear wall separates the engine compartment in large
11142, to prescribe a uniform 3 FASB is a private, non-profit organization
over-the-road buses and in other buses from the accounting system for rail carriers responsible for setting accounting standards for
cargo compartment. subject to our jurisdiction and, in 49 public companies in the United States.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:28 Apr 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR1.SGM 06APR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_19968/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-07 13:51:59
Document Modified: 2018-02-07 13:51:59
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Denial of petitions for reconsideration. | |
| Dates | April 6, 2016. | |
| 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. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 19902 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR