fmvss no. 208 lap/shoulder belts for all over-the-road

Final Regulatory Impact Analysis

FMVSS No. 208 Lap/Shoulder Belts for All Over-The-Road Buses, and Other Buses With GVWRs Greater Than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)

Office of Regulatory Analysis and Evaluation

National Center for Statistics and Analysis

September 2013

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

I – Introduction …………….……………………………………………….1

II – Background …………….………………………………………………5

III - The Proposed Rule….……….…………………………………………7

IV – Comments …………………………………………………………….7

V – Research ….……….……………………………………..….………..16

VI- Target Population ………………………………………..…………...50

VII – Benefits…...……………………………………….……..…..…......57

VIII – Costs ……………….………………………………..….…..…......72

IX - Cost Effectiveness Analysis ………………………..…….…………89

X – Cost-Benefit Analysis…...………………………………..…………..97

XI – Alternatives ……….…………………………………...…………..104

XII – Retrofit………………………………………………...…………..128

XIII - Regulatory Flexibility and Unfunded Mandates Reform Acts.…..139

XIV – Appendix A……………………………………………………….147

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA) presents an analysis of the costs and

benefits of requiring lap/shoulder belts at all passenger seating positions on

(a) all new over-the-road buses1 (except school buses); and (b) new buses, other than

over-the-road buses, with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 11,793

kilograms (kg) (26,000 pounds (lb)).2 The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

preceding this final rule, published on August 18, 2010 (75 FR 50958), proposed to call

buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) “motorcoaches” and to apply seat

belt requirements to those vehicles. This analysis uses the term “covered buses” to

indicate the buses in the final rule.

Additionally, this FRIA analyzes the costs and benefits of requiring a lap/shoulder belt at

the driver’s seating position on the covered buses.3 Although the final rule does not have

a lower limit on the GVWR of over-the-road buses, to our knowledge, all over-the-road

buses currently available in the U.S. have GVWRs greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb).

Therefore, the target population under consideration for covered buses has a GVWR

greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). The final rule underlying this FRIA also requires a

lap/shoulder belt at the driver’s seating position on school buses with a GVWR greater

than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). As to the latter vehicles, since all school buses already are

equipped with a lap/shoulder belt for the driver position, there are no costs or benefits for

the school bus driver position and they are not analyzed in this document.

Approximately 2,100 new over-the-road buses and about 100 new other buses with a

GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) are sold annually. The typical bus covered by

today’s final rule has 54 passenger seating positions that would have a lap/shoulder belt.

Although not part of the final rule, for purposes of possible future action exploring

occupant protection provided by buses generally, the analysis also examines the costs and

benefits of requiring lap/shoulder belts for drivers of 4,000 new transit buses sold

annually and the costs and benefits of requiring lap/shoulder belts for drivers and for

passengers of 14,600 new mid-size buses4 that are sold annually between 4,536 kg

(10,000 lb) and 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) GVWR.

The final rule completes the first initiative of NHTSA’s 2007 “NHTSA’s Approach to

Motorcoach Safety” plan and one of the principal undertakings of DOT’s 2009

1 An over-the-road bus is a bus characterized by an elevated passenger deck located over a baggage

compartment. See §3038(a)(3) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, cited in §32702(6) of

the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). Included in MAP-21 is Subtitle G, the

“Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of 2012.” 2 Certain bus types in this category of non-over-the-road buses are excepted. The excepted buses are transit

buses, school buses, perimeter-seating buses, and prison buses. 3 Also, the final rule requires the driver’s position of prison buses to have a lap/shoulder belt.

4 The analysis of this lighter group of buses excludes transit buses, school buses, perimeter-seating buses,

and prison buses.

Motorcoach Safety Action Plan, and fulfills a statutory mandate of the Motorcoach

Enhanced Safety Act of 2012, incorporated into MAP-21.

Annual Target Population

20.9 Fatalities (16.8 passengers and 4.1 drivers in covered buses)

7,934 Injuries (6,532 passengers and 1,402 drivers in covered vehicles)

Benefits

The ranges below are based on the assumptions that all driver seats on the covered buses

are equipped with lap/shoulder belts and seat belt usage ranges from 50 to 83 percent for

drivers, and all passenger seats on the covered buses are equipped with lap/shoulder belts

and seat belt usage ranges from 15 percent to 83 percent for passengers. Thus, all of the

benefit estimates throughout the analysis are annual benefits sometime in the future when

all covered buses on the road have belts.

Benefits

Fatalities 1.7 to 9.2

AIS 1 Injuries (Minor) 89 to 536

AIS 2-5 (Moderate to Critical) 57 to 322

Total Non-fatal Injuries 146 to 858

Costs (2008 Economics)

Per Average Vehicle Total Fleet ($Millions)

Bus Driver $7.54 $0.02

Bus Passenger $2,094 $4.6

Fuel Costs @ 3% $1,077 $2.4

Fuel Costs @ 7% $794 $1.7

New Vehicle and Fuel Costs

@ 3% $3,178 $7.0

@ 7% $2,895 $6.4

Cost Effectiveness

The range presented is the low to high estimate from the 2 ranges of belt use, and 3% to

7% discount rate.

Cost per Equivalent Life Saved 3% to 7% discount rate

50% Belt use for drivers and 15% Belt

usage for passengers

$1.5 to $1.8 mill.

83% Belt usage for drivers and

passengers

$0.3 to $0.3 mill.

Breakeven point in passenger belt usage 4 to 5%

Annualized Costs and Benefits

In millions of $2008 Dollars

Annualized Costs Annualized Benefits Net Benefits

3% Discount Rate $7.0 $28.5 – 158.6 $21.5 to 151.6

7% Discount Rate $6.4 $21.8 – 121.1 $15.4 to 114.7

1

I. Introduction

Millions of people are transported by commercial buses annually. These trips include

both business and pleasure tours and are both intra- and inter-cities. Senior citizens and

students account for the majority of occupants on these trips, approximately 54 percent.

According to the Motorcoach Census 2008,5 the motorcoach industry in the United States

and Canada had approximately 3,400 carriers and 33,536 motorcoaches. Of this number

approximately 3,137 carriers and approximately 29,325 motorcoaches were based in the

United States.6

In recent years, there have been several serious commercial bus crashes investigated by

the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). In each crash there were at least three

fatalities and six occupants with serious injuries. The causes of most of the crashes were

attributed to driver error or poor maintenance of the bus. In many of these crashes, the

NTSB determined that the risk of passenger fatalities or injuries would have been

minimized if passengers had been properly restrained with a lap/shoulder belt.

The main goal of this rulemaking is to reduce occupant ejection. Ejections account for

seventy-eight percent of the fatalities in heavy bus rollover crashes and twenty-eight

percent of the fatalities in non-rollover crashes. Lap/shoulder belts installed on the

vehicles could reduce the risk of fatal injuries in rollover crashes by 77 percent.

Another goal is to improve passenger crash protection in crashes generally, particularly

frontal crashes. NHTSA’s Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) conducted a full-

scale 30 mile per hour (mph) barrier crash of an over-the-road motorcoach and a

comprehensive sled test program involving instrumented test dummies representing 5th

percentile adult females, 50th

percentile adult males, and 95th

percentile adult males. In

the VRTC tests, lap/shoulder belts at forward-facing seating positions were effective at

preventing critical head and neck injury values as measured by the test dummies.

This rulemaking also responds to MAP-21, which the President signed on July 6, 2012,

P.L. 112-141. Section 32703(a) of the Act states that, not later than 1 year after the date

of enactment of the Act, the Secretary shall prescribe regulations requiring safety belts to

be installed in motorcoaches at each designated seating position.7

Alternatives are considered in Chapter X. These alternatives include requiring a lap belt

to be installed for passengers of buses other than over-the-road buses and examining the

ECE R.14 and ECE R.80 test requirements, which are less stringent than the final rule.

5 Motorcoach Census 2008, A Benchmarking Study of the Size and Activity of the Motorcoach Industry in

the United States and Canada in 2007. Paul Bourquin, Economist and Industry Analyst, December 18.

2008 6 Motorcoach, as used in the document, generally means an over-the-road bus.

7 The Act also directs the Secretary to consider various other motorcoach rulemakings, in provided

timeframes, and a number of research programs for possible future rulemaking.

2

Lap belt test results, benefits and costs are discussed in the appropriate chapters and

combined in Chapter X.

The Final Rule’s Applicability

In the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (75 FR 50958; August 18, 2010)

preceding the final rule, the agency proposed to amend 49 CFR Part 571.3 to add the

following definition of “motorcoach.” The definition was proposed as an expedient way

of identifying the vehicles to which the amended standard would apply.

(Proposed definition) Motorcoach means “a bus with a gross vehicle weight

rating (GVWR) of 11,793 kilograms (26,000 lb) or greater, 16 or more designated

seating positions (including the driver), and at least 2 rows of passenger seats,

rearward of the driver’s seating position, that are forward-facing or can convert to

forward-facing without the use of tools. Motorcoach includes buses sold for

intercity, tour, and commuter bus service, but does not include a school bus, or an

urban transit bus sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation

along a fixed route with frequent stops.”

NHTSA received many comments on the proposed definition of “motorcoach.” Some

commenters suggested changing some of the criteria (e.g., the GVWR criterion), some

suggested that certain bus types should not be considered “motorcoaches,” and some

believed the description of transit buses was unclear.

In July 2012, MAP-21 was enacted. Section 32703(a) of the Act requires DOT to

prescribe regulations requiring safety belts to be installed in “motorcoaches” at each

designated seating position. The Act basically defines “motorcoach” to be an over-the-

road bus, i.e., a bus characterized by an elevated passenger deck located over a baggage

compartment. MAP-21 also defines “safety belt” as an occupant restraint system

consisting of integrated lap shoulder belts (§32702(12)).

After considering the comments and MAP-21, we have made the following decisions for

this final rule. (See the preamble of the Federal Register final rule document for a full

discussion of these issues.)

We have decided not to adopt a “motorcoach” definition. Instead, we are amending

FMVSS Nos. 208, “Occupant crash protection” and FMVSS 210 “Seat belt assembly

anchorages” to apply the standard’s lap/shoulder belt and anchorage requirements to

over-the-road buses (except school buses), as mandated by MAP-21, and (using our

authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) to buses other than

over-the-road buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). As to the latter

group of buses, the following are excluded: transit buses, school buses, perimeter-seating

buses, and prison buses.

We have determined that it is unnecessary to define “motorcoach” to accomplish the

objective of this rulemaking. Further, simply applying FMVSS No. 208 and 210 to over-

3

the-road buses, and to other buses based on the GVWR criterion, avoids some confusion

associated with using the term “motorcoach” to include buses that may not have been

widely thought of as motorcoaches in the past.

The proposed GVWR criterion of 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) has been slightly changed to

“GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)” from the proposed “GVWR of 11,793 kg

(26,000 lb) or greater.” The one-pound change was made to make the GVWR cut-off

more consistent with the regulations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

(FMCSA), which refer to the “greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)” terminology in

applying its regulations to commercial vehicles.

The NPRM proposed to exclude buses with perimeter seating, and described perimeter-

seating buses by referring to how many rows of seats the vehicle had. For simplification,

we have decided to refer to a number of forward-facing designated seating positions

(DSPs) rather than refer to the term “row,” as “row” is not defined in 49 CFR 571.3.

(Note that under MAP-21 (incorporating the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act), only

non-over-the-road buses can be included in this excepted category of a perimeter-seating

bus. The Act requires each designated seating position on an over-the-road bus to have a

lap/shoulder belt.) Accordingly, this final rule specifies in FMVSS No. 208:

Perimeter-seating bus means a bus with 7 or fewer designated seating positions

rearward of the driver’s seating position that are forward-facing or can convert to

forward-facing without the use of tools and is not an over-the-road bus.

Among other descriptors, the transit bus exclusion now refers to a simple description of a

physical feature typically present on a transit bus--the passenger “stop request” system--

to identify a transit bus under the rule. Accordingly, this final rule specifies in FMVSS

No. 208:

Transit bus means a bus sold for public transportation provided by, or on behalf

of, a State or local government, that is equipped with a stop-request system and

that is not an over-the-road bus.

Stop-request system means a vehicle-integrated system for passenger use to signal

to a vehicle operator that they are requesting a stop.

Note that under the final rule, the seat belt requirements apply to all over-the-road buses,

whether or not acquired for public transit purposes, and regardless if the over-the-road

bus has a stop-request system.

After reviewing the comments, NHTSA decided to exclude from the final rule buses used

for the transport of passengers under physical restraint (prison buses). (Note that under

the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, only non-over-the-road buses can be included in

this excepted category of a prison bus.) The following term is specified in FMVSS No.

208:

4

Prison bus means a bus manufactured for the purpose of transporting persons

subject to involuntary restraint or confinement and has design features consistent

with that purpose.

We also include in FMVSS No. 208 a definition of over-the-road bus:

Over-the-road bus means a bus characterized by an elevated passenger deck

located over a baggage compartment, except a school bus.

5

II. Background

Currently, vehicles covered by the final rule fall under the vehicle category of “bus” and

depending on their GVWR must comply a number of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards (FMVSS), including: FMVSS No. 108, “Lamps, reflective devices, and

associated equipment,” FMVSS No. 119, “New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles with a

GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 lb) and motorcycles,” FMVSS No. 120,

“Tire selection and rims and motor home/recreation vehicle trailer load carrying capacity

information for motor vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 lb),”

FMVSS No. 121, “Air brake systems,” FMVSS No. 207, “Seating Systems” (applicable

to driver’s seat), FMVSS No. 208, “Occupant crash protection,” FMVSS No. 209, “Seat

belt assemblies,” FMVSS No. 210, “Seat belt assembly anchorages,” FMVSS No. 217,

“Bus emergency exits and window retention and release,” and FMVSS No. 302,

“Flammability of interior materials.” FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210 presently apply to the

driver’s seat only.

FMVSS No. 208 requires either Type 1 or Type 2 seat belts for the driver’s seating

position in all buses. All seat belts required by FMVSS No. 208 are then by reference

obligated to meet the requirements of FMVSS Nos. 209 and 210. A Type 1 seat belt

assembly is a lap belt for pelvic restraint. A Type 2 seat belt assembly is a combination

of pelvic and upper torso restraints (a lap/shoulder belt). FMVSS No. 208 does not

require seat belts to be installed at the passenger seating positions in buses with a GVWR

of more than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb).

Seat Belts For Passenger Seating Positions

There are currently no federal requirements for seat belts to be installed at the passenger

positions for motorcoach-type buses. (However, the seat belt system itself, e.g., the

webbing and hardware, is required to meet FMVSS No. 209 even if the belt is

voluntarily-installed on the motorcoach-type bus because Standard No. 209 applies to the

seat belts as items of equipment.) Recently, some manufacturers have begun to

voluntarily install seat belts in their buses, but the vast majority of buses with a GVWR

greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) do not have seat belts installed for passenger seating

positions aside from restraints for wheelchair-bound occupants. Figure II-1 shows the

passenger seating systems typically installed in the covered buses.

6

Figure II-1 Typical Passenger Seat Design

Of the Covered Buses

Existing Passenger Seating Designs with Seat Belts

While belted seats are not currently required for passenger designated seating positions in

the covered buses, three bus manufacturers (Prevost, MCI, and Bus and Coach

International (BCI)) have begun voluntarily working with seating suppliers to offer Type

1 (lap belt) and Type 2 (lap/shoulder belt) seats for passengers. Some of the bus

passenger seats (Amaya/FAINSA) are reportedly capable of meeting the performance

requirements in European regulations, and the IMMI Safeguard Premier seats claim to

meet the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 208, 209 [“Seat belt assemblies,”],

210, and 222 [“School bus passenger seating and crash protection”]. Prevost has recently

begun installing the IMMI Safeguard premier in its new buses. Figure II-2 shows

passenger seats for use in a subject bus with integrated Type 2 seat belts. The number of

vehicles produced by these manufacturers with lap/shoulder belts is very small.

Figure II-2 Optional Belted Passenger Bus Seat Designs8

8 Sources: Safeguard Division of IMMI, www.safeguardseat.com, and MCI/Amaya/FAINSA.

http://www.safeguardseat.com/

7

III. The Proposed Rule

On August 18, 2010,9 the agency published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in

the Federal Register proposing to adopt amendments to FMVSS No. 208, and to 49 CFR

Part 571.3, to require installation of lap/shoulder belts for passenger occupants of

“motorcoaches” (basically, under the NPRM’s proposed definition, buses with a GVWR

greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), excluding transit buses and school buses), and to

require lap/shoulder belts for drivers of the covered buses and drivers of “large” school

buses (GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb)).

By proposing to require certification to FMVSS No. 208, by reference the NPRM

proposed to require that the lap/shoulder belts at all locations meet FMVSS No. 210,

which requires that a seat belt anchorage be of sufficient strength to withstand loads of

13,345 N (3,000 lb) applied to the torso and the lap portion of the lap/shoulder belt

anchorages. Since the passenger lap/shoulder belts would be integrated into the seat

structure, the seat belt anchorage strength requirement would address the strength of the

belt attachment to the seat and the strength of the attachment of the seat to the bus.

IV. Comments

The agency received approximately 130 comments to the NPRM. Comments were

received from: seat manufacturers (6 comments), bus manufacturers and affiliates (8),

large and small transportation providers (56), consumer and other organizations (18), and

private individuals (42).

The following discussion summarizes the relevant comments on the proposals of the

NPRM. A more detailed summary is provided in the preamble to the final rule. NHTSA

responds to these comments in the preamble to the final rule.

Proposed “Motorcoach” Definition

Some commenters were troubled that certain buses would be “motorcoaches” under the

proposed definition when “motorcoaches” were traditionally understood by various

industry and user groups to be over-the-road buses (characterized by an elevated

passenger deck located over a baggage compartment). MCI, IC Bus, and UMA presented

their arguments in a manner that appeared to reserve the term “motorcoach” for buses

that they described as a “traditional motorcoach,” i.e., an “over-the-road” bus. IC Bus

further recommended that “motorcoach” be defined a “Class 8” bus, which has a GVWR

greater than 33,000 lb.

9 See 75 FR 50958.

8

Several commenters identified physical features10

of a “motorcoach” that they believed

would be helpful to use in a motorcoach definition, such as vehicle floor height (low or

high height) (e.g., a passenger compartment that is more than 45 inches above the

ground); engine location; body/chassis construction (monocoque versus body-on-

chassis); 40 or more passenger seats; whether the bus has equipment for standees; center

of gravity (CG), the number of entrance/exit doors, the presence of a lavatory, and the

presence of three axles. Some of these features were suggested to distinguish

motorcoaches from transit buses. Some were suggested by commenters seeking to avoid

having their buses called motorcoaches.

Including More Buses: Many commenters wanted the GVWR criterion lowered from

11,793 kg (26,000 lb) to 4,536 kg (10,000 lb), so that passenger seat belts would be

installed on all buses.11

Prison Buses: MCI, Blue Bird and Turtle Top asked that vehicles designed to transport

prisoners be excluded from the “motorcoach” definition. The commenters stated that

these vehicles are often equipped with small porthole style windows or metal screens

over existing windows, segregation cells, and fiberglass or stainless steel low-back seats

or benches (to optimize supervision and observation) that are specially-designed to be

impervious to human fluids and to have no crevices. The interior of the bus is designed

to provide an enhanced view of detainees by law enforcement officers and to be free of

loose articles that can be used as weapons and tools, such as a seat belt assembly.

Commenters stated that since the detainees are often in restraints, the use of seat belts is

impractical in most cases.

Transit Buses: In general, most of the bus and seat manufacturers commented that the

definition needs to better distinguish between the affected vehicles and “transit buses.”

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) expressed its concern that the

proposed “motorcoach” definition may confuse public transportation agencies, bus

manufacturers, and the riding public. APTA explained that the term “urban” in the

proposed definition would not exclude all buses used in fixed route transit service with

frequent stops, “fixed route” would not exclude transit buses that are used for route-

deviated services with frequent stops (i.e., service that conforms to riders’ requests,

although still operating with frequent stops), and “frequent stops” may be interpreted to

exclude express service (i.e., urban transit service with less frequent stops, although still

operated on city streets). APTA suggested that the transit bus exclusion in the proposed

definition be replaced with the following: “[except] a transit bus designed and procured

for operation in public transportation other than an over-the-road-bus as defined by the

U.S. Department of Transportation.”

10

Some commenters also suggested operating speed and where the bus is driven (such as exclusively in

urban areas), but these features were not helpful. Since these issues relate to how the vehicle would be

used, as discussed earlier these use-based suggestions are unhelpful toward determining the applicability of

the FMVSSs during vehicle manufacture. 11

FMVSS No. 208 requires seat belts for buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less.

9

Requiring Seat Belts at Passenger Seating Positions

Many commenters strongly supported the proposal to require lap/shoulder belts for

motorcoach passengers. These included: NTSB, Consumers Union, Advocates for

Highway Safety, Center for Auto Safety, National Association of Bus Crash

Families/West Brook Bus Crash Families, groups representing pediatricians and child

passenger safety advocates, and school bus transportation organizations. Seat suppliers

IMMI and American Seating, and the Automotive Occupant Restraints Council supported

the proposal, as did 31 of approximately 42 private individuals who commented.

Motorcoach transportation providers were divided in their reaction to the proposed

requirement for seat belts. The operators of the larger fleets in the industry were

supportive of the proposal, although there was concern about costs associated with the

upkeep and maintenance of seat belts and enforcement of belt use.

The majority of smaller transportation providers opposed having seat belts for passenger

seating positions. Most of these commenters cited the excellent overall safety record for

their industry, increased cost, low belt use rate, and difficulties in enforcing seat belt use.

About 30 submitted a form letter that stated that the costs associated with a retrofit

requirement would put many companies out of business since they are already operating

at or close to a loss.

In July 2012, MAP-21 was enacted. Section 32703(a) of MAP-21 requires regulations

requiring safety belts (lap/shoulder belts) to be installed in motorcoaches (over-the-road

buses) at each designated seating position.

Integrated Belts

Commenters on the proposed requirement that belts be integral to the seat were generally

supportive of the requirement. C.E. White stated that the driver lap/shoulder belt should

be integrated into the seat frame and it should include an adjustable shoulder height

mechanism. American Seating recommended that seat integrated anchorages not be

made a requirement for side-facing seats.

Driver’s Position of “Motorcoaches” and Large School Buses

All 16 commenters on this issue supported the proposal to amend FMVSS No. 208 to

require lap/shoulder belts for the driver seating position in the subject vehicles. The

agency did not propose to require lap/shoulder belts for drivers of transit or in other

buses.

The National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services

(NASDPTS) expressed strong support for the lap/shoulder belt requirement for the driver

position in motorcoaches and in large school buses. NASDPTS said that in response to

the NPRM, it conducted an informal survey of the manufacturers of large school buses

and found that currently all new large school buses are being manufactured with a

10

lap/shoulder belt at the driver position. SafetyBeltSafe, Safe Ride News, and Advocates

expressed support for the lap/shoulder belt requirement, but recommended that it include

all buses, including urban transit buses.

Seat/Seat Belt Anchorage Strength

NHTSA proposed that lap/shoulder belts on the covered buses be required to meet the

anchorage strength requirements of FMVSS No. 210. Comments were requested on

European requirements for seat backs and seat belt anchorages, ECE Regulation No. 14,

“Vehicles with Regard to Safety-Belt Anchorages, ISOFIX Anchorages Systems and

ISOFIX Top Tether Anchorages,” (ECE R.14) and ECE Regulation No. 80, “Seats of

Large Passenger Vehicles and of These Vehicles with Regard to the Strength of the Seats

and Their Anchorages,” (ECE R.80), to help the agency make a fuller incremental

assessment of each alternative’s costs and benefits.

There were 16 comments on the proposal to apply FMVSS No. 210 to all seating

positions in the affected vehicles. Many commenters supported applying FMVSS No.

210, while several others supported the ECE regulations. Two commenters suggested

alternative requirements. Many commenters recommended that NHTSA adopt

requirements regulating seat back impact and/or energy absorption.

Commenters Supporting FMVSS No. 210: Commenters supporting applying FMVSS

No. 210 included seat manufacturers C.E. White, Freedman, IMMI, and American

Seating.

C.E. White believed that the “not only the forward forces applied to the lap/shoulder

belts, representative of the restrain[ed] occupants in the test seat, [should] be taken into

consideration but also the forces applied by the knee/femur and head/upper torso of the

unrestrained occupants in the seat behind the test seat [should] be taken into

consideration.” Freedman stated that the U.S. bus industry is already familiar with

FMVSS No. 210 requirements and will therefore be able to move forward into the testing

process very quickly.

IMMI believed that FMVSS No. 210 is a better choice than either ECE R.14 or ECE

R.80 since it is a more realistic representation of the types of crash forces that may be

experienced in real-world crashes, and reflects the total forces that may be experienced

by the seat anchorage from both restrained and unrestrained occupants. IMMI said that

compliance with FMVSS No. 210 is already achievable and is currently available in

motorcoach seating. IMMI stated that, at the time of submission of its comments to the

NPRM, at least three manufacturers of covered buses offer IMMI’s Premier® FMVSS

No. 210 compliant seats in their vehicles. IMMI also stated that it performed sled tests of

its own seats and found that the data produced were consistent with the agency’s

findings. In addition, IMMI said the results of analytical simulations of severe case

loading were also similar to the agency’s data.

11

Commenters supporting applying FMVSS No. 210 also included IC Bus, which stated

that when it builds a commercial bus that specifies seat belts, it is built to meet the

applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 210.

In addition, transportation providers Greyhound, and the United Motorcoach Association

(UMA) supported FMVSS No. 210. Greyhound believed that the 10 percent strength

margin that the FMVSS No. 210 loads provided is prudent since “higher speeds and

larger passengers than those [reflected in the VRTC tests] will sometimes be involved in

real world crashes.” Greyhound commented that FMVSS No. 210 is “clearly the more

appropriate standard” when compared to ECE R.14 and ECE R.80 because FMVSS No.

210 accounts for the load of both the belted passenger in the seat and an unrestrained

passenger in the seat behind, whereas the European standards do not. Greyhound stated

that it has been installing IMMI Safeguard Premier seats, which meet FMVSS No. 210

and other FMVSSs, in all of its new buses since January 2008. UMA stated that FMVSS

No. 210 will perform in a manner that offers occupants the highest known protection in

“real-life” crash and rollover occurrences.

Commenters Opposed to FMVSS No. 210: Commenters opposed to FMVSS No. 210

included European bus manufacturers Setra and Van Hool, and ABC Companies (which

is affiliated with Van Hool). Setra preferred the ECE regulations, stating that the ECE

regulations have been successfully used in Europe. Setra believed that VRTC’s testing

might not represent realistic situations, and that seats meeting FMVSS No. 210 may lead

to higher injuries than a seat meeting the ECE “impact requirements.” Prevost requested

that NHTSA consider the M2 requirements of ECE R.14, which it believed is based on a

“closer and more realistic deceleration pulse” than the proposed FMVSS No. 210

requirements. Van Hool supported adopting ECE R.14 and ECE R.80 and stated that a

“true European seat” cannot fulfill FMVSS No. 210 requirements, not only because the

loads are three times that required by ECE R.14 but also because, Van Hool believed, the

strength of the seat is limited by the energy-absorbing capabilities required by ECE R.80

for unbelted passengers striking the seat from behind. MCI disagreed with the proposal

to apply FMVSS No. 210 and recommended a form of static testing on a bus frame using

a unique loading profile that combined aspects of ECE R.14 (10 g; M2 vehicles) and

FMVSS No. 210.

ABC Companies supported an approach that allows compliance with either the U.S.

standards or preexisting European standards, to facilitate harmonization of standards, as

did American Bus Association (ABA). ABA believed that an option would enhance

flexibility, reduce costs and promote the overall turnover of the fleet towards newer

vehicles.

Coach USA, an affiliate of a European bus company, also supported the approach of

allowing manufacturers to comply with either FMVSS No. 210 or ECE R.14 and ECE

R.80. The commenter believed that ECE R.14 “is sufficient to accomplish NHTSA's

primary goal in this rulemaking, namely, ejection prevention in rollovers.” Coach USA

stated that NHTSA did not suggest that seat belts designed to meet FMVSS No. 210 are

necessary to achieve this level of effectiveness in rollover crashes. The commenter

12

believed that frontal crashes resulting in forces on the seat back exceeding those of ECE

R.14 are “rare.” Coach USA believed that FMVSS No. 210 will provide little, if any,

benefit in frontal crashes beyond the benefits produced by ECE R.14. Further, Coach

USA commented that a combination of ECE R.l4 and ECE R.80 is likely to provide some

safety benefits compared to FMVSS No. 210 by protecting unbelted passengers.

Other Cost Implications

Commenters were divided in their views of the effect that the more stringent strength

requirements of FMVSS No. 210 (compared to ECE R.14) would have on seat weight

and cost.

Seat manufacturer C.E. White commented that it has manufactured a lightweight single

frame seat structure that meets the criteria of FMVSS No. 210, with energy absorption

capability, and provided confidential data supporting its claim. In response to the

agency’s question on whether adopting FMVSS No. 210 over ECE R.14 will increase

cost and weight, seat manufacturer IMMI said that its own review determined that

adopting ECE R.14 would result in only minor material reductions, resulting in minimal

savings per seat assembly.

Conversely, bus manufacturer Prevost stated that introduction of lap/shoulder belts will

increase the weight of an affected bus by at least 1,000 lb. It commented that the more

stringent the standard is, the heavier the vehicle is, and manufacturers cannot afford

adding weight if it is not justified. Prevost stated that cargo capacity is affected by added

weight, and each 175 lb added could potentially reduce the passenger capacity by one.

European bus manufacturer Van Hool stated that requiring buses to meet FMVSS No.

210 specifications will result in increased vehicle and seat weight, increased vehicle and

seat price, increased seat size, decreased passenger comfort, and reduced passenger

service.

Transportation provider Coach USA (which is affiliated with a European bus

manufacturer) commented that FMVSS No. 210 will result in passenger seats that are

larger/bulkier, more rigid/stiffer, less comfortable, and more expensive than those that

meet the European standards and that FMVSS No. 210 will increase the overall weight of

the affected vehicles. It also stated the larger FMVSS No. 210 compliant seats will

require carriers to remove four seats (one row) from their buses, reducing seating

capacity and increasing the cost of operations. Coach USA claims decreased seat

comfort along with the increased seat cost and decreased capacity, which will be passed

on as cost to the customer, may increase the number of individuals that choose “the more

dangerous option” of travel by passenger car over motorcoach travel.

On the other hand, transportation provider Greyhound (which operates buses with

FMVSS No. 210-compliant seats) stated that its real-life experience has demonstrated

that there are no adverse consequences to meeting FMVSS No. 210 related to weight,

comfort, or cost. Greyhound made the following statement concerning the Safeguard

13

Premier seat manufactured by IMMI, which Greyhound said it has been ordering in its

new motorcoaches since 2008:

These seats and their seat belt assemblies and anchorages comply with

FMVSS standards 208, 209, 210, 213, 225, and 302. The SafeGuard

Premier also complies with the forward and rearward seat back energy

curves defined in FMVSS [No.] 222. The installation of these seats has

not caused Greyhound to reduce the number of passengers it can

accommodate. The seats are quite comfortable, do not weigh appreciably

more than seats equipped with belts meeting the European standard, and

are competitively priced.

Other Comments on Indirect Impacts

A number of operators commented on other cost issues involving maintenance and

upkeep of the belt systems, increased insurance and liability costs, and reduced resale

value of existing buses.

Lead Time

The NPRM proposed a 3-year lead time for new bus manufacturers to meet the new

lap/shoulder belt requirements.

Coach USA supported the proposed 3-year lead time. It concurred that the lead time

period would allow companies to do the planning and testing involved and would ease

the financial burden. United Motorcoach Association (UMA) also supported a 3-year

lead time with early compliance permitted.

Commenters supporting a shorter lead time included some seat suppliers (IMMI,

American Seating) and a number of consumer groups. Several consumer groups

suggested a 12- to 18-month lead time.

In July 2012, MAP-21 was enacted. Section 32703(e) of MAP-21 states that any

regulation prescribed in accordance with subsection (a) (which is the provision regarding

safety belts) shall, with regard to new motorcoaches, “apply to all motorcoaches

manufactured more than 3 years after the date on which the regulation is published as a

final rule.”

Summary of Comments on Issues Not Related to a Proposal

Retrofitting

In the NPRM, we asked for comments on the issue of retrofitting existing (used) buses

with seat belts at passenger seating positions. We did not include a retrofit proposal as

part of the NPRM, but we wanted to know more about the technical and economic

feasibility of a retrofit requirement. Our understanding at the time of the NPRM was that

14

significant strengthening of the motorcoach structure would be needed to accommodate

the additional loading from the seat belts, particularly for the older buses. It was not

apparent that establishing requirements similar to or based on the proposed requirements

would be cost effective, or feasible from an engineering perspective. It was our

impression at the time of the NPRM that the cost of and engineering expertise needed for

a retrofitting operation would be beyond the means of bus owners (for-hire operators),

many of which are small businesses.

Commenters were sharply divided in their opinion of the merits of a retrofit requirement.

In general, motorcoach manufacturers and operators strongly opposed a retrofit

requirement as being economically and technically untenable. Seat suppliers did not

support a retrofit requirement. Consumer advocates and individual members of the

public strongly supported a retrofit requirement.

In a later section of this FRIA, we discuss the retrofitting issue at length. We have

decided not to propose to require retrofitting of used buses with seat belts. The

comments from the manufacturing community and from the operators support a finding

that the impacts would not be reasonable. After considering the low likelihood that a

retrofit requirement would be technically practicable at a reasonable cost, the cost

impacts on small businesses, and the low benefits that would accrue from a retrofit

requirement, we have decided not to pursue a retrofit requirement for seat belts.

Seat Back Energy Absorption

In response to a request in the NPRM for information, 11 commenters addressed the issue

of seat back stiffness, with many suggesting that NHTSA consider adding impact and/or

energy absorption requirements.12

There was no consensus that ECE R.80’s energy

absorption requirements were the preferred approach. Several commenters suggested

that FMVSS No. 222’s seat deflection requirements were superior to those of ECE R.80.

Some commenters expressed support for FMVSS No. 201’s requirements.

Seat supplier C.E. White believed that NHTSA should regulate seat back energy

absorption characteristics, and recommended that NHTSA adopt the school bus

compartmentalization requirements of FMVSS No. 222. C.E. White commented that

“without a limitation on the deflection of the upper torso anchorage point of the test seat

you stand the chance of jeopardizing the protection of compartmentalization for the

unrestrained occupants to the rear of the test seat due to override of the seat back or

diminish the torso restraint effectiveness for the restrained occupants of the test seat.”

12

NHTSA explained in the final rule preamble that the ability of the seat back to absorb the loading from

the rear seat passenger is an aspect of performance not regulated by FMVSS No. 210. That is,

manufacturers have the ability to meet FMVSS No. 210 and to design energy-absorbing seat backs to

account for the loading from an occupant aft of the seat, if they believe energy absorption is an appropriate

aspect of performance to address.

15

Seat supplier Freedman stated that some energy absorption capability should be built into

seat backs for passenger protection and recommended that FMVSS No. 201 be used as a

reference for any energy absorption standards for seats in motorcoaches.

Seat supplier IMMI stated that consideration must be made for injury reduction of

unrestrained passengers and, to that end, a requirement for motorcoach seats to provide

energy-absorbing capabilities as a passive form of occupant protection should be adopted

by NHTSA. IMMI expressed concern that as seat backs are developed to meet the

requirements of FMVSS No. 210, severe stiffening of the seat backs will occur which it

stated may increase the injury potential for unrestrained occupants. IMMI recommended

that NHTSA adopt seat back energy absorption requirements similar to the forward and

rearward force/deflection tests specified in FMVSS No. 222 for school buses, and adopt

other “compartmentalization” requirements for seat backs on the affected vehicles.

Bus manufacturer MCI recommended a form of static testing on a bus frame using a

unique loading profile that combined aspects of ECE R.14 and FMVSS No. 210.

European bus manufacturer Setra believed that the ECE “impact requirements” were

needed to guard against “personal injury.” Van Hool said that the static test of ECE R.80

is similar to the compartmentalization requirement in FMVSS No. 222 for school buses.

Greyhound stated that NHTSA should specify seat back energy absorption standards.

Greyhound stated that it is installing the IMMI seat on all of its new equipment in large

part because of the seat’s unique energy-absorption capability.

16

V. Research

NHTSA’s Frontal Crash Protection Research Conducted Pursuant to the Motorcoach Safety Plan

The agency’s objectives for the frontal crash protection research program were as

follows:

1. Obtain a motorcoach crash pulse from a severe frontal crash event,

2. Evaluate alternative occupant crash protection systems in controlled laboratory

tests, and

3. Provide results to support rulemaking activities to upgrade the occupant crash

protection for motorcoach passengers.

To achieve these objectives, the agency conducted a full-scale crash test of an over-the-

road bus to determine a representative crash pulse and completed a series of frontal sled

test simulations to evaluate passenger occupant protection systems. The following

sections describe the research and its findings. A full test report is available in the docket

for the NPRM.13

Full Scale Motorcoach Crash Test

A 48.3 km/h (30 mph) full frontal rigid barrier crash test was conducted with a

motorcoach in December 2007 at the agency’s Vehicle Research and Test Center

(VRTC). The vehicle used for the test was a 45 foot long, 2000 model year, MCI

102EL3 Renaissance motorcoach with 54 passenger seats (Figure V-1). The total tested

weight of the vehicle, including dummies and equipment, was 19,377 kg (42,720 lb).

Figure V-1: Pre-test Photograph of Full-Scale Rigid Barrier Crash Test

13

Docket NHTSA-2010-0112-0003. DOT HS 811 335, NHTSA’s Motorcoach Safety Research Crash,

Sled, and Static Tests, dated May 2010.

17

Twenty-two test dummies were used during the test to generate preliminary data on

injury risk for various seating conditions. The test dummies14

included: the 5th

percentile

female Hybrid III dummy, the 50th

percentile male Hybrid III dummy and the 95th

percentile male Hybrid III dummy. The dummies were seated in an upright

configuration (see Figure V-2).

Figure V-2: Pre-test Photograph of Motorcoach Interior

Figure V-3 is a post-test photograph of the motorcoach exterior. As shown in the

photograph, the motorcoach underwent extensive front-end damage, which resulted in

1.98 meters (6.5 feet) of crush.

14

The crash test dummies used in this program have limitations in that they are constructed with a fixed

pelvis. This design does not allow the hips to fully articulate when the dummy strikes the seat back directly

in front of it.

18

Figure V-3: Post-crash Photograph of Motorcoach Exterior

The primary purpose of this test was to obtain the deceleration profile (crash pulse) for

use in simulated sled tests. The crash test resulted in a peak deceleration of 13 Gs at 125

ms, obtained with a SAE CFC 60 filter. A detailed discussion of the crash pulse will be

presented in the sled test section below. The restraint performance of several seating

types and dummy seating configurations were examined during the crash test.

Observations from the crash test indicated that all belted dummies remained securely

fastened in their seats. The unbelted dummies in the crash test did not stay within the

seating row in which they were placed prior to the crash test, and came to rest either in

the aisle, on the floor, or in the seating row directly in front (see Figure V-4).

Figure V-4: Post-crash Photograph of Motorcoach Interior

19

For these tests, the following dummy injury criteria were measured during the full scale

crash tests: HIC15, Nij, Chest Gs, Chest deflection, and Maximum Femur Compression.15

Table V-1 shows the Injury Assessment Reference Value (IARV) for each of the injury

criteria measured. For each dummy, the injury measures were calculated as specified in

FMVSS No. 208.

Table V-1: Injury Assessment Reference Values

Dummy Size HIC15 Nij Chest (g) Chest (mm) Femur (N)

5th Percentile Female 700 1.00 60 52 6,800

50th Percentile Male 700 1.00 60 63 10,000

95th Percentile Male 700 1.00 55 70 12,700

Figure V-5 presents the HIC15 and Nij injury measures for the various dummy positions.

Chest Gs, chest deflection and femur forces were low for all dummies and are not

presented in the figure.

The unbelted dummies and lap belted dummies generally exhibited higher injury values

than dummies secured with lap/shoulder belts. The unbelted dummies seated next to the

aisle ended up on the floor in the aisle. The dummies secured with lap/shoulder belts

generally stayed in their seats and exhibited the lowest injury values during the crash test.

15

HIC15, Chest G, and Nij values are used to predict injury risk in frontal crashes. HIC15 is a measure of

the risk of head injury, Chest G is a measure of chest injury risk, and Nij is a measure of neck injury risk.

The reference values for these measurements are the thresholds for compliance used to assess new motor

vehicles with regard to frontal occupant protection during crash tests in FMVSS No. 208. For HIC15, a

score of 700 is equivalent to a 30 percent risk of a serious head injury (skull fracture). Similarly, a Chest G

of 60 equates to a 20 percent risk of a serious chest injury and a Nij of 1 equates to a 22 percent risk of a

serious neck injury. For all these measurements, higher scores indicate a higher likelihood of risk. For

example, a Nij of 2 equates to a 67 percent risk of serious neck injury while a Nij of 4 equates to a 99

percent risk. More information regarding these injury measures can be found at NHTSA's web site

(http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-11/airbags/rev_criteria.pdf).

21

Accelerometers were positioned along the center aisle and at the driver seat of the

motorcoach to record decelerations during the crash. These deceleration time histories

were filtered to CFC 30 Hz to give a relatively smooth trace that can be replicated with

the sled. At this level of filtering the peak deceleration was approximately 10 g (see

Figure V-7). Using these data as a reference, NHTSA developed a metering pin which

was used to control the deceleration of the HYGE sled and simulate the full frontal crash

test pulse.

Frontal Sled Tests

General Overview of Methodology

Twenty sled tests were then conducted to further study the performance of various

seating system configurations available for use on motorcoaches for different sized

occupants, as well as establish data for comparison with other international standards.

Several seating configurations from the full scale motorcoach crash test were also

simulated in the sled tests to observe any trends in the dummy injury values. The sled

tests were engineered to replicate the deceleration time history of the motorcoach full-

scale frontal impact crash test. The goal of the sled tests was to analyze the dummy

injury measures to gain a better understanding of the effectiveness of the

countermeasures. In addition to injury measures, dummy kinematics were also analyzed

to identify the important factors contributing to the type, mechanism, and potential

severity of any resulting injury.

Sled Buck Description

To evaluate motorcoach restraint systems, a sled buck was constructed of three rows of

motorcoach seats, each containing two seating positions. Each row had a seating

configuration that represented an aisle and window position. The seats were separated by

a distance of 34 inches between seats (pitch). This corresponded to an average value

measured on the full scale motorcoach that was crash tested.16

Motorcoach side walls

were not constructed for the tests. Seating systems were readily detached from the floor

of the sled and interchanged for the various test configurations, as discussed in the next

section. For the angled sled tests, the sled buck was oriented with a 15-degree offset (see

Figure V-6).

16

VRTC selected 34 inch spacing after verifying the amount with seat manufacturers and MCI as a good

middle value. Since the seats are infinitely adjustable, it is usually up to the fleet operators to install the

seats wherever they want. The typical distance between them varies a lot. VRTC verified that the 95th

percentile dummy would fit at 34” pitch between seats before selecting it.

22

Figure V-6: 15-Degree Offset Sled Test Configuration Set-up

Sled Test Pulse

Of the twenty sled tests in this program, fifteen were conducted using a crash pulse

representative of the full scale crash test performed at VRTC. (This crash pulse is

referred to here as the “VRTC pulse”). The five remaining sled tests were performed

using the crash pulse specified in ECE Regulation 80. This crash pulse is used in the

European market for testing motorcoach seats and anchorages. The ECE Regulation 80

crash pulse is referred to here as the “EU pulse.” A comparison of the full scale crash

test pulse, the VRTC pulse, and the specification limits of the EU pulse are shown in

Figure V-7. The sled test replicates the full-scale crash test pulse reasonably well. We

note that the EU pulse has a higher peak acceleration and a duration approximately half

that measured during the full scale crash test.

23

Figure V-7 Crash Test and Sled Test Pulses

Sled Test Matrix

Twenty sled tests were performed using eleven test configurations of ATDs, seats and

crash pulses.17

The sled test buck consisted of three rows of seats. The left side of the

buck represented aisle seating, and the right side represented window seating. The test

matrix is presented in Table V-2. The four test conditions highlighted in light green

replicated seating configurations examined in the full scale crash test. For these tests, the

same dummy injury criteria measured during the full scale crash test were measured

during the sled tests.

Eighteen of the sled tests were performed in a 0-degree full-frontal configuration. Two

of the sled tests were performed in an oblique configuration with the axis of the sled

oriented 15 degrees off the axis of the crash pulse. One of the eighteen 0-degree full

frontal sled tests was conducted with the front and middle seats in the fully reclined

position. The rest were conducted with the seats close to upright. The seat back angle

was determined by having the head level.

The seat restraint types in the 20 sled tests included: unbelted seats (most commonly

installed on U.S. motorcoaches), seats with lap belts, seats with lap/shoulder belts

17

See Docket No. NHTSA-2007-28793 for the raw data and IARV measures from the sled tests.

24

(including those rated in the EU for 7G and 10G test loads).18

As shown in Table V-2, all

seats used in the sled test program were either: American (Amer) seats, Amaya seats or

Amaya/FAINSA seats. The American seats and Amaya 7G seats were used to represent

the unbelted configuration. The Amaya/FAINSA seats were used to represent lap or

lap/shoulder belt configurations.

18

These seat ratings refer to ECE Regulation 14 and TRANS/WP.29/78/Rev.1/Amend2. ECE Regulation

14 applies to vehicles “having at least 4 wheels and used for the carriage of passengers,” and having more

than 8 seats plus the driver with a mass exceeding 5 tonnes (11,023 lb). Seats which conform to test loads

equivalent to 6.6g are referred to as “7G seats.” Seats which conform to test loads equivalent to 10g are

referred to as “10G seats.” Unbelted seats are typically rated as 7G. Both Type 1 and Type 2 belted seats

are rated as either 7G or 10G.

25

Table V-2: Motorcoach Sled Test Matrix

0-DEGREE SLED BUCK ANGLE TRC Test #

TEST Configuration SEAT DUMMY LOCATIONS 7G seats 10G seats

Test Observations Restraint VRTC pulse EU pulse VRTC pulse

Left Right

1 Amer Seat -- -- TEST 4 TEST 16 TEST 15

Seat Forces Amaya/FAINSA 95th 3pt 95th 3pt Test # 080721-1 Test # 080820-1 Test # 080819-1

Maximum Amer Seat 95th unbelt 95th unbelt

2 Amer Seat -- -- TEST 5 TEST 17 TEST 13

Seat Forces Amaya/FAINSA 50th 3pt 50th 3pt Test # 080722-1 Test # 080821-1 Test # 080815-2

Medium Amer Seat 50th unbelt 50th unbelt

3 Amer Seat -- -- TEST 3 TEST 18

Seat Forces Amaya/FAINSA 50th 3pt 50th 3pt Test # 080716-2 Test # 080821-2

Average Amer Seat -- --


Seat Forces Amaya/FAINSA 50th 3pt 5th 3pt Test # 080716-1 Test # 080822-1

Minimum Amer Seat -- --


Lap Belts Amaya/FAINSA 50th 2pt 5th 2pt Test # 080715-1 Test # 080822-2

Amer Seat -- --

6 Amer Seat -- -- TEST 7

Compartmentalization Amer Seat 95th unbelt 95th unbelt Test # 080724-2

Current Amer Seat 5th unbelt 5th unbelt

7 Amaya/FAINSA -- -- TEST 6

Compartmentalization Amer Seat 50th unbelt 5th unbelt Test # 080724-1

Seat Effects Amer Seat 50th unbelt 5th unbelt

7b Amaya 10G -- -- TEST 14

Compartmentalization Amaya 7G 50th unbelt 5th unbelt Test # 080818-1

Seat Effects 10 G Amer Seat 50th unbelt 5th unbelt


Reclined Amaya/FAINSA 5th 3pt 50th 3pt Test # 080815-1

Belted Amer Seat 50th unbelt 50th unbelt

11 Amaya/FAINSA -- -- TEST 10 TEST 11

Max Rear Loading Amaya/FAINSA 5th 3pt 50th 3pt Test # 080813-1 Test # 080814-1


26

15-DEGREE SLED BUCK ANGLE


Compartment. Amer Seat 5th unbelt 50th unbelt Test # 080729-1

Current Amer Seat 5th unbelt 50th unbelt

9 Amer Seat -- -- TEST 9

Compartment. Amaya/FAINSA 5th 3pt 50th 3pt Test # 080730-1


Analysis Methods

The kinematics and dummy injury measurements from the 20 sled tests are summarized.

On a high level, it focuses on the three different restraint strategies evaluated in the sled

tests:

1) Unbelted sled tests;

2) Lap belted sled tests; and

3) Lap/shoulder belted sled tests.

Within the context of these restraint strategies, various tests conditions were evaluated:

1) Loading from other dummy occupants

a) Rear occupant loading – Dummies in the seat behind affecting the loading

of the kinematics of a dummy seated in front.

b) Forward seat back preloading – Lap/shoulder belted dummies in the seat in

front.

2) Seat type

3) Sled pulse (VRTC vs. EU, 15-degree angled configuration)

4) Reclined seat

In the analysis below, the discussion is primarily focused on HIC and Nij injury

measurements since the dummy chest deflections, chest Gs, and femur compression loads

were generally below 80 percent of the IARV. For each restraint type, the injury data are

averaged together, as well as averaged individually for each dummy size. In addition, the

data are broken down to compare specific test parameters such as rear occupant loading,

seat type, sled pulse, etc. For these comparisons, typically only one parameter is varied

at a time.

95th Percentile Male and 5th Percentile Female Dummy Kinematics

The following description pertains to unrestrained 95th

percentile male and 5th

percentile

female dummies as observed in Test Configuration 6. In this sled test configuration,

unbelted 95th

percentile male dummies were positioned in the middle row and unbelted

27

5th

percentile female dummies were positioned in the rear row. The findings below were

valid regardless of any interaction with rearward seated dummies or seat back

deformation caused by a rearward dummy. Any interaction with rear seated dummies

occurred after the forward dummies’ motion was essentially complete.

Figure V-8 shows a filmstrip of the dummy kinematics from this test. With the onset of

the test, the dummies slide forward in the seat, remaining in an upright-seated position

until the knees of the dummies strike the seat back in front of it. At this point, the

dummies’ upper torsos begin to rotate forward and downward. The 95th

percentile male

dummies’ knees deformed the seat back directly in front, which resulted in a later contact

between the dummies’ heads and the seat backs in front. The aisle-seated dummy

resulted in greater deformation to the seat back directly in front due to the way the seat

was anchored. As shown in the last two film clips, the dummies were ejected out of their

seating positions.

Figure V-8: Unbelted Sled Test – 95

th Percentile Male Dummy

While the 5th

percentile female dummies had the same general kinematics as the 95th

percentile dummies, the knees of the 5th

percentile female dummies in the rear row did

28

not deform the middle row seat back as much. Consequently, the dummies had a much

more severe head contact with the seat back directly in front.

At the end of the test, the aisle-seated dummies ended up in the aisle. The window-seated

95th

percentile male dummy ended up in the front row while the 5th

percentile female

dummy ended up rebounding back into her initial seat. This discrepancy in kinematics

between the aisle and window-seated dummies was due to the different amounts of

deformation of the seat back directly in front of the dummies.

50th Percentile Male and 5th Percentile Female Dummy Kinematics

The following description pertains to unrestrained 50th


percentile

female dummies as observed in Test Configuration 7. In this unbelted sled test, unbelted

50th

percentile male dummies were positioned in the aisle seats (middle and rear rows)

and unbelted 5th

percentile female dummies were positioned in the window seats (middle

and rear rows). As in the previous section, the findings below were valid regardless of

any interaction with rearward seated dummies or seat back deformation caused by a

rearward dummy. Any interaction with rear seated dummies occurred after the forward

dummies’ motion was essentially complete.

Figures V-9 and V-10 provide filmstrip19

illustrations of the dummy kinematics from this

test series (for the 50th

percentile male dummy and 5th

percentile female dummy,

respectively). In this particular test, the front row seats were Amaya/FAINSA 7G seats

which have a stiffer seat back than the standard American type seats. With the onset of

the test, the dummies slide forward in the seat, remaining in an upright-seated position

until the knees of the dummies strike the seat back in front of it. At this point, the

dummies’ upper torsos begin to rotate forward and downward.

Since the rear row dummies interacted with the standard American seat and the middle

row dummies interacted with the stiffer (front row) seats, the middle row occupants

resulted in higher neck extension than the rear row dummies when making contact. As

seen in the prior test series, the 50th

percentile male dummy in the rear row provided

more knee-imparted deformation to the seat in front resulting in later head contact with

the seat back than the adjacent 5th

percentile female dummy.

Unlike the previous test configuration with American seats, the aisle-seated dummies did

not end up in the aisle at the end of the test. They were positioned in their original

seating locations at final rest.

19

Reference: Sled Test Configuration 7, Test 6.

29



30


th Percentile Female Dummy

Injury Measures

Table V-3 highlights the average injury measurements from three sled tests conducted

with unrestrained dummies. The discussion that follows is primarily focused on HIC15

and Nij injury measurements since the dummy chest deflections, chest Gs, and femur

loads were generally below 80 percent of the IARV. The cells of the table are color-

coded to indicate whether they are below 80 percent of the IARV (green), 80 to 100

percent of the IARV (yellow), or greater than 100 percent of the IARV (red). This color

code is used throughout the analysis. The measurements are presented as averages across

all dummy sizes as well as separated by dummy size. The data encompass multiple test

conditions, including rear unbelted occupant loading and seat type. The VRTC crash

pulse was used for all the tests.

31

Table V-3 – Average Injury Measurements for All Unbelted Dummies

Dummy N HIC15 Nij

All 12 525 0.72

5th

6 627 0.90

50th

4 392 0.65

95th

2 483 0.35

Figure V-11 is a graph of all averaged values normalized by the appropriate IARV. In

the sled test, all of the dummy measurements were below the IARV’s, only the 5th

percentile female dummy average injury measures were notably elevated in these tests

due to the dummies shorter stature and relatively quick forward head contact with the

seats in front (due to the lack of knee deformation against the seat back in front). This

was consistent with the unbelted 5th

percentile dummy performance in the full scale crash

test where a HIC15 of 1,959 resulted. The injury measures for the 50th

and 95th

percentile

male dummies were also elevated in the full scale crash test, but not as high. In the sled

tests, the larger dummies, the 50th

and 95th

percentile male dummies provided more

deformation to the seat back in front and resulted in average injury measures below 80

percent of the IARV. It should be noted that these dummies are frontal crash test

dummies, and hence the injury measures may not accurately capture the severity of

loading during interaction with interior components when the dummy falls off the seat

(see kinematics section above). The sections that follow break down the results in more

detail (relative to specific test parameters).

Figure V-11: Unbelted Tests – Average Normalized Injury Measurements

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

HIC15 Nij

Average Normalized Injury Measurements Unbelted Tests

All

5th

50th

95th

32

Loading from the Rear by Unrestrained Dummies

In the unbelted test series (Test Configurations 6, 7, and 7b), all the dummies in the

middle row of the sled were subject to impact by another unbelted dummy behind them.

The front row of the sled was empty. Table V-4 compares the average dummy readings

of middle row to the rear. The unbelted dummies in the rear row had higher average

injury values than the dummies positioned in the middle row that were impacted by an

unbelted dummy from the rear. Again, the 5th

percentile female dummy had high injury

measurements, while the 50th

percentile male dummies were below 80 percent of the

IARVs.

Table V-4: Unbelted Dummies - Average Injury Measurements by Seat Back

Impacted

Middle Seat Dummy

(Impacted by Rear Seat

Dummy)

Rear Seat Dummy

(Not rear impacted)

Dummy n HIC15 Nij N HIC15 Nij

All 6 376 0.63 6 673 0.81

5th

2 318 0.92 4 781 0.89

50th

2 327 0.62 2 458 0.67

95th

2 483 0.35 0 N/A N/A

Seat Back Type in Front of Unbelted Occupant

In the unbelted test series, four different seat back types were impacted by the unbelted

dummy occupants. The seats included: American, Amaya/FAINSA, Amaya 7G and

Amaya 10G. Table V-5 separates the unbelted dummy injury measures by the type of

seat the dummy impacted. The results show that the 5th

percentile female dummy injury

measures were most influenced by the seat back in front of the dummy. In three out of

four seat back types, the 5th

percentile female dummy had high average injury values.

The American and Amaya/FAINSA types generated the highest injury readings amongst

the dummy readings. The injury measurements for the 50th


percentile male were less influenced by the seat backs they struck. Impacting the Amaya

10G seat back was a slight improvement over the Amaya 7G seat back for both the 5th

percentile female and 50th

percentile male dummies. In the sled test using Amaya 10G

seats in the first row and Amaya 7G seats in the second row, all but one of the occupant

injury numbers was below 80 percent of the IARVs for the unbelted dummies.

33

Table V-5: Unbelted Dummies - Average Injury Measurements by Seat Back

Impacted

American Amaya/FAINSA Amaya 7G Amaya 10G

Dumm

y

n HIC15 Nij n HIC15 Nij N HIC1

5

Nij n HIC15 Nij

All 6 694 0.64 2 379 0.95 2 379 .95 2 266 0.59

5th

3 914 0.86 1 318 1.05 1 385 .97 1 318 0.78

50th

1 458 0.56 1 440 .85 1 457 .78 1 214 0.39

95th

2 483 0.35 0 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A

Lap Belt Sled Tests

Dummy Kinematics

The following description pertains to lap belt restrained 5th


percentile male dummies as observed in sled Test Configuration 5. In this sled test

configuration, a lap belted 50th

percentile male dummy was positioned in the aisle seat

and a lap belted 5th

percentile female dummy in the window seat. Figure V-12 provides

a filmstrip20

illustration of the dummy kinematics from this test series. The 5th

percentile

female and the 50th

percentile male dummies have the same general kinematics. The

differences were mainly found in the time and location of interaction between the

dummy’s head and seat back.

The kinematics for a lap belt restrained passenger begins in a similar fashion to that of an

unbelted passenger. With the onset of the test, the dummies slide forward in the seat,

remaining in an upright-seated position until all the slack and/or stretch in the belt

webbings are removed, and/or the knees of the dummies strike the seat back in front of it.

At this point, the dummies’ upper torsos begin to rotate forward and downward. Since

the lap belts helped in reducing the femur loads on the dummies, it did not force the seat

backs directly in front to deform quite as much. Therefore, the dummies’ heads

contacted the seat backs at an earlier time, when they were more upright. This resulted in

significant neck extension in the dummies.

As shown in Figure V-12, the lap belt successfully maintained the dummies within their

initial seat position. However, the extent, timing, and location of occupant head

interaction were a function of other parameters, such as occupant size. As discussed in

the next section, the dummy injury measurements were very high in this test condition.

20


34

Figure V-12: Lap Belted Sled Test – 50


Injury Measures

Table V-6 highlights the average injury measurements from two sled tests conducted with

lap belted 5th


percentile male dummies. Two crash pulses were

utilized in these sled tests: the VRTC pulse and the EU pulse. Both tests were

conducted with 7G seats and no rear occupants. Table V-6 shows that the average

dummy response in the lap belted sled tests. In every instance, the dummies exceeded

the head and neck IARVs when the dummies were lap belted. This was consistent with

the full scale crash test that resulted in a HIC15 value of 785 for the 50th

percentile male

dummy and 1,356 for the 5th

percentile female dummy. Unlike the unbelted test series

and the crash test, however, the 50th

percentile male dummy had slightly higher average

readings than the 5th

percentile female dummy.

Table V-6 – Average Injury Measurements for All Lap Belted Dummies

Dummy n HIC15 Nij

All 4 1137 1.69

5th

2 1082 1.37

50th

2 1192 2.01

95th

0 N/A N/A

35

Figure V-13 is a graph of all averaged values normalized by the appropriate IARV.

Specific results will be discussed below in more detail relative to specific parameters, by

dummy size.

Figure V-13: Lap Belted Tests – Average Normalized Injury Measurements.

Effect of Sled Pulse Type

Since there were only two lap belted sled tests conducted, one using the VRTC pulse, and

the other using the EU pulse, Table V-7 separates the lap belted sled test data by crash

pulse. Both the VRTC and EU pulse resulted in high injury numbers in both dummies

when lap belts were used. However, the EU pulse resulted in higher average injury

measurements. The 50th

percentile male dummy, in particular, resulted in injury

measurements in the EU sled test that were approximately twice as much as the VRTC

pulse.

Table V-7: Lap Belted Dummies - Average Injury Measurements by Sled Pulse

VRTC Pulse EU Pulse

Dummy n HIC15 Nij n HIC15 Nij

All 2 1037 1.35 2 1237 2.03

5th

1 1378 1.13 1 786 1.6

50th

1 696 1.56 1 1687 2.45

95th

0 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

HIC15 Nij

Average Normalized Injury Measurements Lap Belted Tests

All

5th

50th

36

Lap/Shoulder Belt Sled Tests

Kinematics (without Rear Occupant Loading)

The following description pertains to lap/shoulder belt restrained 50th

percentile male

dummies without rear loading from unbelted occupants in the third row of Test

Configuration 3, though similar observations were made with the 5th

percentile female

dummy (Test Configuration 4). In the sled tests (Test Configuration 3), two 50th

percentile male dummies restrained by lap/shoulder belts were positioned in the middle

row and no dummies were seated rearward. Figure V-14 provides a filmstrip21

illustration of the dummy kinematics from this test series. With the onset of the test, the

dummies slide forward in the seat, remaining in an upright-seated position until all the

slack and/or stretch in the belt webbing is removed, and/or the knees of the dummies

strike the seat back in front of it. At this point, the dummies’ upper torsos begin to rotate

forward and downward; however, the lap/shoulder belt minimizes and restrains the

motion of the upper torsos and prevents the dummies from contacting the seats in front.

The fact that the dummy does not contact the seat in front is due to the dummy sitting

height, the seat spacing and the lack of seat deformation due to an unbelted rear occupant.

Upon rebound, the torsos of the dummies move upwards and backwards towards the seat.

The dummies then slide rearward in a more upright-seated position. The lap/shoulder

belts successfully maintained the dummies in their original seating position.

21


37

Figure V-14: Lap/Shoulder Belted Sled Test – 50


Kinematics (with Rear Occupant Loading)

The following description pertains to lap/shoulder belt restrained 50th

percentile male

dummies with rear loading from unbelted occupants in the third row. In this sled test

configuration,22

two 50th

percentile male dummies restrained by lap/shoulder belts were

positioned in the middle row and two unrestrained 50th

percentile male dummies were

seated behind them. Figure V-15 provides a filmstrip23

illustration of the dummy

kinematics from this test series. With the onset of the test, the dummies slide forward in

the seat, remaining in an upright-seated position until all the slack and/or stretch in the

belt webbing is removed, and/or the knees of the dummies strike the seat back in front of

it. At this point, the unbelted dummies in the rear have effectively the same kinematics

as the lap/shoulder belted dummies in the middle row. However, as the dummies’ upper

torsos begin to rotate forward and downward, the lap/shoulder belts begin restraining the

middle row dummies, whereas the rear unbelted dummies impact the middle row seat

back with their heads. The dual loading applied to the middle row seat (from restraining

the middle row belted dummies and being impacted from unbelted dummies from the

22

Reference: Sled Test Configuration 2. 23


38

rear row) significantly deformed the middle row seats and consequently moved the

lap/shoulder belted dummies closer to the front row seat backs, where contact was made.

Upon rebound, the torsos of the lap/shoulder belted dummies move upwards and

backwards towards the seat. The lap/shoulder belt successfully maintained the dummies

in their original seating position. The unbelted dummies in the rear row rebounded back

towards their seat with the aisle-seated dummy lying in the aisle.

Figure V-15: Lap/Shoulder Belted Sled Test – 50


(Rear Loading)

Injury Measures

Table V-8 highlights the average injury measurements from twelve sled tests conducted

with 5th


and 95th

percentile male dummies restrained by

lap/shoulder belts. Two crash pulses were utilized in these sled tests: the VRTC pulse

and the EU pulse. Two different seat types were also utilized: Amaya/FAINSA 7G and

10G seats. Most of the average injury measures were below 80 percent of the IARVs for

all three occupant sizes. This was consistent with the lap/shoulder belt results from the

full scale motorcoach crash test. The 5th

percentile female had the lowest HIC15 injury

39

measurements of the three dummies and the 50th

percentile male dummy had the highest

average HIC15 of 595. As discussed further below, the 50th

percentile male dummy had

two very high HIC15 values (1526 and 1733) in two of the tests with the EU pulse.

Table V-8: Average Injury Measurements for All Lap/Shoulder Belt Dummies

Dummy n HIC15 Nij

All 24 476 0.44

5th

4 230 0.45

50th

14 595 0.46

95th

6 337 0.36

Figure V-16 is a graph of all averaged values normalized by the appropriate IARV.

Specific results will be discussed below in more detail relative to specific parameters, by

dummy size.

Figure V-16: Lap/Shoulder Belted Tests – Average Normalized Injury

Measurements.

Effect of Unbelted Rear Seat Occupant

Table V-9 presents the injury measures for dummy occupants in lap/shoulder belts that

had an unbelted rear row occupant behind them. Occupants interacting with each other

directly or through other seat components have the potential of degrading any restraint

strategy. However, nearly all of the average injury measures for the lap/shoulder belted

dummies with rear seat occupant loading were below 80 percent of the IARVs. Only the

HIC15 injury measurement for the 50th

percentile male was at an elevated level.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

HIC15 Nij

Average Normalized Injury Measurements Lap/Shoulder Belted Tests

All

5th

50th

95th

40

Table V-9: Lap/Shoulder Belted Dummies - Average Injury Measurements When

Loaded by Unbelted Rear Seat Occupants

Loaded by Rear

Seat Occupant

Dummy n HIC15 Nij

All 16 523 0.46

5th

2 416 0.62

50th

8 689 0.49

95th

6 337 0.36

Effect of Pre-loading the Seat

Table V-10 provides the results of the unbelted dummies in the rear row that impacted

lap/shoulder belted occupants in the middle row. In this scenario, the seats in front of the

unbelted dummies are considered to be “pre-loaded” (with belted occupants) for the

purposes of this discussion. All dummies that impacted the pre-loaded seats were 50th

percentile male or 95th

percentile male dummies and their average injury measures were

all below 80 percent of the IARVs.

Table V-10: Effect of Pre-loading the Seat on Rear Unbelted Dummies

Unbelted Results from Preloaded Seat

Dummy n HIC15 Nij

All 10 441 0.58

5th

0 N/A N/A

50th

6 448 0.63

95th

4 430 0.52

There was not much variation when separating the data by sled test pulse (EU vs.

VRTC). The average EU pulse response was: HIC15 = 511 and Nij = 0.63, and the

average VRTC pulse response was: HIC15 = 423 and Nij = 0.57. Additionally, there

was not much variation when separating the data by the type of seat impacted (7G vs.

10G seats). The average dummy response when impacting the 7G seat was: HIC15 = 463

and Nij = 0.58, and the average dummy response when impacting the 10G seat was:

HIC15 = 407 and Nij = 0.59.

Effect of Lap/Shoulder Belt-Equipped Seat Type

Table V-11 separates the sled test data by the type of lap/shoulder belt-equipped seat used

by the subject dummy. For these tests, all the lap/shoulder belt seats were

Amaya/FAINSA and were either classified as 7G or 10G seats. Based on the sled test

results, the 10G seats generally performed better than the 7G seats across the different

41

occupant sizes. Most of the average injury measures for all three occupant sizes were

below 80 percent of the IARVs.

Table V-11: Lap/Shoulder Belted Dummies - Average Injury Measurements by

Seat Type

7G 10G


All 18 514 0.43 6 364 0.47

5th

3 255 0.44 1 156 0.50

50th

11 616 0.44 3 569 0.56

95th

4 426 0.39 2 160 0.31

Effect of Sled Pulse

Table V-12 separates the lap/shoulder belt sled test data by whether the VRTC or EU

pulse was used. Based on the sled test results, the larger dummies had considerably

higher injury measures in the sled tests with the EU pulse than with the VRTC pulse. The

HIC15 injury measurements for the 50th

and 95th

percentile male dummies were at

elevated levels. The stiffer EU pulse resulted in the 50th

and 95th

percentile male dummies

causing more deformation to the middle row seat and causing the dummies to contact the

seat backs directly below the headrest. When subjected to the VRTC crash pulse, the

head contact was made to the front row headrest. The lap/shoulder belted 5th

percentile

female dummy injury measures were relatively low for both crash pulse types because

she is not tall enough to make contact with the front row seat back even with the stiffer

EU crash pulse. In the tests conducted with the VRTC pulse, all of the average injury

measures for all three occupant sizes were below 80 percent of the IARVs.

Table V-12: Lap/Shoulder Belted Dummies - Average Injury Measurements by

Sled Pulse

VRTC Pulse EU Pulse


All 16 311 0.40 8 807 0.51

5th

3 288 0.41 2 58 0.35

50th

8 387 0.49 4 1001 0.53

95th

4 157 0.27 2 697 0.54

Effect of Recline Position

In addition to the lap/shoulder belted sled tests conducted above (in an upright condition),

one sled test was conducted with the lap/shoulder belted dummies seated in a reclined

42

seat back position, with the front row seats also in a reclined seat back position and the

rear row seats in an upright position. Table V-13 presents the average results from the

lap/shoulder belted dummies in a reclined seating position as well as the average results

for the unbelted dummies seated behind the dummies in the reclined seats. The test was

conducted with the VRTC pulse and 7G seats. The average injury values were all below

80 percent of the IARVs for all cases.

Table V-13: Lap/Shoulder Belted Dummies - Average Injury Measurements in Reclined

Position

Lap/Shoulder Belted

Dummy in Reclined

Seat

Unbelted Dummy

Seated Behind Reclined

Seat

Dummy N HIC15 Nij n HIC15 Nij

All 2 276 0.59 2 262 0.43

5th

1 247 0.68 0 N/A N/A

50th

1 305 0.49 2 262 0.43

95th

0 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A

15-Degree Sled Tests

In addition to the lap/shoulder belt sled tests conducted above, two sled tests were

conducted in an off-axis orientation. In one test, the middle row dummies were unbelted.

In the other test, the middle row dummies were restrained by lap/shoulder belts. Both

tests were conducted with the VRTC pulse and 7G seats. In each test, unbelted dummies

were positioned in the rear row.

Table V-14 presents the average dummy results for the middle row occupants. The

middle row dummies restrained by lap/shoulder belts had lower HIC 15 and Nij

measurements compared to the unbelted dummies. However, all the injury measures

were very low. The dummies restrained by lap/shoulder belts maintained their seating

positions, however, the unbelted 5th

percentile female dummy was ejected from her seat

into the aisle, and the unbelted 50th

percentile male dummy came to rest in the seat next

to his original position.

Table V-14: Average Injury Measurements in Oblique Tests (Middle Row)

Unbelted Dummies Lap/Shoulder Belted

Dummies


All 2 321 0.70 2 69 0.46

5th

1 177 0.79 1 83 0.67

50th

1 464 0.61 1 55 0.24

95th

0 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A

43

Table V-15 presents the average results of the unbelted dummies in the rear row in the

15-degree sled tests. The unbelted occupants behind the middle row seats with

lap/shoulder belted occupants were considered “pre-loaded.” Most of the injury

measures for the rear row unbelted occupants were also below 80 percent of the IARVs.

However, like the middle row dummies, the unbelted 5th

percentile female dummies were

ejected from their seat into the aisle. Also, in one test, the unbelted 50th

percentile male

dummy resulted in high HIC15 and Nij measurements from contacting the upper d-ring

for the lap/shoulder belt seat in the middle row.

Table V-15: Average Injury Measurements in Oblique Tests (Rear Row)

Unbelted Rear

Occupant in Rear

Row

(no pre-loading)

Unbelted Rear

Occupant in Rear Row

(with preloading)


All 2 174 0.59 2 373 0.78

5th

1 209 0.75 1 122 0.67

50th

1 138 0.43 1 624 0.89

95th

0 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A

Discussion

Relative Performance of Each Restraint Strategy

Figure V-17 compares the average HIC15 and Nij values for the 5th

percentile female and

50th

percentile male dummy sizes in the sled testing as a means to compare the relative

performance of each restraint strategy (unbelted, lap belts, and lap/shoulder belts). The

comparative data was restricted to dummies that were not loaded from the rear by

unbelted occupants and to sled tests conducted with the VRTC pulse. The limitations

were made since the number of sled tests conducted with lap belt restraints was limited

for comparative purposes. No lap belted tests were conducted with unbelted occupants in

the rear, no lap belted tests utilized the EU pulse and none were conducted with the 95th

percentile male dummy. Therefore, the graph only presents the average normalized

injury measures for the 5th


percentile male dummies.

44

Figure V-17: Restraint Comparison – Average Normalized Injury Measurements

Figure V-17 shows that the lowest average HIC and Nij values were associated with the

lap/shoulder belt restraint for both dummy sizes. In contrast, most of the average injury

measures for the lap belt restraint condition were at or above the IARVs. In addition, the

lap belt injury measures were higher than the unbelted injury measures for both dummies

for both head and neck injuries. The low HIC15 and Nij values for the lap/shoulder

restraint condition are consistent with the dummy kinematics, which indicated that the

lap/shoulder belt restraint limited head contact with the forward seat back, particularly for

the 5th

percentile female dummies. The unbelted dummies were more susceptible to

hitting other hard structures or being displaced from their seats.

Since a lap belted sled test for the 95th

percentile male dummy was not conducted, Figure

V-18 plots the average HIC15 and Nij values for the 95th

percentile male dummy in the

unbelted and lap/shoulder belt sled tests. Based on the available data, the comparison

was limited to 7G seats and the VRTC pulse. The dummies were also loaded from the

rear by unbelted occupants.

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2

Unbelted Lap Belt Lap/Shoulder Belt

Restraint Comparison Average Normalized Injury Measurements

5th-HIC

5th-Nij

50th-HIC

50th-Nij

45

Figure V-18: 95th

Dummy Restraint Comparison – Average Normalized Injury

Measurements

As with the 5th


percentile male dummies, Figure V-18 shows

that the lowest average HIC and Nij values for the 95th

percentile male dummy were

associated with the lap/shoulder belt restraint (we didn’t test the 95th

percentile dummy

with lap belts). It should be noted that this was a very positive outcome for the

lap/shoulder belt restraint condition considering the fact that the lap/shoulder belt sled

test had unbelted 95th

percentile male dummies loading the seat from the rear, whereas,

the unbelted tests had only 5th

percentile female dummies. While the injury measures

were below 80 percent of the IARV in both the unbelted and lap/shoulder belt test

conditions, the lap/shoulder belt restrained dummies had better kinematics and were

better controlled in their seats.

Effect of Loading Boundary Conditions

The sled testing was conducted using a sled buck capable of simulating multiple rows of

seats to better understand how unbelted rear occupants interact with a particular seat and

whether this resulted in any degradation of the restraint strategy. Most of the sled tests

were conducted with unbelted dummies positioned in the rear row.

Preloading of Forward Seat Back

The sled testing attempted to determine if occupants restrained by lap/shoulder belts,

seated in positions in front of unbelted occupants, degraded the unbelted occupant

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Unbelted Lap/Shoulder Belt

95th Percentile Male Dummy Average Normalized Injury Measurements

HIC15

Nij

46

protection. The 50th

percentile male was the only dummy size that was tested with and

without “preloading” of the seat back in front by a lap/shoulder belted dummy. The

results showed that there was little difference when comparing the average injury

measures of the unbelted dummies that impacted a pre-loaded seat (HIC15 = 417 and Nij

= 0.63) to those that impacted a seat that was not preloaded (HIC15 = 392 and Nij =

0.65). Thus, the average injury measures showed very little sensitivity to the preloaded

condition.

None of the belted dummies in this study were evaluated with preloading of the forward

seat back.

Loading from the Rear by Unrestrained Dummies

The sled testing also investigated if unrestrained dummies in the rear row loading the

middle row lap/shoulder belt-equipped seats would degrade the occupant protection

provided to the lap/shoulder belted occupant. Only the belted 5th

percentile female and

the 50th

percentile male test dummies were tested with loading from rear unbelted

dummies. Table V-16 compares the average injury measures for lap/shoulder belted

dummies with and without loading from the rear by an unrestrained dummy.

Table V-16: Lap/Shoulder Belted Dummies - Comparison of Rear Seat Loading

Effects

Loaded by Rear

Seat Dummy

No Rear Seat

Dummy

Dummy N HIC15 Nij n HIC15 Nij

All 16 523 0.46 8 383 0.39

5th

2 416 0.62 2 45 0.29

50th

8 689 0.49 6 496 0.43

95th

6 337 0.36 0 N/A N/A

Based on the results, the lap/shoulder belted occupants that were loaded from the rear had

slightly higher injury measures than those that did not have rear seat loading. This was a

different trend from the unbelted tests where the unbelted occupants in the rear had the

higher injury measures (see earlier section). However, nearly all of the average injury

measures in the lap/shoulder belt sled series were below 80 percent of the IARVs. Only

the HIC15 injury measurement for the 50th

percentile male was at an elevated level.

Lap/Shoulder Belt Seat Type

Two types of lap/shoulder-belt seats were evaluated in the sled tests: Amaya/FAINSA

7G and 10G seats. Based on the sled test results, both seats provided superior

performance over the lap belted and unbelted conditions in the sled tests. While there

47

were fewer tests with the 10G seats, they generally performed slightly better on average

than the 7G seats across the different occupant sizes.

Sled Pulse (VRTC vs. EU, 15-degree angled configuration)

Two types of crash pulses were used in the sled tests: the VRTC pulse and the EU pulse.

The EU pulse was only used in the lap belt and lap/shoulder belt sled tests (not in the

unbelted tests). Based on the results, the dummy injury measures were generally higher

in the sled tests conducted with the EU pulse, particularly for the larger dummy occupant

sizes. Even in the lap/shoulder belt tests, the head injury measurements for the 50th

and

95th

percentile male dummies were at elevated levels due to head contact with the seat

back in front (typically below the head rest). The lap/shoulder belted 5th

percentile

female dummy was not as affected by the EU pulse since the smaller dummy was not tall

enough to make contact with the front row seat back. In the tests conducted with the

VRTC pulse, all of the injury measures for lap/shoulder belted occupants were below 80

percent of the IARVs.

VRTC also conducted two 15-degree off-axis sled tests in this study using the VRTC

pulse and 7G seats. The results showed that the dummies restrained by lap/shoulder belts

had lower HIC 15 and Nij measurements compared to the unbelted dummies. However,

all the injury measures for both tests were very low. The dummies restrained by

lap/shoulder belts maintained their seating positions in the 15-degree angled

configuration, while the unbelted dummies were ejected from their seats into the aisle or

adjacent seating positions or made contact with the middle row seat belt d-ring anchors.

Unbelted Dummies

Average head and neck injury measures were typically below 80 percent of the

IARVs. Although, it should be noted that the dummies used were frontal crash test

dummies, and hence the injury measures may not accurately capture the severity of

loading during interaction with interior components when the dummy falls off the

seat.

Elevated head injury values resulted in tests with the 5th

percentile female dummy due

to the lower contact with the seat back in front. This observation was consistent in

the sled tests and full scale crash tests.

The 5th

percentile female dummy resulted in elevated head injury measures when

making contact with most of the seat types evaluated.

Larger dummies provided more deformation to the seat backs positioned in front of

them and were less sensitive to the seat back type (including stiffer belted seats).

Unbelted dummies were typically ejected out of their seating position and displaced

into the aisle or adjacent seats. They were also more susceptible to hitting other hard

structures.

48

Injury measures did not appear to be adversely affected by rear occupant loading.

Any interaction with rear seated dummies occurred after the forward dummies’

motion was essentially complete.

Lap Belted Dummies

Head and neck injury measures exceeded the IARVs for all the dummies tested.

The poor performance of the lap belt restraint in the sled tests was consistent with the

lap belt results from the full scale motorcoach crash test.

Compared to the unbelted dummies, the dummy’s head typically hit the seat back in

front at an earlier point in time due to the lap belt restraining forward motion and the

upper torso pivoting about the lap belt. This resulted in higher head and neck injury

measures for lap belted dummies than for unbelted dummies.

Seats in front of lap belted dummies were not deformed by the dummies’ femur

loading, and consequently, not as compliant when struck.

Lap belts were able to retain the dummies in their seating position post-test.

Lap/Shoulder Belted Dummies

Average head and neck injury measures were low for all dummy sizes and below

those seen in unbelted and lap belted sled tests. This was consistent with the

lap/shoulder belt results from the full scale crash test.

Lap and shoulder belts retained the dummies in their seating positions and were able

to mitigate head contact with the seat in front.

Rear unbelted occupant loading resulted in additional forward excursion for the

lap/shoulder belted dummies, and head contact was made with the seat in front in

some cases. The resulting average injury measures were still relatively low in most

cases.

All of the unbelted dummies in the rear seats that impacted middle row seats that

were “preloaded” by belted occupants had low average injury measures that were


Both lap/shoulder belt-equipped seat types (7G and 10G) provided good performance

in the sled tests, with the 10G seats showing some improvement over the 7G seats.

The EU pulse was able to generate higher injury numbers in the larger dummies due

to contact with the seat back in front. The VRTC pulse resulted in all average injury

measures to be below 80 percent of the IARVs.

Lap and shoulder belted dummies performed better in the sled tests conducted at a 15-

degree angle. They had lower injury measures and were retained in their seats.

Unbelted dummies were ejected into the aisle.

In the one test where the front and middle row seat backs were reclined, the injury

measures for the lap belted occupants and the unbelted rear row occupants were all


49

NHTSA’s Motorcoach Rollover Testing

Seventy percent of the fatalities in motorcoach rollover crashes are attributable to

ejections. The agency believes that lap/shoulder belts will aid in containing the occupant

within the vehicle in the event of a crash. Seat belts are estimated to be 77 percent

effective24

in preventing fatal injuries in rollover crashes. Since most of the fatalities in

motorcoach crashes are due to ejections, we believe that seat belts in motorcoaches will

provide similar protection to the occupants of the motorcoach as belts provide to

occupants of light vehicles. To improve motorcoach protection in rollover crashes,

NHTSA’s priorities have been focused on requiring seat belts on motorcoaches, and

improving the structural integrity of the motorcoach.

Data from full-vehicle rollover tests demonstrate the efficacy of seat belts in ¼-turn

motorcoach rollovers.25

The tests followed a protocol modeled after the Economic

Commission for Europe Regulation No. 66 (ECE R.66)26

full-vehicle ¼-turn rollover test.

The ECE R.66 test tips a motorcoach using a platform that raises one side of the

motorcoach at a steady rate of not more than 5 degrees/second until the vehicle reaches

its unstable equilibrium, commences a quarter-turn rollover, and strikes a hard surface.

In three tests we conducted, fully-instrumented Hybrid III 50th

percentile adult male test

dummies were positioned in aisle seats opposite the impact side, with one dummy

unrestrained and the other restrained by a seat-integrated lap/shoulder belt. In all three

tests, the restrained dummies remained secured to the seat and produced injury values

significantly below FMVSS No. 208’s Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARVs) for

the Hybrid III 50th

percentile adult male dummy. In contrast, the unrestrained dummies

fell head first across the occupant compartment and struck the bottom of the luggage

compartment and/or the side windows, which produced injury values well above the

IARVs in two of the tests. Injury values for the restrained dummies never exceeded 40

percent27

of the IARV, while the injury values for the unrestrained dummies reached

levels up to 590 percent of the IARVs. Alarmingly too, the final resting position of the

unrestrained dummy in all three tests was on the impact side window, which has been the

most common ejection portal in real-world rollovers.

24

Estimated based on Charles J. Kahane, PhD. (December 2000) “Fatality Reduction by Safety Belts for

Front-Seat Occupants of Cars and Light Trucks”, Washington, DC, National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, page 28 25

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “ECE Regulation 66 Based Research Test of Motor

Coach Roof Strength, 1992 MCI MC-12 Motor Coach, NHTSA No.: CN0801,” May 20, 2008; National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “ECE Regulation 66 Based Research Test of Motor Coach Roof

Strength, 1991 Prevost LeMirage Motor Coach, NHTSA No.: CM0801,” May 20, 2008; and National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “ECE Regulation 66 Based Research Test of Motorcoach Roof

Strength, 2000 MCI 102-EL3 Motor Coach, NHTSA No.: MY0800,” October 1, 2009. 26

Uniform Technical Prescriptions Concerning the Approval of Large Passenger Vehicles with Regard to

the Strength of their Superstructure. 27

The restrained dummy that produced an injury value of 40 percent of the IARV was positioned in a seat

that detached from the vehicle during the impact due to displacement of the side wall and rolled across the

occupant compartment. This seat was installed by the agency to gauge lap/shoulder belt effectiveness and

was not an original equipment seat. Injury values for restrained dummies where the seat remained attached

to the vehicle did not exceed 12 percent of the IARV.

50

VI. Target Population

In general, the final rule requires lap/shoulder belts at all seating positions on: (a) all

over-the-road buses28

regardless of weight; and (b) non-over-the-road buses with a

GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). However, to our knowledge, all buses

“characterized by an elevated passenger deck located over a baggage compartment”

currently available in the U.S. have GVWRs greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). Thus, as

a practical matter, the final rule is only affecting over-the-road buses with a GVWR

greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). Therefore, the population of interest for this analysis

is individuals traveling in buses greater than 26,000 lb GVWR, which accounts for

approximately 20.9 annual fatalities and approximately 7,934 annual injuries. The

fatality data came from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and includes all

passengers and drivers in the covered vehicles. Appendix A includes trend data on some

fatality aspects. The injury data came from the General Estimates System (GES).

Although not part of the final rule, fatalities and injuries in transit buses and in other bus

types 10,000 to 26,000 lb were also examined to obtain a higher-level view of the

occupant protection provided by buses generally. We are providing these analyses in this

document for the reader’s information. School buses are coded separately and are

excluded from the analysis.

Fatalities

Table VI-1a shows the annual average number of fatalities that were recorded on the

covered buses (all over-the-road buses, and all non-over-the-road buses with a GVWR

over 26,000 lb, excluding transit and school buses). The table also shows the data for

transit buses (over 26,000 lb GVWR) over the period 2000 to 2009. Out of convenience,

we will refer to these as “large buses.” Table VI-1b shows the number of fatalities in

buses in the 10,000 to 26,000 lb GVWR range. Out of convenience, we will refer to

these as “mid-size buses.”

Table VI-1a

Fatalities by Large Bus Type > 26,000 lb GVWR

(Annual Average - FARS data files 2000-2009)

Type of Bus Drivers Passengers Total

Covered Buses*

(Cross-country,

other, and unknown)

4.1 16.8 20.9

Transit Buses 1.1 1.2 2.3

Total 5.2 18.0 23.2

*The buses covered by the final rule include all large buses which FARS defines as a

cross-country bus, other bus, or unknown bus, but excludes transit bus and school bus.

This table does not include the 23 fatalities (2.3 per year) that occurred in one fire. Those

passengers could not have been saved by having seat belts on the covered vehicles and

would skew the fatality benefit estimates.

28

MAP-21 refers specifically to over-the-road buses without a limitation on GVWR.

51

Table VI-1b

Fatalities by Mid-Size Bus Type 10,000 to 26,000 lb GVWR

(Annual Average - FARS data files 2000-2009)


Cross-country,

other, and unknown

bus

0.7 3.7 4.4

Transit Buses 0.0 1.6 1.6

Total 0.7 5.3 6.0

Injuries The National Automotive Sampling System/General Estimate System (NASS/GES) that

is normally used to determine injury levels does not collect data specific to traditional

motorcoaches and other bus body types covered by this final rule. The data collected in

NASS/GES is coded as buses, making it very difficult to separate the covered buses from

those not covered by this final rule or into other categories necessary for our analysis.

The injury data included the FARS body type categories of cross-country/intercity buses,

transit buses, and any other bus above 10,000 lb GVWR. School buses are coded

separately and not included in the analysis. Further, the injury data were not classified

according to initial point of contact (frontal impact, side impact or rollovers), a

classification used in the fatal crashes. Given the coding and the classification of the

data, we made the simplifying assumption that the injuries (drivers and passengers) were

distributed in the same way and among the same bus body type categories as the

fatalities, i.e., cross-country/intercity, other, unknown, and transit. In this way, we

obtained injury estimates for the buses covered by this final rule and the additional

analyses performed.

For injuries, we utilize data from the General Estimate System (GES). Table VI-2 shows

estimates of driver and passengers on all bus body types (excluding school buses)

involved in related traffic crashes. Being police-reported data, the GES data in Table VI-

2 appear in the KABCO scale rather than the body-region based MAIS scale. Before any

meaningful analysis can be performed on the injury data, we first convert the KABCO

injuries into MAIS injuries.

52

Table VI-2 Sustained injuries in mid-size and large bus crashes

(GVWR of 10,000 lb and greater).

GES data from 2000 to 2009 (10 years)

KABCO Injuries Cross Country, Other,

Unknown and Transit

Bus Body Type

10-Year Total Yearly Average

No Injury (O) 645,671 64,567

Possible Injury (C) 52,414 5,241

Non-incapacitating Injury (B) 13,237 1,323

Incapacitating Injury (A) 3,965 397

Injured, Severity Unknown (U) 4,430 443

This conversion process employs a commonly used agency table. The data set

encompasses the entire NASS-CDS data pool from 1982 to 2008 of injuries sustained by

motor vehicle passengers and pedestrians, and reports both the KABCO and MAIS

injuries of the individuals involved in a crash. The final KABCO to MAIS

transformations are presented below in Table VI-3.

Table VI-3 Conversion of KABCO to MAIS Injuries Sustained in

Mid-Size and Large Buses

Greater than 10,000 lb GVWR

Cross-Country, Other, Unknown, and Transit Bus Crashes

MAIS

Injury

Level

KABCO Injuries Fatalities

Total MAIS

Injuries A B C O U

0 14 110 1,228 59,747 95 0.00 61,194

1 219 1,016 3,613 4,686 278 0.00 9,811

2 83 144 335 128 46 0.00 735

3 57 42 56 5 17 0.00 178

4 16 8 7 0 2 0.00 33

5 7 1 1 2 5 0.00 16

FATAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 395 1,321 5,240 64,568 443 0.00 71,967 A = Incapacitating Injury NO = No Injury MAIS 0 = No Injury MAIS 4 = Severe

B = Nonincapacitating Injury UNK = Unknown if Injured MAIS 1 = Minor MAIS 5 = Critical C = Possible Injury MAIS 2 = Moderate AIS = Abbreviated Injury Scale

K = Killed MAIS 3 = Serious MAIS = Maximum AIS

After conversion to AIS injury levels, the total number of injuries (MAIS 1-5) is 10,772,

which includes the following bus types above 10,000 lb GVWR: cross-country, other,

unknown, and transit buses, but excludes school buses. It is very difficult to separate

these injuries into individual bus types or by GVWR. As a result, we make some

53

assumptions that will help us to breakout the injuries by bus types. We assume that the

injuries to occupants on buses were distributed in the same way and among the same bus

body type categories as the fatalities, i.e., cross-country/intercity, transit, other and

unknown by initial point of impact. The proportions derived from combining the data in

Table VI-1a and VI-1b for fatalities will be similarly used to distribute the injuries.

For this calculation of injuries we added back in the 2.3 passenger fire fatalities, such that

the total annual passenger fatalities on the covered buses are 19.1 (16.8 + 2.3) and the

total number of fatalities on all buses above 10,000 lb GVWR are 31.5 (23.2 + 2.3 + 6.0).

Then we determine the percentage of all fatalities for each category, multiply that

percentage times 10,772 injuries and estimate injuries by bus category. Table VI-4

presents the estimated total injuries on buses by coded bus body type. We understand

that making these assumptions might over-estimate the actual number of injuries

attributed to buses, but this is the only logical way we could account for injuries. We also

understand that this calculation procedure will underestimate any injuries where there

were no fatalities (e.g. transit bus drivers of buses in the 10,000 to 26,000 lb GVWR

range).

The breakout of 10,772 non-fatal injuries into bus types is shown in Table VI-4a and VI-

4b. The estimated number of covered large bus injuries in the population of injured

occupants is shown in Table VI-4a and total 7,934.

Table VI-4a

Non-Fatal Injuries by Large Bus Type > 26,000 lb GVWR

Annual Average – GES 2000-2009


Covered Buses 1,402 6,532 7,934

Transit Buses 376 410 786

Total 1,778 6,942 8,720

Table VI-4b

Non-Fatal Injuries by Mid-Size Bus Type 10,000 to 26,000 lb GVWR

Annual Average – GES 2000-2009


Cross-country,

Other, and

Unknown

239 1,265 1,504

Transit Buses 0 547 547

Total 239 1,812 2,052

The rest of the analysis focuses on two groups of buses: covered buses (cross-country,

other, and unknown buses greater than 26,000 lb GVWR, which includes all over-the-

54

road buses) and, for informational purposes, mid-size buses (cross-country, other, and

unknown buses in the 10,000-26,000 lb GVWR range). In addition, for informational

purposes, the analysis examines a requirement for lap/shoulder belts at the driver’s

seating position for transit buses with a GVWR greater than 26,000 lb.

Table VI-5 presents fatalities broken out by initial point of impact, because our

effectiveness estimate for seat belts is available by initial point of impact, and we will use

this breakout in our benefit calculations. Since GES does not provide injuries by initial

point of impact, we also assumed that injuries follow the same pattern as total fatalities

by initial point of impact. Therefore, these percentages in the far right column of Table

VI-5 are used to distribute the injuries in the target population into category types.

Table VI-5a

Fatal Injuries in Covered Large Buses by Crash Type (Annual Average)29

(FARS data files 2000-2009)

Initial Point

of Impact

Driver Fatalities Passenger

Fatalities

Total Fatalities Percent of Total

Frontal 3.4 5.3 8.7 41.6%

Side 0.0 0.8 0.8 3.8%

Rollover 0.7 10.7 11.4 54.5%

Total 4.1 16.8 20.9 100.0%

Table VI-5b

Fatal Injuries in Mid-Size Buses by Crash Type (Annual Average)

(FARS data files 2000-2009)

Initial Point

of Impact

Driver Fatalities Passenger

Fatalities

Total Fatalities Percent of Total

Frontal 0.25 1.33 1.58 36.0%

Side 0.06 0.33 0.40 9.0%

Rollover 0.39 2.04 2.42 55.0%

Total 0.70 3.70 4.40 100.0%

The target population at each MAIS level is multiplied by the appropriate factor from

Table VI-5. This breakout is shown in Table VI-6. These values are used in a later section

to calculate the number of injuries that can be prevented if the appropriate

countermeasures are installed.

29

There were 23 fatalities in a fire in which are not being distributed among the crash types.

55

Table VI-6a

Distribution of Injury Target Population – Covered Large Bus

Drivers

MAIS Level Target Population Frontal crash

x 0.416

Side impact

x0.038

Rollover Crash

x 0.545

MAIS 1 1,277 532 49 697

MAIS 2 96 40 4 52

MAIS 3 23 10 1 13

MAIS 4 4 2 0 2

MAIS 5 2 1 0 1

Total 1,402 584 54 765

Table VI-6b

Distribution of Injury Target Population – Covered Large Bus

Passengers


x 0.416

Side impact

x0.038

Rollover Crash

x 0.545

MAIS 1 5,949 2,476 228 3,245

MAIS 2 446 186 17 243

MAIS 3 108 45 4 59

MAIS 4 20 8 1 11

MAIS 5 10 4 0 5

Total 6,532 2,719 250 3,563

In Table VI-6c for cross-country other, and unknown buses with a GVWR of 10,000 to

26,000 lb, the values used 0.36(16/44), 0.09(4/44), and 0.55(24/44) were obtained by

examining the actual fatality data from 44 fatalities and dividing them into frontal, side

and rollover crashes.

Table VI-6c

Distribution of Injury Target Population for Mid-size Buses

Drivers


x 0.36

Side impact

x 0.09

Rollover Crash

x 0.55

MAIS 1 218 78 20 120

MAIS 2 16 6 1 9

MAIS 3 4 1 0 2

MAIS 4 1 0 0 0

MAIS 5 0 0 0 0

Total 239 86 22 132

56

Table VI-6d

Distribution of Injury Target Population for Mid-size Buses

Passengers


x 0.36

Side impact

x 0.09

Rollover Crash

x 0.55

MAIS 1 1,152 480 44 629

MAIS 2 86 36 3 47

MAIS 3 21 9 1 11

MAIS 4 4 2 0 2

MAIS 5 2 1 0 1

Total 1,265 527 48 690

57

VII. BENEFITS Effectiveness

This section estimates the potential lives saved and injuries mitigated if a counter-

measure is installed on the subject vehicles. In order to calculate the benefits, we must

first establish the effectiveness rate of a lap/shoulder belt and a lap belt.

Note that MAP-21 requires a regulation for lap/shoulder belts at each designated seating

position on “over-the-road buses” and the final rule adopts such a requirement for over-

the-road buses. The discussion in this section exploring lap belts on those buses is

provided only for informational purposes.

Table VII-1(a) shows the assumed effectiveness of lap/shoulder belts and Table VII-1(b)

shows the assumed effectiveness for lap belts in any bus greater than 10,000 lb GVWR.

Table VII- 1(a)

Bus Effectiveness Estimates – Lap/Shoulder Belts

(%)

3-point Belts Fatalities Injuries AIS(2-5) Injuries AIS 1

Frontal Impact 29 34 10

Side Impact 42 47 10

Rollover 77 82 10

Table VII- 1(b)

Bus Effectiveness Estimates - Lap Belts

(%)

2-point Belts Fatalities Injuries AIS(2-5) Injuries AIS 1

Frontal Impact 0 0 10

Side Impact 39 44 10

Rollover 76 81 10

Estimated based on Christina Morgan (June 1999) “Effectiveness of Lap/Shoulder

Belts in the Back Outboard Seating Positions,” Washington, DC, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Data from this report were divided into

crash mode in the report “Lives Saved by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards and Other Vehicle Safety Technology, 1960-2002”, October 2004,

DOT HS 809-833, page 86 for lap belts and Page 100 for lap/shoulder belts.

58

Since lap/shoulder belts and lap belts have not been installed on the passenger seats of

large buses until recently, we have no real world data on their effectiveness. We use

estimates from the rear seat of passenger cars by crash mode as a proxy measure of seat

belt effectiveness in large buses. We have both lap and lap/shoulder belt fatality

effectiveness estimates from the rear seat of passenger cars. The rear seat of a passenger

car is somewhat similar to a large bus passenger seat in that there is a seat back in front of

the position and not a dash board (which would be the case if front seat occupants were

used).

The real debate is frontal impacts. In sled tests shown earlier in this analysis, lap belts

resulted in more injuries than being unrestrained and lap/shoulder belts were obviously

more effective. In addition, we did not measure abdominal injuries, and abdominal

injuries have been shown to be a problem with lap belts (see the Morgan study cited

above for frontal impacts). Lap/shoulder belts do a better job of distributing the load over

the chest area of the occupant and are very effective for abdominal injuries. The

kinematics and force of an occupant jackknifing around the lap belt, potentially causing

an abdominal injury, and hitting their head on the seat back in front of them, potentially

causing head and neck injury, is highly dependent upon the speed of the crash. Thus, in a

severe frontal crash, which account for 42 percent of fatalities in the covered vehicles, a

lap/shoulder belt is far better than a lap belt.

However, most injuries occur in lower speed crashes. It would seem that real world data

from passenger car effectiveness would be a better proxy measure for less severe injuries,

than test data at high severity. Lap and lap/shoulder belts are very effective in reducing

AIS 2-5 injuries in light vehicles and should also be very effective for buses covered by

this final rule. The issue is how much reliance can be put in the sled test data when

making estimates of lap belt effectiveness compared to real world data of other vehicle

types. For this analysis, we are assuming that real world data on the rear seats in

passenger cars are closest to the environment in covered buses and as such will be a

better proxy measure of effectiveness for covered buses than the sled test data.

Lap/shoulder belt effectiveness and lap belt effectiveness estimates in preventing injury

was not obtained directly from crash data in the rear seat, but was inferred by examining

the relationships between other crash data estimates: lap-belt vs. 3-point-belt

effectiveness in the rear seat of cars. The difference in effectiveness between AIS 2-5

injuries and fatalities was 5 percentage points, except for frontal impacts with lap belt

only. AIS 1 injury effectiveness was found to be 10 percent.

Lives Saved and Injuries Prevented

Covered Buses

In order to determine the benefits of adding lap/shoulder belts or lap belts to covered

buses, the number of lives saved and injuries prevented has to be calculated. To estimate

the number of lives saved and injuries prevented, first, the potential injuries/fatalities (if

59

no one were restrained) needs to be determined. For drivers, we estimate the fatalities if

no one were restrained using the formula: fatalities/(1- usage*effectiveness). Since we

have both lap and lap/shoulder belt usage for drivers which have different effectiveness

estimates and an unknown distribution between lap and lap/shoulder belt usage, which

changes over the years, a number of simplifying assumptions were made.30

We assume

that belt use during 2000-2009 averaged 50 percent with lap belts being 40 percent of the

fleet and lap/shoulder belts being 60 percent.31

Thus, the estimated number of covered

bus driver fatalities that would have occurred if no one wore belts is estimated to be 4.75

fatalities [4.1/(1 - 0.138)]. The 0.138 is the combined effectiveness times usage for the

assumed distribution of lap and lap/shoulder belt usage. For drivers, the 50 percent belt

use rate is no increase in belt use; the benefits result from changing 40% of driver

positions from a lap belt to a lap/shoulder belt.

Since there is no known seat belt use on large buses for passengers in the crash data, all

injuries to passengers are injuries if no one was belted. The following formula is used for

passengers.

Injuries Prevented = Target population injuries * Effectiveness * Usage rate. (Equation 1)

Where: Fatalities and Injuries are provided in Tables VI-1a and VI-6b

Effectiveness values are provided in Table VII-1

Belt Usage Rate is assumed to range from 15 percent to 83 percent.

(Taken from the National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS))

For large bus drivers there are various estimates of belt use over time. We assume that

belt use averaged 50 percent at the time the crash data was collected (2000-2009), and

that belt use is currently 50 percent.

FMCSA began an observational study of commercial vehicle driver belt use in

2003. Since 2003, belt use rates by commercial truck and bus drivers have risen from

48% to 74% in 2010. However, some evidence points to drivers not consistently wearing

belts. For example a study conducted in Alabama cites that 27 percent of drivers said that

they only wear belts at weigh stations, or around law enforcement.32

This would indicate

that a lower belt use rate of 47% (= 74% - 27%) may be a closer estimate of on-road belt

use by commercial drivers. A naturalistic driving study, which combined data from the

Naturalistic Truck Driving Study and the Drowsy Driver Warning System Field

Operational Test found that 66 percent of drivers wore their seat belts 90 percent of the

30

These assumptions do not have a significant impact on the results. Overall the number of fatalities that

would have occurred if no covered drivers wore restraints would have averaged 4.56 compared to the

estimate with belt use of 4.1. 31

We assume that 40 percent of the fleet has lap/shoulder belts in the driver’s seating position. The 40

percent estimate is based on informal observations made by industry . 32

Survey of Seat Belt Usage Among Tractor Trailer Drivers. (2006) Alabama Department of Public

Safety. Available at: http://www.auburn.edu/outreach/cgs/documents/SurveyofSeatbeltUse.pdf (last

accessed 2/16/12).

http://www.auburn.edu/outreach/cgs/documents/SurveyofSeatbeltUse.pdf

60

time.33

To think of it another way, 59.4 percent (66 percent*0.90) of drivers wore the seat

belts at all times. According to data in FARS, drivers who were fatally injured in covered

bus crashes were belted approximately 50% of the time from 2000 to 2009. Based on

these data, the agency estimates covered vehicle driver belt use to be 50%.

There is no record of seat belt use rate on covered buses for passengers in the United

States. In a pilot study of Alabama students on school buses specially equipped with seat

belts, belt use rates were as low as 5%.34

In 2003, a study was conducted on seat belt use

on 12 school buses in Queensland, Australia. Half the school buses were fitted with a

seat belt sensor. Even when encouraged by parents and teachers, seat belt wearing rates

were low. Students frequently removed the belts to talk over the high-backed seats to

peers. The usage rates varied highly from 14% to 89%.35

Observations of an in-depth analysis from ECBOS (Enhanced Coach and Bus Use

Occupant Safety) of 31 severe large bus crashes in Europe, show belt use rates are often

low, around 3 percent.36

In one case, 2 full large buses, both equipped with 2-point lap

belts, impacted each other with no one wearing their restraint. Similar studies in

Australia, where three-point lap belts on large buses have been mandatory since 1994,

show use rates may be less than 20 percent.37

Since there is little data available on use

rate in covered buses we examined a range of belt use and derived a breakeven point in

usage later in the analysis. At the high end of the range, we assumed that belt use on

covered buses would be no higher than the use rate in passenger vehicles, which was 83

percent for 2008 (taken from the 2008 National Occupant Protection Use Survey

(NOPUS)). At the low end of the range, we looked at use rates in Australia, that have

lap/shoulder belts in motorcoaches, and found use rates reported at about or less than 20

percent.38

Thus, we assume a belt use rate of 15 percent for the low end of the range.

Again there are no other available statistics. A sensitivity analysis will be performed

later on belt use.

33

Soccolich, S. and Hanowski, R. J. (2012, January). Analysis of Naturalistic Driving Data to Assess

Safety Belt Use in Commercial Vehicle Operators. Presented at the annual meeting of the Transportation

Research Board, Washington, DC.

34

Turner, D., Lindly, K., et al. Preliminary Report on School Bus Seat Belt Use Rates. University

Transportation Center for Alabama. 2009. Available at:

https://docs.alsde.edu/documents/120/Pilot_Project_Seat_Belt_Use_Rates.pdf

35

“Three Point Seat Belts in Coaches – the First Decade in Australia”, Griffiths, Paine, and Moore,

Queensland Transport Australia. Available at: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv19/05-0017-O.pdf.

36

Albertsson, P., Falkmer, T., Kirk, A., Mayrhofer, E. and Björnstig, U. (2006.) Case study: 128

injured in rollover coach crashes in Sweden—Injury outcome, mechanisms and possible effects of seat

belts. Safety Science. 44, 87 - 109. Available at:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753505000858.

37

“Three Point Seat Belts in Coaches – the First Decade in Australia”, Griffiths, Paine, and Moore,

Queensland Transport Australia. Available at: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv19/05-0017-O.pdf.

38

“Three Point Seat Belts on Coaches – the First Decade in Australia”, by Griffiths, Paine, and Moore,

Queensland Transport Australia, 2009.

https://docs.alsde.edu/documents/120/Pilot_Project_Seat_Belt_Use_Rates.pdf

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv19/05-0017-O.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753505000858


61

Table VII-2 provides an analysis of the fatality benefits associated with the final rule

based on the FARS data from 2000 through 2009 (starting with target population

estimates from Table VI-5a).

Table VII-2a

Incremental Fatality Benefits from Adding Lap/shoulder Belts on Covered Buses

For Drivers

Baseline Fatalities Prevented Calculation Fatalities Prevented

40% of belts are lap

belts, 60% of belts are

lap/shoulder belts with

50% belt use of each

100% of belts are lap/shoulder

belts with 50% belt use

0.23







0.81

Table VII-2b

Annual Fatality Benefits from Adding Lap/shoulder Belts on Covered Buses

With a 15% Belt Use Rate

For Passengers

Fatality Type Fatalities Prevented Calculation Fatalities Prevented

Frontal Crashes 5.3 x 0.29 x 0.15 0.2

Side Impact Crashes 0.8 x 0.42 x 0.15 0.1

Rollover Crashes 10.7 x 0.77 x 0.15 1.2

Total 1.5

Table VII-2c

Annual Fatality Benefits from Adding Lap/shoulder Belts on Covered Buses

With an 83% Belt Use Rate

For Passengers


Frontal Crashes 5.3 x 0.29 x 0.83 1.3

Side Impact Crashes 0.8 x 0.42 x 0.83 0.3

Rollover Crashes 10.7 x 0.77 x 0.83 6.8

Total 8.4

62

The injury calculation is done similarly to the example shown in Table VII-2b, by type of

crash and is divided into AIS 1 injuries and AIS (2-5) injuries, starting with the target

populations in Tables VI-6a and VI-6b.

Table VII-3 shows the injuries prevented from adding a lap/shoulder belt to covered bus

seats with a 50-83 percent belt use for drivers and with a 15-83 percent seat belt use rate

for passengers.

Table VII-3a

Annual Incremental Injury Benefits from Adding Lap/shoulder Belts on Covered

Buses

Drivers

MAIS 50% belt use 83% belt use

MAIS 1 0 42

MAIS 2 3 22

MAIS 3 1 5

MAIS 4 0 1

MAIS 5 0 0

Total 4 70

Table VII-3b

Annual Injury Benefits from Adding Lap/shoulder Belts on Covered Buses


Passengers

MAIS Frontal Side Impact Rollover Total

MAIS 1 37 3 49 89

MAIS 2 9 1 30 41

MAIS 3 2 0 7 10

MAIS 4 0 0 1 2

MAIS 5 0 0 1 1

Total 50 5 88 142

Table VII-3c

Annual Injury Benefits from Adding Lap/shoulder Belts on Covered Buses


Passengers


MAIS 1 206 19 269 494

MAIS 2 52 7 165 224

MAIS 3 13 2 40 54

MAIS 4 2 0 7 10

MAIS 5 1 0 4 5

Total 274 28 486 788

63

In the next two tables, the injury prevented column is multiplied by the relative value39

per injury column to determine the equivalent lives saved column. Table VII-4 shows the

equivalent lives saved for adding a lap/shoulder belt to covered bus seats.

Table VII-4a

Annual Equivalent Lives Saved for Covered Buses

Drivers

AIS Level and

Value

50% Belt Use 50% Belt Use 83% Belt Use 83% Belt Use

Injuries

Reduced

Equivalent

Lives Saved

Injuries

Reduced

Equivalent

Lives Saved

AIS 1 = 0.0028 0 0 42 0.12

AIS 2 = 0.0436 3 0.12 22 0.96

AIS 3 = 0.0804 1 0.06 5 0.43

AIS 4 = 0.1998 0 0.03 1 0.20

AIS 5 = 0.6656 0 0.04 0 0.32

Fatal = 1 0.23 0.23 0.81 0.81

Total 0.48 2.83

Table VII-4b

Annual Equivalent Lives Saved for Covered Buses

Passengers

AIS Level and

Value


Injuries

Reduced

Equivalent

Lives Saved

Injuries

Reduced

Equivalent

Lives Saved

AIS 1 = 0.0028 89 0.25 494 1.38

AIS 2 = 0.0436 41 1.77 224 9.79

AIS 3 = 0.0804 10 0.79 54 4.37

AIS 4 = 0.1998 2 0.36 10 2.01

AIS 5 = 0.6656 1 0.59 5 3.25

Fatal = 1 1.52 1.52 8.4 8.4

Total 5.28 29.20

Analyses for Informational Purposes. Analysis for Informational Purposes: Buses with a GVWR between 10,000 and

26,000 lb

39

A calculation based on data presented in “The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2000”

updated to reflect guidance found in February 5th

2000, DOT Memorandum “Treatment of the Economic

Value of a Statistical Life in Departmental Analyses.”

64

The agency also analyzed the data we have to gain some understanding of the impacts of

adding seat belts on cross-country, other, and unknown buses in the 10,000 to 26,000 lb

GVWR range, which for convenience we call mid-size buses. Transit buses are

considered separately later and are not included with the mid-size buses in the analysis

immediately below. The seat belt use rates and effectiveness estimates derived for

covered buses are also used for these lighter buses.

(The final rule requires seat belts on all over-the-road buses without a GVWR restriction,

as directed by MAP-21. However, we are not aware that there are over-the-road buses

with a GVWR less than 26,000 lb sold in the U.S.)

Results of these calculations show that if all mid-size buses have lap/shoulder belts for

the drivers, the annual number of driver lives saved by 50 to 83% belt use is 0.02 to 0.20

and the annual number of driver injuries saved is 1 to 12. If all mid-size buses had

lap/shoulder belts for passengers, the annual number of passenger lives saved by 15% to

83% belt use is 0.30 to 1.71 and the annual number of passenger injuries saved is 28 to

153. In Table VII-7a and VII-7b, these estimates are provided in terms of equivalent

lives saved for use in the cost-effectiveness section of the analysis.

Table VII-5a

Incremental Fatality Benefits from Adding Lap/shoulder Belts on Mid-Size Buses

For Drivers

Baseline Fatalities Prevented Calculation Fatalities Prevented







0.02







0.20

Table VII-5b

Annual Fatality Benefits from Adding Lap/shoulder Belts on Mid-Size Buses


For Passengers


Frontal Crashes 3.7 x 0.36 x 0.29 x 0.15 0.06

Side Impact Crashes 3.7 x .09 x 0.42 x 0.15 0.02

Rollover Crashes 3.7 x .55 x 0.77 x 0.15 0.24

Total 0.30

65

Table VII-5c

Annual Fatality Benefits from Adding Lap/shoulder Belts on Mid-Size Buses


For Passengers


Frontal Crashes 3.7 x 0.36 x 0.29 x 0.83 0.37

Side Impact Crashes 3.7 x .09 x 0.42 x 0.83 0.05

Rollover Crashes 3.7 x .55 x 0.77 x 0.83 1.29

Total 1.71

Table VII-6a

Annual Incremental Injury Benefits from Adding Lap/shoulder Belts on Mid-Size

Buses

Drivers

MAIS 50% belt use 83% belt use

MAIS 1 0 7

MAIS 2 1 4

MAIS 3 0 1

MAIS 4 0 0

MAIS 5 0 0

Total 1 12

Table VII-6b

Annual Injury Benefits from Adding Lap/shoulder Belts on Mid-Size Buses


Passengers


MAIS 1 6 2 10 17

MAIS 2 2 1 6 8

MAIS 3 0 0 1 2

MAIS 4 0 0 0 0

MAIS 5 0 0 0 0

Total 8 2 17 28

66

Table VII-6c

Annual Injury Benefits from Adding Lap/shoulder Belts on Mid-Size Buses


Passengers


MAIS 1 40 4 52 96

MAIS 2 10 1 32 43

MAIS 3 2 0 8 11

MAIS 4 0 0 1 2

MAIS 5 0 0 1 1

Total 53 5 94 153

Table VII-7a

Annual Equivalent lives saved for Mid-Size Bus

Drivers

AIS Level and

Value


Injuries

Reduced

Equivalent

Lives Saved

Injuries

Reduced

Equivalent

Lives Saved

AIS 1 = 0.0028 0 0 7 0.02

AIS 2 = 0.0436 1 0.02 4 0.16

AIS 3 = 0.0804 0 0.01 1 0.07

AIS 4 = 0.1998 0 0.00 0 0.03

AIS 5 = 0.6656 0 0.01 0 0.05

Fatal = 1 .02 0.02 0.20 0.20

Total Injuries 1 0.06 12 0.54

67

Table VII-7b

Annual Equivalent lives saved for Mid-Size Bus

Passengers

AIS Level and

Value


Injuries

Reduced

Equivalent

Lives Saved

Injuries

Reduced

Equivalent

Lives Saved

AIS 1 = 0.0028 17 0.05 96 0.27

AIS 2 = 0.0436 8 0.35 43 1.90

AIS 3 = 0.0804 2 0.16 11 0.85

AIS 4 = 0.1998 0 0.07 2 0.39

AIS 5 = 0.6656 0 0.12 1 0.63

Fatal = 1 0.31 0.31 1.71 1.71


Analysis for Informational Purposes: The Alternative of Adding a Lap Belt for

Passengers with Belt Use of 5 to 73 Percent

The agency believes that lap belt use on covered buses and mid-size buses is likely to be

less than lap/shoulder belt use. In another analysis40

we assumed lap belt use would be

10 percentage points less than lap/shoulder belt use. This was based on data found in a

1999 NHTSA report,41

where outboard belt use increased by 10 percentage points when

lap/shoulder belts replaced lap belts. For this analysis we will again assume that lap belt

use would be 10 percentage points less than lap/shoulder belt use for passengers. Thus,

our estimate of passenger lap belt use will range from 5 to 73 percent compared to 15 to

83 percent use for lap/shoulder belts.

5 to 73 percent lap belt use rate

Table VII-8a shows the benefits from lap belts with 5 and 73 percent seat belt use rate for

covered large bus passengers and Table VII-8b shows the benefit from lap belts for mid-

size bus passengers.

40

“Final Economic Assessment and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Costs and Benefits of Putting a

Shoulder Belt in the Center Seats of Passenger Cars and Light Trucks”, June 2004, Docket No. NHTSA-

2004-18726-2. 41

Morgan, Christina (June 1999) “Effectiveness of Lap/Shoulder Belts in the Back Outboard Seating

Positions,” Washington, DC, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

68

Table VII-8a

Annual Injuries Reduced and Equivalent Lives Saved for Covered Large Bus

With Lap Belts

Passengers

AIS Level and

Value


Injuries

Reduced

Equivalent

Lives Saved

Injuries

Reduced

Equivalent

Lives Saved

AIS 1 = 0.0028 30 0.08 434 1.22

AIS 2 = 0.0436 10 0.45 149 6.51

AIS 3 = 0.0804 2 0.20 36 2.91

AIS 4 = 0.1998 0 0.09 7 1.34

AIS 5 = 0.6656 0 0.15 3 2.16

Fatal = 1 0.42 0.42 6.16 6.16


Table VII-8b

Annual Injuries Reduced and Equivalent Lives Saved for Mid-Size Bus

with Lap Belts

Passengers

AIS Level and

Value


Injuries

Reduced

Equivalent

Lives Saved

Injuries

Reduced

Equivalent

Lives Saved

AIS 1 = 0.0028 5 0.02 84 0.24

AIS 2 = 0.0436 2 0.09 29 1.26

AIS 3 = 0.0804 0 0.04 7 0.56

AIS 4 = 0.1998 0 0.02 1 0.26

AIS 5 = 0.6656 0 0.03 1 0.42

Fatal = 1 0.08 0.08 1.22 1.22


69

Analyses for Informational Purpose: Lap/Shoulder Belts for Transit Bus Drivers

Transit Buses (Drivers) – Greater than 10,000 lb GVWR

Mid-size and Large Transit Buses Combined

Mid-size and large transit buses are considered together for two reasons. Lap/shoulder

belts would provide similar effectiveness and would cost the same for both and we didn’t

have a breakdown of sales for transit buses below and above 26,000 lb GVWR.

For the period 2000 to 2009 there were 11 fatalities of transit bus drivers (all in vehicles

with a GVWR of greater than 26,000 lb), averaging 1.1 annual fatalities. The annual

injuries to drivers broken out by rollover, frontal and side impacts are estimated to be as

shown in Table VII-9. Transit buses are not being considered for passenger seat belts in

this analysis. Table VII-10 shows the injuries reduced and the equivalent lives saved for

transit bus drivers assuming the same seat belt use rates derived for covered buses.

Table VII-9

Estimated Annual Injuries to Transit Bus Drivers

Greater than 10,000 lb GVWR


1 123 31 188 342

2 9 2 14 26

3 2 1 3 6

4 0 0 1 1

5 0 0 0 1

Table VII-10 Annual Fatalities and Injuries Reduced and Equivalent lives saved for Transit Bus

Drivers

AIS Level and

Value


Injuries

Reduced

Equivalent

Lives Saved

Injuries

Reduced

Equivalent

Lives Saved

AIS 1 = 0.0028 0 0 11 0.03

AIS 2 = 0.0436 1 0.03 6 0.26

AIS 3 = 0.0804 0 0.01 1 0.11

AIS 4 = 0.1998 0 0.01 0 0.05

AIS 5 = 0.6656 0 0.01 0 0.09

Fatal = 1 .03 0.03 0.29 0.31


70

Benefit Summary

Table VII-11 summarizes the benefits for the final rule in terms of fatalities and injuries

for drivers and passengers under different belt use assumptions. Table VII-12a and VII-

12b provide benefit summary information for other calculations provided in this analysis

that either were considered as alternatives or that were considered useful.

Table VII-11

Benefit Summary for Final Rule

Annual Benefits When All Covered Vehicles Equipped with Lap/Shoulder Belts

Fatalities 50% Use for Drivers

15% Use for Passenger

83% Use for Drivers and

Passengers

Large Bus - Drivers 0.23 0.81

Large Bus - Passengers 1.50 8.40

Total 1.73 9.21

Non-Fatal Injuries

(AIS 1-5)

Large Bus - Drivers 4 70

Large Bus - Passengers 142 788

Total 146 858

Table VII-12a

Benefit Summary for Other Buses

Not Part of the Final Rule

Annual Benefits When Equipped with Lap/Shoulder Belts

Fatalities 50% Use for Drivers

15% Use for Passenger

83% Use for Drivers and

Passengers

Mid-Size Bus - Drivers 0.02 0.20

Mid-Size Bus - Passengers 0.30 1.71

All Transit Bus Drivers 0.03 0.29

Non-Fatal Injuries

(AIS 1-5)

Mid-Size Bus - Drivers 1 12

Mid-Size Bus - Passengers 28 153

All Transit Bus Drivers 1 19

71

Table VII-12b

Benefit Summary for Passenger Lap Belt Alternative

Not Part of the Final Rule

Annual Benefits When All Vehicles Equipped with Lap Belts for Passengers

Fatalities 5% Use for Passenger 73% Use for Passengers

Large Bus 0.42 6.16

Mid-Size Bus 0.08 1.22

Non-Fatal Injuries

(AIS 1-5)

Large Bus 43 630

Mid-Size Bus 8 122

72

VIII. Costs

Number of vehicles

The final rule applies to all new over-the-road buses, and new non-over-the-road buses

greater than 26,000 lb GVWR. Excluded from the latter group are transit, prison,

perimeter-seating, and school buses. Given that different types of buses have different

baseline vehicle configurations, and given MAP-21’s focus on over-the-road buses, each

type of bus is considered separately. There are approximately 2,200 large covered buses

sold annually. This group includes 2,100 standard over-the-road buses that typically

carry 54 passengers and 100 other buses built on cutaway chassis that are over 26,000 lb

GVWR and typically carry 45 passengers. We estimate annual sales of approximately

40,000 school buses and 4,000 transit buses that are greater than 10,000 lb GVWR.

The mid-size bus category includes a variety of buses with different uses, such as shuttle

buses, paratransit services, etc. sold in the 10,000 to 26,000 lb GVWR range. The mid-

size buses are mostly built on cutaway pickups or vans but some are built up from

stripped chassis and total 14,600 sales per year. In total, an estimated 60,800 new buses

and motorcoaches (2,200 + 40,000 + 4,000 + 14,600) greater than 10,000 lb GVWR are

sold each year.

The size of the over-the-road42

fleet estimate from the Motorcoach Census 2008 is 29,325

vehicles. Motorcoach Facts 2008 states that approximately 2,000 motorcoaches are

produced annually43

, which compares to our 2,100 estimate made above.

MAP-21 requires a regulation for lap/shoulder belts at each designated seating position

on “over-the-road buses” and the final rule adopts such a requirement for over-the-road

buses. The discussion in this section exploring lap belts on those buses is provided only

for informational purposes.

Cost of Installing Lap/Shoulder Belts on New Covered Buses – Driver Position FMVSS No. 208 currently requires buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less to

provide a lap/shoulder belt for the driver seating position. For buses with a GVWR

greater than 10,000 lb, FMVSS No. 208 requires that all buses be equipped, at a

minimum, with either lap or lap/shoulder belts at the driver’s designated seating

position.44

The difference in costs between a lap belt only and a lap/shoulder belt at the

42

As defined in the Motorcoach Census, a motorcoach is an over-the-road bus. Various statutes and

regulations define an over-the-road bus as “a bus characterized by an elevated passenger deck located over

a baggage compartment.” See §3038 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 USC 5310

note), referenced in MAP-21. MAP-21 excludes from its motorcoach definition buses used in public

transportation provided by, or on behalf of, a public transportation agency, and school buses. Section

32702(6).

43

Motorcoach Facts 2008,”Comparisons of Energy Use and Emission from Different Transportation

Modes” M.J Bradley and Associates 44

Manufacturers may alternatively equip buses with a complete occupant protection system that requires no

action by the vehicle occupants. However, currently all large bus manufacturers have opted to install seat

belts at the driver’s position.

73

driver seating position is approximately $18.8645

(in 2008 dollars). For the driver

position, adding a shoulder belt to the driver seat for 40 percent of the large buses will

add an additional $16,597 ($18.86 x 2,200 x .4) to the fleet.

The final rule requires a lap/shoulder belt for the driver of prison buses that are in the

covered buses category of other buses with a GVWR 26,000 lb or greater. Prison buses

are thus already included in the cost estimates for driver lap/shoulder belts above. The

agency believes most prison buses would be above 26,000 lb GVWR.

Additionally, the final rule requires a lap/shoulder belt at the driver’s seating position on

school buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). Since all school buses

already are equipped with a lap/shoulder belt for the driver position, there are no costs for

the school bus driver position.

45

“Cost and Benefits of Putting a Shoulder Belt in the Center Seats of Passenger Cars and Light Trucks”,

June 2004, Docket No. 2004-18726-2, Page 34. $15.41 in 2000 dollars times the implicit price deflator for

gross domestic product x108.582/88.723 = $18.86 in 2008 dollars.

74

Cost of Installing Lap/Shoulder Belts on New Covered Buses – Passenger Positions

The following cost estimates have been obtained from the tear down study, “Cost and

Weight analysis of Three Motor-Coach Systems; Two with and One Without three Point

Lap/shoulder Belts Restraints,” done for the NHTSA by Ludtke and Associates,

December 2010. While these cost estimates were based on an over-the-road motorcoach,

we believe the belt cost estimates will be the same for any bus over 4,536 kg (10,000 lb)

GVWR. Three motorcoach seats (each a two-passenger seat) were torn down, weighed,

and estimated for costs. One was a domestic motorcoach seat without lap/shoulder belts

(end user cost of $523.68 in 2010 dollars, weighing 94.66 lb), one was a domestic

motorcoach seat with lap/shoulder belts meeting FMVSS No. 210 (end user cost of

$557.92, weighing 120.37 lb), and one was a European motorcoach seat with

lap/shoulder belts that our testing showed also met FMVSS No. 210 (end used cost of

$393.48, weighing 93.62 lb). The design of each of these seats were different, such that

you could not simply subtract the cost of the domestic seat without lap/shoulder belts

from the cost of the domestic seat with lap/shoulder belts and get the incremental cost of

the belt system. We did not have available to us two motorcoach seats that were exactly

the same except that one was designed for lap/shoulder belts. If this were the case and

the lap/shoulder equipped seat could meet FMVSS No. 210, then we could surmise that

no structural changes would need to be added to the seat, or to the floor or anchorage to

handle the load imposed by two lap/shoulder belted occupants. If the lap/shoulder belt

equipped seat did not meet FMVSS No. 210, then a seat that did meet the standard could

be torn down and compared to the non-compliant seat to determine the necessary

structural changes. As it stands, it could be that seats without lap/shoulder belts are

sufficiently designed to handle the belt loads, but we have no proof one way or the other.

What the contractor was able to do was to estimate the cost of what he considered were

the two belts systems. These belts systems were designed very differently. The design

for the domestic seat was more of an integrated seat with the shoulder belt attaching into

the seat back, while the European design attached the belt on the side of the seat. The

increase in price was $78.14 for the two belts for the domestic motorcoach seat and

$87.10 for the two belts for the European motorcoach seat. Since we believe that

integrating the belt into the seat back will be the preferred option in the United States and

since it is the lower cost, we estimated the incremental cost of adding three-point belts for

a two passenger seat at $78.14 or $39.07 per seating position.

On a 54 passenger large bus the cost for the passenger seats is $2,109.78 ($39.07 x 54).

The total cost of adding three point seat belts to all new 54-passenger large buses is about

$4.4 million (2,100 x $2,109.78). The large cutaway buses seat an average of 45

passengers. The incremental cost of adding three-point belts on a 45 passenger cutaway

large bus with two passengers per seat is $1,758.15 ($39.07 x 45). The total cost of

adding three point passenger seat belts to all new cutaway large bus is about $0.2 million

($1,758.15 x 100). Thus, the total cost for all covered large bus passenger positions is

about $4.6 million. The total cost of adding three point belts for passengers and shoulder

belts to 40 percent of the driver’s seats is still $4.6 million ($4,606,353 + $16,597).

75

Cost of Lap Belts on New Large Buses – Passenger Position

For the alternative of adding a lap belt, the agency estimates that the cost per new 54

passenger bus is approximately $667.71 ($12.37 x 54) i.e. the cost of a lap belt only is

approximately $24.73 per two-person seat or $12.37 per seating position. The cost of

adding a lap belt to a 45 passenger cutaway bus is $556.65 ($12.37 x 45) The total cost

per fleet is $1.46 million ($667.71 x 2,100) + ($556.65 x 100). These costs must be

considered a minimal cost, since the agency has no data on possible structural costs to

make current seats meet the FMVSS No. 210 anchorage requirements. The costs

discussed above only include the lap belt system. Some manufacturers have talked about

seats being lap belt ready, but we do not know what percentage of the market they would

represent. In addition, we have not tested any of those seats to determine whether they

meet FMVSS No. 210 anchorage requirements, or whether they meet the lower load

requirements of ECE R.14 and R.80. As a first approximation it is reasonable to assume

that, for seats that are not lap belt ready, the estimated cost for structural changes to the

seat for three-point belts would be similar for lap belts, given the need to restrain the

same occupant mass.

Weight Impacts The weight estimates for just the lap/shoulder belt system, based on results from a

NHTSA contractor doing cost/weight teardown studies of over-the-road bus seats, were

5.98 lb for the domestic motorcoach and 9.96 lb for the European motorcoach per 2-

person seat. This is the weight only of the seat belt assembly itself and does not include

changing the design of the seat, reinforcing the floor, walls or other areas of the large bus.

The contractor also examined the seat stanchion (the metal bracket that goes from the

bottom of the seat to the floor). Again, all three motorcoach seats had a different

stanchion design and both of the seats with lap/shoulder belts met the FMVSS 210

anchorage requirements. Thus, we could not determine whether the difference in weight

of the seat stanchions was characteristic of anchorage needs when adding lap/shoulder

belts. To be consistent with our cost estimates of using the domestic motorcoach seat this

analysis will use the 5.98 lb incremental weight estimate. Assuming a 54 passenger large

bus, the added weight for a lap/shoulder belt assembly alone is 161 lb (27 * 5.98 lb).

The weight of a covered large bus varies. The three that NHTSA have tested have the

following weights.

Table VIII-1

Weights of NHTSA Tested Over-The-Road Buses

Curb Weight (kg)

(With Full Fluids) GVWR (kg)

1991 Prevost LeMirage

(40’, 47 passenger) 13,381 18,145

1992 MCI MC-12

(40’, 47 passenger) 12,700 17,146

2000 MCI 102-EL3

(45’, 57 passenger) 18,053 22,634

76

Since one kilogram equals 2.2046 lb, the curb weights range from 28,000 to 39,800 lb

and the fully loaded vehicle weights at GVWR range from 37,800 to 50,000 lb. A

standard formula for estimating the impact on fuel economy from weight is:

(Base vehicle weight/[vehicle weight + added weight]) ^ 0.8*Baseline fuel economy.

This formula was based on light vehicles and the agency does not have reason to believe

it cannot be applied to a heavy vehicle like a large bus. Using the formula, we can

estimate the impact that a weight increase would have on large bus fuel economy. First,

we assume that the average in use weight of a large bus is 45,000 lb. Second, the average

baseline mpg of a large bus is estimated to be 5.7 mpg. 46

Third, the projected price of

diesel fuel was taken from the Annual Energy Outlook 2011 (and converted to 2008

dollars) starting in MY 2015, assuming that would be the effective date of a final rule.

Fuel taxes were subtracted from the price of diesel fuel since taxes are a transfer payment

and not a societal cost or benefit. The agency estimates the present value of changes in

fuel costs at a 3 and 7 percent discount rate. Table VIII-2 presents an example

calculation for a 161 lb increase in weight at a 3 percent discount rate. The increase is

shown in the last row of the last two columns.

The average over-the-road large bus drives 56,000 miles per year. Adding 161 lb

changes the average fuel economy of that large bus from 5.7 mpg to 5.6837 mpg. Over

an average year, the large bus would use 9,825 gallons at 5.7 mpg and would use 9,853

gallons at 5.6837 mpg, so adding 161 lb results in 28 more gallons of diesel fuel used in

an average year. Because of discounting back to present value, we estimate the impact

on a year to year basis as shown in the next table.

We do not have estimates of the vehicle miles traveled for other bus types (other than

over-the-road). If they drive similar miles per year (56,000) and have similar mpg levels,

then our estimates will be accurate. If they drive less, the impact will be less. However,

since 2,100 of the 2,200 buses we are regulating fall into the over-the-road category, our

overall estimates would not be significantly affected.

46

“Motorcoach Census 2008, A Benchmarking Study of the Size and Activity of the Motorcoach Industry

in the United States and Canada in 2007,” December 18, 2008, by Paul Bourquin of Nathan Associates,

Inc., pg. 10.

77

Table VIII-2

Example Calculation of Present Discounted Value of Fuel Costs

at 3% at 3%

Fuel Fuel Present Present

Weight

ed Diesel

Consumpti

on

Consumpti

on Value Value

Vehic

le Vehicle

Vehicl

e

Fuel Price

Minus

Taxes with Base with New of Fuel of Fuel

Age Miles Survival Miles per Gallon

Fuel

Economy

Fuel

Economy

Consumpt

ion

Consumpt

ion

(years

)

Travell

ed

Probabil

ity

Travell

ed

(2008

dollars) (gallons) (gallons) (Base FE) (New FE)

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

----------

- ---------

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

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

Yr 1 = 2015

1 64,901 0.9995 64,869 2.71 11,380 11,413 $29,951 $30,036

2 63,628 0.9985 63,533 2.78 11,146 11,178 $29,243 $29,327

3 62,381 0.9953 62,088 2.86 10,893 10,924 $28,471 $28,552

4 61,157 0.9874 60,386 2.91 10,594 10,624 $27,373 $27,451

5 59,958 0.9747 58,441 2.95 10,253 10,282 $26,087 $26,161

6 58,783 0.9574 56,279 3.00 9,873 9,902 $24,819 $24,890

7 57,630 0.9354 53,907 3.03 9,457 9,484 $23,320 $23,387

8 56,500 0.9092 51,370 3.07 9,012 9,038 $21,871 $21,934

9 55,370 0.879 48,670 3.11 8,539 8,563 $20,322 $20,380

10 54,263 0.8453 45,869 3.13 8,047 8,070 $18,719 $18,772

11 53,177 0.8083 42,983 3.17 7,541 7,562 $17,256 $17,306

12 52,114 0.7687 40,060 3.21 7,028 7,048 $15,819 $15,864

13 51,072 0.727 37,129 3.25 6,514 6,533 $14,419 $14,460

14 50,050 0.6836 34,214 3.30 6,002 6,020 $13,106 $13,144

15 49,049 0.6392 31,352 3.35 5,500 5,516 $11,843 $11,877

16 48,068 0.5942 28,562 3.38 5,011 5,025 $10,540 $10,570

17 47,107 0.5491 25,866 3.42 4,538 4,551 $9,381 $9,408

18 46,165 0.5045 23,290 3.47 4,086 4,098 $8,325 $8,349

19 45,241 0.4608 20,847 3.50 3,657 3,668 $7,300 $7,321

20 44,336 0.4183 18,546 3.55 3,254 3,263 $6,398 $6,417

21 43,450 0.3774 16,398 3.61 2,877 2,885 $5,589 $5,605

22 42,581 0.3385 14,414 3.66 2,529 2,536 $4,824 $4,838

23 41,729 0.3017 12,590 3.70 2,209 2,215 $4,137 $4,149

Total

1,208,7

10 17

911,66

2

159,941 160,398 $379,125 $380,210

78

Table VIII-3 shows the weight increase and the impact on fuel costs.

Table VIII-3

Weight Impact and

Present Discounted Value of Increased Lifetime Fuel Costs

3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate

Lap/Shoulder Belts

161 lb $1,085 $800

Lap Belts

108 lb $727 $536

Analyses for Informational Purposes: Cost of Installing Lap/Shoulder Belts on Mid-

Size and Transit Bus Driver Seating Positions

We estimate that about 40 percent of the driver’s seats of new mid-size buses and all

transit buses are equipped with lap belts today, with the remainder having lap/shoulder

belts. If all driver’s seats were required to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts, the added

annual cost to the fleet would be $110,142 for mid-size buses (14,600 x .4 x $18.86) and

$30,176 (4,000 x .4 x $18.86) for transit buses.

Analyses for Informational Purposes: Cost of Installing Lap/Shoulder Belts on Mid-

Size Buses – Passenger Position

While mid-size buses have a wide variety in the number of seating positions offered, for

this analysis, we assume that the average mid-size bus has 24 passenger seats. The

incremental cost of adding lap/shoulder belts and to change the seat anchorages on a 24

passenger type of mid-size bus with a GVWR between 10,000 and 26,000 lb is $937.68

($39.07 x 24). The total cost of adding lap/shoulder belts to all new 24 passenger type of

other buses is $13,690,128 ($937.68 x 14,600).

Cost of Lap Belts on New Mid-Size Buses

For the alternative of adding a lap belt, the agency estimates that the cost per new mid-

size bus averages $297.76 ($12.37 x 24). The total cost per fleet would be $4,332,696

($297.76 x 14,600). As discussed above, these costs must be considered a minimal cost,

since the agency has no data on possible structural costs to make current seats meet the

FMVSS 210 anchorage requirements. The costs discussed above only include the lap

belt system. Some manufacturers have referred to seats being lap belt ready, but we have

not tested any of those seats to determine whether they meet FMVSS 210 anchorage

requirements, or whether they meet the less strict ECE requirements.

79

Cost Summary Table VIII-4a provides a summary of costs for the final rule on an average per vehicle

basis. Thus, if 40 percent of the driver positions need a lap/shoulder belt rather than a lap

belt to meet the final rule, the incremental cost between a lap belt and a lap/shoulder belt

is multiplied by 0.4 to get the average cost increase per vehicle ($28.68 * 0.4 = $11.47).

Table VIII-4b provides a summary of total costs.

Table VIII-4a

Cost Per Average Covered Large Bus

Average

Vehicle Cost

Fuel Cost

@ 3%

Total Cost

@3%

Fuel Cost

@7%

Total Cost

@7%

Large Bus

Driver

$7.54 n.a. $7.54 n.a. $7.54

Large Bus

54

Passengers

$2,110 $1,085 $3,195 $800 $2,910

Large Bus

45

Passengers

$1,758 $904 $2,662 $667 $2,425

Total Large

Bus - Driver

and

Passenger –

Average

Size Bus

$2,101 $1,077 $3,178 $794 $2,895

80

Table VIII-4b

Total Cost for Covered Large Buses

Vehicle Cost Fuel Cost

@ 3%

Total Cost

@3%

Fuel Cost

@7%

Total Cost

@7%

Large Bus

Driver

$16,600 n.a. $16,600 n.a. $16,600

Large Bus

Weighted

45/54

Passengers

$4,606,000 $2,369,000 $6,975,000 $1,747,000 $6,353,000

Total Large

Bus - Driver

and

Passenger

$4,623,000 $2,369,000 $6,992,000 $1,747,000 $6,370,000

Table VIII-5a

Cost Per Average Non-Covered Mid-Size Buses and All Transit Bus Drivers

If They Were Required to Have Lap/Shoulder Belts


@ 3%

Total Cost

@3%

Fuel Cost

@7%

Total Cost

@7%

Mid-Size

Bus Drivers

$7.54 n.a. $7.54 n.a. $7.54

All Transit

Bus Drivers

$7.54 n.a. $7.54 n.a. $7.54

Mid-Size

Bus 24

Passengers

$938 $482 $1,420 $356 $1,294

Total Mid-

Size Bus -

Drivers and

24

Passengers

$945 $482 $1,427 $356 $1,301

81

Table VIII-5b

Total Costs for Non-Covered Mid-Size Buses and All Transit Bus Drivers

If They Were Required to Have Lap/Shoulder Belts


@ 3%

Total Cost

@3%

Fuel Cost

@7%

Total Cost

@7%

Mid-Size

Bus Drivers

$110,100 n.a. $110,100 n.a. $110,100

All Transit

Bus Drivers

$30,200 n.a. $30,200 n.a. $30,200

Mid-Size

Bus 24

Passengers

$13,690,000 $7,040,000 $20,731,000 $5,191,000 $18,881,000

Total Mid-

Size Bus

Driver and

24

Passengers

$13,800,000

$7,040,000 $20,841,000 $5,191,000 $18,991,000

Other Issues Related to Weight Eight comments addressed the effects that the more stringent strength requirements of

FMVSS No. 210 (compared to European regulation ECE R.14) will have on seat weight,

comfort, and cost. Commenters were divided in their views of the effect that meeting

FMVSS No. 210 would have on bus weight, comfort, and cost.

Seat manufacturer C.E. White commented that it has manufactured a lightweight single

frame seat structure that meets the criteria of FMVSS No. 210, with energy absorption

capability, and provided confidential data supporting its claim.

In response to the agency’s question on whether adopting FMVSS No. 210 over ECE

R.14 will increase cost and weight, seat manufacturer IMMI said that its own review

determined that adopting ECE R.14 would result in only minor material reductions,

resulting in minimal savings per seat assembly.

Conversely, European bus manufacturer Prevost stated that introduction of lap/shoulder

belts will increase the weight of a covered bus by at least 454 kg (1,000 lb). It

commented that the more stringent the standard is, the heavier the vehicle is, and

manufacturers cannot afford adding weight if it is not justified. Prevost stated that cargo

capacity is covered by added weight, and each 79 kg (175 lb) added could potentially

reduce the passenger capacity by one. European bus manufacturer Van Hool stated that

requiring buses to meet FMVSS No. 210 specifications will result in increased vehicle

and seat weight, increased vehicle and seat price, increased seat size, decreased passenger

82

comfort, and reduced passenger service. Van Hool believed that integration of the

FMVSS No. 210 requirements into its vehicle platforms will force Van Hool to initiate

new and different production infrastructure and methods, thus increasing manufacturing

cost, in addition to the added structural material that would have to be used in the

process. The commenter stated that these factors would raise the price of vehicles, and

the additional structural material would result in additional deadweight of the coach as a

whole, even without seats.

On the other hand, transportation provider Greyhound stated that its real-life experience

in the U.S. has demonstrated that there are no adverse consequences to meeting FMVSS

No. 210 related to weight, comfort, or cost. Greyhound made the following statement

concerning the Safeguard Premier seat manufactured by IMMI, which Greyhound said it

has been ordering in its new motorcoaches since 2008:

These seats and their seat belt assemblies and anchorages comply with FMVSS

standards 208, 209, 210, 213, 225, and 302. The SafeGuard Premier also

complies with the forward and rearward seat back energy curves defined in

FMVSS [No.] 222. The installation of these seats has not caused Greyhound to

reduce the number of passengers it can accommodate. The seats are quite

comfortable, do not weigh appreciably more than seats equipped with belts

meeting the European standard, and are competitively priced.

Transportation provider Coach USA (an affiliate of a European bus operator) commented

that FMVSS No. 210 will result in passenger seats that are larger/bulkier, more

rigid/stiffer, less comfortable, and more expensive than those that meet the European

standards and that FMVSS No. 210 will increase the overall weight of the covered

vehicles. It also stated the larger FMVSS No. 210 compliant seats will require carriers to

remove four seats (one row) from their buses, reducing seating capacity and increasing

the cost of operations. Coach USA claims decreased seat comfort along with the

increased seat cost and decreased capacity, which will be passed on as cost to the

customer, may increase the number of individuals that choose “the more dangerous

option” of travel by passenger car over motorcoach travel.

Coach USA also provided estimates of the cost and weight penalties of compliance with

FMVSS No. 210 as compared to compliance with ECE R.14/ECE R.80. It compared

seats offered by IMMI, which Coach USA said were the only FMVSS No. 210 compliant

seats on the market at the time of its analysis, to Van Hool seats meeting the European

regulations.47

Coach USA determined that the total weight of the IMMI seats required to

outfit a single deck motorcoach is 1,615 kg (3,560 lb) at a total cost of $37,800, whereas

the total weight of the Van Hool seats required to outfit the same bus is 1,196 kg (2,637

lb) at a cost of $29,830. The commenter stated that, for a double-decker bus, the IMMI

seats have a total weight of 2,263 kg (4,988 lb) at a cost of $53,716, whereas the Van

Hool seats have a total weight of 1,676 kg (3,695 lb) at a cost of $42,390. Coach USA

47

Coach USA’s submission estimated that a standard IMMI two occupant seat weighs 54 kg (119 lbs.), an

IMMI slider seat weighs 73 kg (161 lbs.), a Van Hool standard two occupant seat weighs 40 kg (88 lbs.),

and a Van Hool slider seat weighs 54 kg (119 lbs.).

83

noted that these estimates do not include costs associated with reinforcement of the bus

floor for FMVSS No. 210, which NHTSA estimated at $3,000 per bus in the PRIA. It

also added that the cost penalties did not include the reduced fuel efficiency of

transporting “heavier” FMVSS No. 210 compliant seats, which it estimated as an increase

in lifetime fuel cost of $4,584 to $6,217 for a single deck motorcoach and $6,422 to

$8,710 for a double-decker motorcoach.48

Coach USA believed that the European seat

belt standard will not increase the weight of motorcoaches to the same degree as FMVSS

No. 210.

Agency Response

We have determined that data indicate that seats meeting FMVSS Nos. 208 and 21049

will not weigh appreciably more than seats meeting the ECE regulations. We found the

information provided by Greyhound, IMMI, and C.E. White compelling due to its

empirical basis and the commenters’ first-hand experience with the subject seats. In

addition, we also evaluated Australia’s experience with lap/shoulder belt requirement for

motorcoaches, and learned that bus seats with integral lap/shoulder belts have been

developed to meet Australian Design Rule 68 (requiring lap/shoulder seat belts with a 20

g crash force capability) that were “more than twice as strong, weighed less and were not

significantly more expensive (excluding the cost of seat belts) to produce than the

original products.”50

European bus manufacturers Prevost and Van Hool, and European bus affiliate Coach

USA, estimated that lap/shoulder belt-equipped seats meeting FMVSS No. 210 weigh

much more than seats meeting ECE R.14 and ECE R.80. According to Prevost, the

installation of lap/shoulder belts increases the weight of the covered vehicles by at least

454 kg (1,000 lb), and each 79 kg (175 lb) could reduce the passenger capacity by one.

Van Hool estimated that a two-occupant seat with FMVSS No. 210 anchorages will

weigh about 15 kg (33 lb) more than its ECE R.14/ECE R.80 seats, which the commenter

said is a 420 kg (926 lb) increase for a 56-passenger bus. In its estimate, Van Hool

approximated the weight of an EU-approved lap/shoulder belt equipped seat at 36 kg (79

lb) and an FMVSS No. 210 compliant seat at 51 kg (112 lb). Coach USA estimated that

a standard two-occupant Van Hool EU-approved seat at 40 kg (88 lb), a Van Hool slider

seat version at 54 kg (119 lb), an IMMI seat with FMVSS No. 210 anchorages at 54 kg

(119 lb), and an IMMI slider seat version at 73 kg (161 lb). It stated that the IMMI seats

resulted in a 419 kg (923 lb) increase in weight over the Van Hool seats for a single deck

motorcoach and a 586 kg (1,293 lb) increase for a double-deck motorcoach.

48

Coach USA extrapolated these costs from data provided in NHTSA, Preliminary Regulatory Impact

Analysis, FMVSS No. 208 Motorcoach Seat Belts (August 2010). 49

As well as meeting FMVSS No. 222’s seat deflection requirements. Some commenters believed that the

seats should have seat deflection characteristics, an aspect of performance not regulated by the amendments

adopted in the final rule. 50

“Three Point Seat Belts On Coaches—The First Decade In Australia,” Griffiths et al., Abstract ID 05-

0017, 19th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, June 2005,

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv19/05-0017-O.pdf (cited also in footnote 39, August 18, 2010

NPRM).


84

Only Coach USA identified the manufacturer of the FMVSS No. 210 seat that it used in

its weight estimate—IMMI—and, according to the data it used in its vehicle weight

estimate, the two-occupant IMMI seat is14 kg (31 lb) heavier that the ECE-approved Van

Hool seat. Yet, IMMI had stated in its comment that there would be only limited-to-

minor material reductions, resulting in minimal cost and weight savings per seat

assembly if the anchorage requirements were reduced to ECE R.14 loads. (IMMI did not

quantify these savings.)

After evaluating Coach USA’s comment, we have determined that the IMMI seat used by

Coach USA in its estimate had design features that added weight to the seat, such as

IMMI’s SafeGuard SmartFrame™ technology. Because the features are not needed for

the seat to meet FMVSS No. 210 and all other applicable FMVSSs, the seat was not

representative of a typical seat with FMVSS No. 210 compliant anchorages.

Two more typical seats advertised as having anchorages that meet the FMVSS No. 210

requirements are the Amaya-Astron Torino G and A-210 model coach seats, which are

available through Freedman. These seats weigh 39 kg (86 lb) and 40 kg (88 lb),

respectively,51

as opposed to the weight of the IMMI seat as reported by Coach USA

(weighing 54 kg (119 lb)).

Further, seat manufacturer C.E. White commented that it has been proven that a

lightweight single frame seat structure can be manufactured that meets the criteria of

FMVSS No. 210, with energy absorption capability, and provided confidential data

supporting its claim. IMMI stated that its own review determined that the reduction of

the anchorage requirements to those of ECE R.14 will result in minor material reductions,

resulting in minimal savings per seat assembly.

In addition, Greyhound commented that it has installed IMMI seats that meet the FMVSS

No. 210 requirements in its newer buses, and found in its real-life experience there has

been no adverse consequences related to weight, comfort, or cost.

The Australian motorcoach industry had similar concerns regarding increased seat weight

with the introduction of Australian Design Rule 68 (ADR 68) in 1994.52

The ADR 68

dynamic test requirements use a 20 g acceleration pulse, which is 1.5 times greater than

the pulse used in the NHTSA sled tests, and the ADR 68 static test total loads are also

significantly greater than those required by FMVSS No. 210. In spite of the more

stringent requirements of ADR 68, Australian motorcoach seat suppliers have reported

that ADR 68 seats with integrated lap/shoulder belts weigh approximately 25 kg (55 lb)

to 30 kg (66 lb) for a two-occupant seat.53

Styleride (http://www.styleride.com.au) and

McConnell Seats Australia (http://www.mcconnellseats.com.au) currently manufacture

seats in this weight range that meet ADR 68 requirements. These ADR 68 compliant

51

Weight data was provided by Freedman. 52

“Three Point Seat Belts On Coaches—The First Decade In Australia,” Griffiths et al., Abstract ID 05-

0017, 19th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, June 2005,

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv19/05-0017-O.pdf 53

Id.

http://www.styleride.com.au/

http://www.mcconnellseats.com.au/


85

seats are lighter than the current lap/shoulder belt equipped IMMI and Van Hool seats,

yet meet anchorage strength requirements that exceed that required by FMVSS No. 210.

Furthermore, the teardown analysis, supra, estimated that the addition of lap/shoulder belt

assembly to a two-occupant seat that previously had no belts, would increase weight by

approximately 5.98 lb.54

The seats evaluated in the study were previously tested by the

agency and found to meet the FMVSS No. 210 loads. The estimated 5.98 lb weight

increase from the teardown study for going from no belts to FMVSS No. 210 compliant

belts does not support the commenters’ views that it will add 15 kg (33 lb) of weight to

enable an ECE R.14/ECE R.80 two-occupant seat (already with lap/shoulder belts) to

meet FMVSS No. 210.

In view of the above information, NHTSA concludes that the arguments about seat

weight substantially increasing are without merit.

Other Concerns Some commenters expressed concerns that the weight increases to the bus seats resulting

from meeting FMVSS No. 210 would potentially reduce fuel economy, reduce

passenger-carrying capacity, and affect axle weight limits. We have evaluated these

concerns, and have found them not to be substantiated by available information. In view

of the light weight of ADR 68 seats, the information from C.E. White, IMMI and

Freedman, and the findings from the tear down study, the average weight increase of the

covered buses resulting from this rule will be in line with that estimated in the PRIA and

this FRIA. Any further increase in vehicle weight, or reduction in passenger capacity,

will result from the manufacturer’s or purchaser’s selection (or design) of seat models

and features.

Van Hool, Coach USA, and American Bus Association (ABA) submitted comments that

discussed the cost implications of requiring passenger seats on the covered buses to meet

FMVSS No. 210 as compared to ECE R.14/ECE R.80. Coach USA provided an analysis

comparing the total cost to outfit its single and double-decker motorcoaches with IMMI

seats that meet FMVSS No. 210, as compared to Van Hool seats that meet ECE

R.14/ECE R.80 requirements. Coach USA estimated that the additional cost to fully

outfit a vehicle with IMMI seats, as opposed to Van Hool seats, to be $10,970 for a single

deck bus and $13,76855

for a double-decker bus (including the estimated cost of $3,000

for reinforcement of the bus floor). This estimate for the single deck bus is substantially

more than the agency’s tear down study estimate of $2,121 for a 54 passenger single-

deck bus.

Coach USA also estimated the related increase in lifetime fuel costs due to what the

commenter believed would be the extra weight of the IMMI seats to be $4,584 and

54

Cost and Weight Analysis of Three Motor Coach Systems; Two with & One Without Three-Point

Lap/Shoulder Belt Restraints, Final Report, Volume 1. Docket NHTSA-2011-0066-0004. 55

There may be an error in Coach USA’s double-deck estimate because it reported a total seat cost for the

IMMI and Van Hool of $53,716 and $42,390 respectively, which results in a difference of $11,326.

86

$6,217, at 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates, respectively.56

This is a significant

increase over that estimated in this FRIA. We believe that the 54 kg (119 lb) IMMI seats

Coach USA used in its estimate may represent seats at the higher end of the weight

spectrum for FMVSS No. 210 seats. As explained above, ADR 68 seats that can

withstand anchorage loads in excess of FMVSS No. 210 loads weigh as little as 25 kg (55

lb) to 30 kg (66 lb) for a two-occupant seat. Seat suppliers C.E. White and IMMI affirm

the practicability of manufacturing lightweight seats meeting FMVSS No. 210.

We conclude that the data indicate that seats meeting FMVSS No. 210 will result in little,

if any, increase in total vehicle weight, depending on how efficiently the vehicle seat

attachment points are strengthened. Considering the weight of 40 kg (88 lb) of current

Van Hool seats (according to Coach USA’s submission), the data indicate there may even

be a total weight decrease if the weight can be reduced to the 25 kg (55 lb) to 30 kg (66

lb) weight of ADR 68 seats.

We do not believe that requiring passenger seats on the covered buses to be equipped

with anchorages that meet FMVSS No. 210 will necessarily reduce seat comfort (because

of increased stiffness) as suggested by Van Hool and Coach USA. Seat comfort is more

dependent on seat cushion design elements such as cushion material, thickness, shape,

and cover, rather than on the underlying frame. If the ability of a seat to meet FMVSS

No. 210 requirements equated to reduced comfort, then this problem would have arisen in

newer passenger vehicles that have seats with fully integrated seat belts, especially with

the front seats of most convertibles and some rear seats of multipurpose passenger

vehicles. Importantly, Greyhound, which has been operating buses with IMMI

lap/shoulder belt equipped passenger seats that meet FMVSS No. 210 since 2008, stated

“The installation of these seats has not caused Greyhound to reduce the number of

passengers it can accommodate. The seats are quite comfortable, do not weigh

appreciably more than seats equipped with belts meeting the European standard, and are

competitively priced.” After considering the above information we conclude that the data

indicate that seats meeting FMVSS No. 210 will not reduce seat comfort or unduly affect

costs.

Comments on Indirect Costs of the Final Rule

Some transportation providers expressed concerns about having to pay more for buses

with seat belts, and that passing these costs on to passengers could depress business.

In response, NHTSA has weighed these matters in developing this final rule , as

discussed below. In addition to our views below, we also point out that MAP-21 directs

the issuance of regulations requiring safety belts to be installed in motorcoaches at each

designed seating position.

The incremental cost of this final rule is relatively small ($2,101 for each bus valued

between $400,000 and $500,000). The agency estimates that the highest annualized cost

56

Coach USA’s estimate was based on a weight increase of 419 kg (923 lbs.) and was extrapolated from

the values of $1,812 and $1,336 estimated in the PRIA for a weight increase of 122 kg (269 lbs/).

87

due to this rule, including fuel cost, is $7.0 million. According to the 2008 Motorcoach

Census,57

in 2007 there were 751 million trips taken on motorcoaches in the U.S. and

Canada. If the increase in price of a bus were distributed among these trips, it would

account to a one cent increase in the price of a ticket. In addition, since these costs will

equally affect all operators of the covered buses, the operators will be able to pass these

purchase and fuel costs to their consumers.

A few commenters said that the resale value of used buses (without passenger seat belts)

will be substantially reduced and that, since sale of the used buses helps fund the

purchase of new buses, some will not be able to purchase new buses within a normal 12-

year cycle. In response, as far as the claimed decrease in the resale price of

motorcoaches, secondary and tertiary effects of safety regulations are not considered a

cost of the rule. Also, these alleged effects are highly speculative, and have not been

substantiated or quantified by these commenters.

Arrow Coach Lines commented that the costs associated with maintenance and upkeep of

passenger seat belts in the covered buses were not discussed in the NPRM. It stated that

it has had to untie belts, pull belts out from under seats and straighten out sets of seat

belts.

In response, first of all, we want to make clear that there is no requirement in the final

rule that applies to the operators, such as a maintenance requirement. Moreover, we do

not believe that the costs of maintaining the belts, if any, will be impactful. The

commenters did not provide any data on this cost. A few operators noted that they have

had to untie belts or tend to vandalized parts, but the agency does not have reason to

believe that this work will have to be done more than incidentally or that it will amount to

a real cost, attributable to the cost of the rule. Belt maintenance work is not recognized

as a necessity or as being subject to a schedule (unlike safety systems such as tires where

it is generally recognized that the average tire lasts 45,000 miles, or brake pads which are

recognized as having to be replaced at a given mileage). Further, we expect that the cost

of maintaining the belts, if any, to be very small in comparison to the cost of upgrading

the buses with seat belts.

A few transportation providers expressed concern over the impact on liability and

insurance costs for their non-seat belt equipped motorcoaches if passenger seat belts are

installed in new buses. In response, we note that the commenters did not provide any

estimate of the potential increase in operating costs or otherwise substantiate their claim.

The assertions about these effects are highly speculative, and have not been substantiated

or quantified. Further, as with the arguments about reduced resale value, NHTSA does

not typically estimate these effects as costs attributable to the cost of the rule. That is, the

commenters’ argument is related to the cost of doing business, not to the cost of the rule.

Further, to the extent commenters are arguing against adoption of the final rule, it would

be unreasonable for NHTSA not to adopt an FMVSS that establishes new safety

requirements or upgrades an existing safety feature because of assertions about the effect

57

Supra.

88

of the amendment on liability and insurance costs associated with operating used vehicles

that do not meet the new or upgraded standard.

An operator58

stated, “The fact that you enact a 3-point belt on new equipment means that

you are taking away at least 60+ percent of the value of my existing fleet. This translates

into not be able [sic] to turn over my used equipment to purchase new and impact the

latest and greatest motorcoach safety systems within the normal 12-year cycle that we

have operated under.” In NHTSA’s opinion, the impact of a requirement for 3–point

(lap/shoulder) belts on new buses, on the value of used buses, is speculative. The

commenter did not provide support for the “60+ percent” estimate. Further, even if the

price of used buses goes down and the ability to finance new buses is affected, eventually

all buses in the fleet will have 3-point belts and the residual effect on purchasing new

buses will disappear. We note that the commenter depicts a scenario in which any

change to the FMVSS that require a new or improved safety feature will have the effect

of reducing the resale value of used vehicles. This scenario could apply to any vehicle,

not just motorcoaches. It would be unreasonable for NHTSA not to adopt a safety device

or upgrade an existing safety feature because the effect of the amendment would lower

the demand for some used vehicles.

58

Docket NHTSA-2010-0112-0057

89

IX. Cost Effectiveness Analysis

This chapter provides cost-effectiveness analysis for this final rule in accordance with

E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-

4. (A benefit cost analysis is provided in Chapter X, infra.)

The cost-effectiveness measures the cost per equivalent life saved (i.e., per equivalent

fatality), while the benefit-cost measures the net benefit which is the difference between

benefits and net costs in monetary values. Injury benefits are expressed in fatal

equivalents in the cost-effectiveness analysis and are further translated into monetary

value in the benefit-cost analysis. Fatal equivalents represent the savings throughout the

vehicle life and are discounted to reflect their present values.

To calculate a cost per equivalent fatality, nonfatal injuries must be expressed in terms of

fatalities. This is done by comparing the values of preventing nonfatal injuries to the

value of preventing a fatality. Comprehensive values, which include both economic

impacts and loss of quality (or value) of life considerations, will be used to determine the

relative value of nonfatal injuries to fatalities. Value-of-life measurements inherently

include a value for lost quality of life plus a valuation of lost material consumption that is

represented by measuring consumers’ after-tax lost productivity. In addition to these

factors, preventing a motor vehicle fatality will reduce costs for medical care, emergency

services, insurance administrative costs, workplace costs, and legal costs. The sum of

both value-of-life and economic cost impacts is referred to as the comprehensive cost

savings from reducing fatalities.

These values were taken from the most recent study of vehicle crash-related economic

impacts published by NHTSA.59

The reported costs were in 2000 dollars, but since the

relative values between injuries and fatalities are all we need for this analysis, and the

relative values have not been updated since 2000, they have not been adjusted. Table IX-

1 shows the comprehensive costs for each MAIS injury level. Table IX-1

Calculation of Fatal Equivalents

Injury

Severity

Comprehensive Cost

(2000 $)

Relative Fatality Ratio

MAIS 1 $15,017 0.0028

MAIS 2 $157,958 0.0436

MAIS 3 $314,204 0.0804

MAIS 4 $731,580 0.1998

MAIS 5 $2,402,997 0.6656

Fatality $3,366,388 1.0000

59

Blincoe, L., et al., The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2000, Washington, DC, DOT HS 809

446, May 2002.

90

Source: A calculation based on data presented in ‘The Economic Impact of Motor vehicle Crashes 2000”

updated to reflect guidance found in February 5th

2000, DOT Memorandum “Treatment of the Economic

Value of a Statistical Life in Departmental Analyses.”

Fatal equivalents are derived by applying the relative fatality ratios to the estimated

MAIS 1-5 injury benefits. As discussed earlier, benefits are realized through a vehicle’s

life. Thus, fatal equivalents are required to be discounted at 3 and 7 percent. Table IX-2

shows the discounted rate for covered buses at the 3 and 7 percent levels.

There is general agreement within the economic community that the appropriate basis for

determining discount rates is the marginal opportunity costs of lost or displaced funds.

When these funds involve capital investment, the marginal, real rate of return on capital

must be considered. However, when these funds represent lost consumption, the

appropriate measure is the rate at which society is willing to trade-off future for current

consumption. This is referred to as the "social rate of time preference," and it is generally

assumed that the consumption rate of interest, i.e., the real, after-tax rate of return on

widely available savings instruments or investment opportunities, is the appropriate

measure of its value.

Estimates of the social rate of time preference have been made by a number of authors.

Robert Lind60

estimated that the social rate of time preference is between zero and six

percent, reflecting the rates of return on Treasury bills and stock market portfolios. Kolb

and Sheraga61

put the rate at between one and five percent, based on returns to stocks and

three-month Treasury bills. Moore and Viscusi62

calculated a two percent real time rate

of time preference for health, which they characterize as being consistent with financial

market rates for the period covered by their study. Moore and Viscusi's estimate was

derived by estimating the implicit discount rate for deferred health benefits exhibited by

workers in their choice of job risk. OMB Circular A-4 recommends agencies use both 3

percent and 7 percent as the “social rate of time preference.”

Safety benefits can occur at any time during the vehicle's lifetime. For this analysis, the

agency assumes that the distribution of weighted yearly vehicle miles traveled is an

appropriate proxy measure for the distribution of such crashes over the vehicle's lifetime.

This measure takes into account both vehicle survival rates and changes over time in

annual average vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Multiplying the percent of a vehicle's

total lifetime mileage that occurs in each year by the discount factor and summing these

percentages over the years of the vehicle's operating life, results in a factor of 0.7858 for

60

Lind, R.C., "A Primer on the Major Issues Relating to the Discount Rate for Evaluating National Energy

Options," in Discounting for Time and Risks in Energy Policy, 1982, (Washington, D.C., Resources for the

Future, Inc.).

61

J. Kolb and J.D. Sheraga, "A Suggested Approach for Discounting the Benefits and Costs of

Environmental Regulations,: unpublished working papers.

62

Moore, M.J. and Viscusi, W.K., "Discounting Environmental Health Risks: New Evidence and Policy

Implications," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, V. 18, No. 2, March 1990, part 2 of

2.

91

large buses under a 3 percent discounted rate. For the 7 percent discounted rate, these

factors are 0.5999 for large buses.

In order to develop the discount factors in Table IX-2, the following steps were taken,

using the following factors. From the “Motorcoach Census 2008”, page 9, an average

mileage per motorcoach was obtained. The Census determined the average mileage by

summing the number of large buses and the total route mileage for those coaches (1.88

billion), to determine that the average motorcoach drives 56,000 miles per year. Based

on the Census, there are average sales of approximately 2,000 coaches per year, and a

fleet of 33,536. This would not include the body on frame large buses. Since many

instances the motorcoach engine is replaced after approximately 20 years, some longer,

we calculated the average life of a motorcoach was 23 years63

. The 23 years number was

derived by using the survivability (Column two Table IX-2) of heavy trucks as a proxy

for large buses. Heavy trucks survivability was used because there is none available for

large buses. We assumed that the average mileage per motorcoach would decrease by a

small percentage (2%) per year by age of the bus. This assumption tries to take into

account that as large buses get older, they are more likely to have mechanical problems

that would keep them from full duties. Similar decreases in annual miles driven by age

also occur for passenger cars and light trucks. It also takes into account human nature,

that is when given a chance to drive a new or older bus to an event, most people would

choose the newer bus. In the earlier years the coach is driven more miles and in the later

years the coach is driven less miles. Thus, we determined that an average of 56,000

miles occur in Year 8 of the life of the motorcoach given the survivability of the vehicle

and the total mileage of the fleet.

63

While the bus itself lasts longer and will be sold for other purposes, the decision makers would consider

its life over the 15 years. Theoretically there would be a benefit to society in reducing injuries after the 15

years, but they would add little to the analysis due to the heavy discounting in later years.

92

Table IX-2

Estimated Large Bus Mileage per Year

And Discount Rates for 3% and 7%

Year

No. of vehicles manufactured each year

% Survival rate, based on heavy trucks

No. of Vehicle. (survived) on the road VMT

weighted VMT (Survival x VMT) total VMT 3%

Weighted VMT w/ 3% 7%

Weighted VMT w/ 7%

1 2000 0.9995 1,999 64,901 64,868 129,736,580 0.9853 0.0701 0.9667 0.0688 2 2000 0.9985 1,997 63,628 63,533 127,065,469 0.9566 0.0667 0.9035 0.0630 3 2000 0.9953 1,991 62,381 62,087 124,174,753 0.9288 0.0633 0.8444 0.0575 4 2000 0.9874 1,975 61,157 60,387 120,773,667 0.9017 0.0597 0.7891 0.0523 5 2000 0.9747 1,949 59,958 58,441 116,882,616 0.8755 0.0561 0.7375 0.0473 6 2000 0.9574 1,915 58,783 56,278 112,556,922 0.8500 0.0525 0.6893 0.0425 7 2000 0.9354 1,871 57,630 53,907 107,814,204 0.8252 0.0488 0.6442 0.0381 8 2000 0.9092 1,818 56,500 51,370 102,739,600 0.8012 0.0451 0.6020 0.0339 9 2000 0.8790 1,758 55,370 48,670 97,340,460 0.7778 0.0415 0.5626 0.0300

10 2000 0.8453 1,691 54,263 45,868 91,736,352 0.7552 0.0380 0.5258 0.0265 11 2000 0.8083 1,617 53,177 42,983 85,966,501 0.7332 0.0346 0.4914 0.0232 12 2000 0.7687 1,537 52,114 40,060 80,119,758 0.7118 0.0313 0.4593 0.0202 13 2000 0.7270 1,454 51,072 37,129 74,257,997 0.6911 0.0281 0.4292 0.0175 14 2000 0.6836 1,367 50,050 34,214 68,428,489 0.6710 0.0252 0.4012 0.0151 15 2000 0.6392 1,278 49,049 31,352 62,704,360 0.6514 0.0224 0.3749 0.0129 16 2000 0.5942 1,188 48,068 28,562 57,124,143 0.6324 0.0198 0.3504 0.0110 17 2000 0.5491 1,098 47,107 25,866 51,732,631 0.6140 0.0174 0.3275 0.0093 18 2000 0.5045 1,009 46,165 23,290 46,580,095 0.5961 0.0152 0.3060 0.0078 19 2000 0.4608 922 45,241 20,847 41,694,402 0.5788 0.0132 0.2860 0.0065 20 2000 0.4183 837 44,336 18,546 37,091,912 0.5619 0.0114 0.2673 0.0054 21 2000 0.3774 755 43,450 16,398 32,795,883 0.5456 0.0098 0.2498 0.0045 22 2000 0.3385 677 42,581 14,414 28,827,181 0.5297 0.0084 0.2335 0.0037 23 2000 0.3017 603 41,729 12,590 25,179,372 0.5142 0.0071 0.2182 0.0030

33,306 1,208,709 911,662 1,823,323,347 0.7858 0.5999

Multiplying the percent of a vehicle's total lifetime mileage that occurs in each year by

the discount factor and summing these percentages over the 23 large buses years of the

vehicle's operating life, results in the following multipliers for the average of large buses

as shown in Table IX-3.

Table IX-3

Discounting Multipliers

3 Percent 7 Percent

Large buses 0.7858 0.5999

The discount multipliers in Table IX-3 are multiplied by the equivalent life saved (ELS)

to determine their present value. The discounted ELS are shown in Table IX-4.

93

Table IX-4a

Cost per Equivalent Life Saved

Covered Large Bus Lap/Shoulder Belts

(Discounted at 3%)

Total Cost Equivalent Lives

Saved

Cost per

Equivalent Life

Saved ($Millions)

Usage Drivers Range

from 50-83% use

Passengers from

15-83% use

Drivers Range

from 50-83% use

Passengers from

15-83% use

Large Bus - Driver $16,600 0.38 – 2.22 0.04 – 0.01

Large Bus Weighted

45/54 Passengers

$6,975,000 4.15 – 22.95 1.7 – 0.3

Total Large Bus -

Driver and

Passenger

$6,992,000 4.53 – 25.17 1.5 – 0.3

Table IX-4b



(Discounted at 7%)


Saved

Cost per

Equivalent Life

Saved ($Millions)

Usage Drivers Range

from 50-83% use

Passengers from

15-83% use

Drivers Range

from 50-83% use

Passengers from

15-83% use

Large Bus - Driver $16,600 0.29 – 1.70 0.02 – 0.01

Large Bus Weighted

45/54 Passengers

$6,353,000 3.17 – 17.52 2.0 – 0.4

Total Large Bus -

Driver and

Passenger

$6,370,000 3.46 – 19.21 1.8 – 0.3

94

Table IX-5


Large Bus Passenger Lap Belts


Saved

Cost per

Equivalent Life

Saved ($Millions)

Usage Passengers from

5-73% use

Passengers from

5-73% use

3% Discount Rate

Large Bus

Weighted 45/54

Passengers

$3,046,000 1.09 – 15.94 2.8 – 0.2

7% Discount Rate

Large Bus

Weighted 45/54

Passengers

$2,629,000 0.83 – 12.87 3.2 – 0.2

Table IX-6a


Mid-Size Bus Lap/Shoulder Belts

(Discounted at 3%)


Saved

Cost per

Equivalent Life

Saved ($Millions)

Usage Drivers Range

from 50-83% use

Passengers from

15-83% use

Drivers Range

from 50-83% use

Passengers from

15-83% use

Mid-Size Bus

Driver

$110,000 0.05 – 0.42 2.3 – 0.3

Mid-Size Bus

24 Passengers

$20,730,000 0.83 – 4.53 25.1 – 4.6

Total Mid-Size Bus

Driver and

Passenger

$20,841,000 0.87 – 4.96 23.9 – 4.2

95

Table IX-6b



(Discounted at 7%)


Saved

Cost per

Equivalent Life

Saved ($Millions)

Usage Drivers Range

from 50-83% use

Passengers from

15-83% use

Drivers Range

from 50-83% use

Passengers from

15-83% use

Mid-Size Bus

Driver

$110,000 0.04 – 0.32 3.1 – 0.3

Mid-Size Bus

24 Passengers

$18,881,000 0.63 – 3.46 30.0 – 5.5

Total Mid-Size Bus

Driver and

Passenger

$18,991,000 0.67 – 3.79 28.5 – 5.0

Table IX-7


Mid-Size Bus Passenger Lap Belts


Saved

Cost per

Equivalent Life

Saved ($Millions)

Usage Passengers from

5-73% use

Passengers from

5-73% use

3% Discount Rate

Mid-Size Bus

24 Passengers

$5,155,000 0.21 – 3.11 24.3 – 1.7

7% Discount Rate

Mid-Size Bus

24 Passengers

$4,969,000 0.16 – 2.38 30.7 – 2.1

96

Table IX-8


Transit Bus Driver Lap/Shoulder Belts


Saved

Cost per

Equivalent Life

Saved ($Millions)

Usage Drivers from 50-

83% use

Drivers from 50-

83% use

3% Discount Rate

Transit Bus Drivers $30,000 0.05 – 0.67 0.6 – 0.05

7% Discount Rate

Transit Bus Drivers $30,000 0.04 – 0.51 0.8 – 0.06

97

X. Benefit-Cost Analysis

This chapter provides a benefit cost analysis for this final rule, pursuant to E.O. 12866,

E.O. 13563, and OMB Circular A-4.

Fatality and Injury Prevented Benefits:

In order to provide a true benefit cost analysis, benefits (equivalent lives saved) must be

monetized. Comprehensive costs which include both economic impacts and lost quality

(or value) are used in the cost-effectiveness and net benefit analyses. The agency

develops the comprehensive costs for fatalities and MAIS injuries periodically by

thoroughly surveying all cost components that are associated with automobile accidents.

Cost components include costs for medical care, emergency service (EMS), market

productivity, household productivity, insurance administration, workplace loss, legal

costs, travel delay, property damage, and lost quality of life (QALYs). The most recent

estimates were developed in 200064

. Table X-1 shows estimated costs by injury severity

levels for both crash avoidance and crashworthiness countermeasures. The difference

between these two sets of costs is that travel delay and property damage costs which were

typically associated with crash avoidance countermeasures were excluded from the costs

for crashworthiness countermeasures.

Table X-1

Comprehensive Costs

(2000 $)

Injury Severity Comprehensive Cost

(for Crash Avoidance)

Comprehensive Cost*

(for Crashworthiness)

MAIS 1 $15,017 $10,396

MAIS 2 $157,958 $153,157

MAIS 3 $314,204 $306,465

MAIS 4 $731,580 $720,747

MAIS 5 $2,402,997 $2,384,403

Fatality $3,366,388 $3,346,966

Source: Table VIII-9 of “The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2000”

* Excluding traffic delay and property damage

In the 2002 report, the comprehensive costs were derived using an earlier DOT guideline

on the value of a statistical life (VSL) of $3.0 million. In 2007, the DOT revised this

guideline and raised the VSL from $3.0 million to $5.8 million. In 2009, the DOT

revised the VSL again to $6.0 million. VSL includes QALYs, household productivity,

and the after-tax portion of market productivity. In response to the new guideline, the

agency needs to revise all relative costs for non-fatal MAIS injuries. Currently, the

agency is conducting research to estimate the relative values for injuries. The revised

64

Blincoe, L., et al., The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2000, Washington, DC, DOT HS 809

446, May 2002.

98

estimates will be published when they become available. In the interim, the agency has

adjusted the unit comprehensive costs first by adjusting each of the cost components to

the 2008 value using an appropriate consumer price index. Then, QALYs for MAIS

injuries were adjusted further to reflect the revised VSL but the relative injury-to-fatal

ratios of QALYs were maintained as estimated in the 2000 report. Table X-2 shows the

adjusted unit cost estimates in 2008 values by cost category. As shown, the revised

comprehensive cost for a fatality is now estimated to be $6.34 million for crash

avoidance countermeasures and $6.31 million for crashworthiness countermeasures. The

QALYs for a fatality is estimated to be $5.1 million. QALYs for MAIS injuries were

derived by applying QALY injury-to-fatal ratios published in the 2000 report to the $5.1

million. The relative injury/fatal ratios under “comprehensive cost” are used to derive

fatal equivalents for benefits accrued from crash avoidance countermeasures and ratios

under “injury comprehensive cost” are used for crashworthiness countermeasures.

99

Table X-2

Unit Costs Reflecting the $6.0 Million Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) and

$6.3 million Comprehensive Costs

(2008 $)

CPI Cost Item MAIS 1 MAIS 2 MAIS 3 MAIS 4 MAIS 5 Fatal

1.395955 Medical $3,322 $21,812 $64,905 $183,297 $464,095 $30,844

1.250308 EMS $121 $265 $460 $1,038 $1,065 $1,042

1.309809 Market Productivity $2,291 $32,767 $93,591 $139,415 $574,620 $779,805

1.309809 Household Product. $749 $9,590 $27,604 $36,686 $195,565 $250,882

1.250308 Insurance. Admin. $926 $8,638 $23,622 $40,429 $85,267 $46,411

1.309809 Workplace Cost $330 $2,558 $5,588 $6,153 $10,729 $11,398

1.250308 Legal Costs $188 $6,228 $19,765 $42,117 $99,845 $127,704

1.309809 Travel Delay $1,018 $1,108 $1,231 $1,308 $11,982 $11,982

1.250308 Property Damage $4,806 $4,944 $8,501 $12,294 $11,810 $12,844 1.309809 QALYs $9,448 $193,276 $271,680 $813,183 $2,771,438 $5,066,789

Revised Comprehensive Costs $23,199 $281,186 $516,947 $1,275,920 $4,226,416 $6,339,701

Injury Subtotal* $17,375 $275,134 $507,215 $1,262,318 $4,202,624 $6,314,875

Relative Injury-To-Fatal Ratios

QALYs 0.0019 0.0381 0.0536 0.1605 0.5470 1.0000

Comprehensive Cost 0.0037 0.0444 0.0815 0.2013 0.6667 1.0000

Injury Comprehensive Cost* 0.0028 0.0436 0.0803 0.1999 0.6655 1.0000

QALYs: Quality-Adjusted Life Years

* Excluding travel delay and property damage and specifically used for crashworthiness

countermeasures

Note that the $6.3 million (in 2008 dollars) value of a statistical life contains elements

found in three of the factors in the above table (QALY’s, household productivity, and the

after-tax portion of market productivity). The value of statistical life is thus represented

within these three factors and is not shown separately. For this analysis, we will use the

comprehensive relative costs for crashworthiness, the relative costs are similar to a

crashworthiness countermeasure.

The cost-effectiveness estimate measures the cost per equivalent life saved (i.e., per

equivalent fatality), while the benefit-cost estimate measures the net benefit which is the

difference between benefits and net costs in monetary values. Injury benefits are

expressed in fatal equivalents in the cost-effectiveness analysis and are further translated

into monetary value in the benefit-cost analysis. Fatal equivalents represent the savings

throughout the vehicle life and are discounted to reflect their present values.

When accounting for the benefits of safety measures, cost savings not included in value

of life measurements must also be accounted for. Value of life measurements inherently

include a value for lost quality of life plus a valuation of lost material consumption that is

represented by measuring consumer’s after-tax lost productivity. In addition to these

factors, preventing a motor vehicle fatality will reduce costs for medical care, emergency

services, insurance administrative costs, workplace costs, and legal costs. If the

countermeasure is one that also prevents a crash from occurring, property damage and

100

travel delay would be prevented as well. The sum of both value of life and economic cost

impacts is referred to as the comprehensive cost savings from reducing fatalities.

The countermeasures that result from FMVSS No. 208 and 210, affect vehicle

crashworthiness and would thus not involve property damage or travel delay. Therefore,

the comprehensive cost savings from preventing a fatality for crashworthiness

countermeasures is $6.34 in 2008 economics. The basis for the benefit-cost analyses will

thus be $6.3 million.

For example, if 83 percent belt use is assumed, multiplying the value of life by the

equivalent lives saved derives the total benefits from injuries and fatalities reduced.

Subtracting total net costs from the total benefits derives the net benefits.

The results for each scenario are summarized in Table X-2. Positive Net Benefits

indicate that Benefits valued at $6.3 million per equivalent life are higher than Net Costs.

Negative Net Benefits indicate that Benefits valued at $6.3 million per equivalent life are

lower than Net Costs.

Table X-3a

Net Benefits with a Value of $6.3M per Statistical Life


(Millions of 2008 Dollars)

(Discounted at 3%)

Usage Drivers Use at

50%

Passengers Use at

15%

Drivers Use at

83%

Passengers Use at

83%

Large Bus - Driver $2.4 $14.0

Large Bus

Weighted 45/54

Passengers

$19.1 $137.6

Total Large Bus -

Driver and

Passenger

$21.5 $151.6

101

Table X-3b




(Discounted at 7%)


50%

Passengers Use at

15%

Drivers Use at

83%

Passengers Use at

83%

Large Bus - Driver $1.8 $10.7

Large Bus

Weighted 45/54

Passengers

$13.6 $104.0

Total Large Bus

Driver and

Passenger

$15.4 $114.7

Table X-4


Large Bus Lap Belts


Usage Passengers Use at

5%

Passengers Use at

73%

Discounted at 3%

Large Bus Weighted

45/54 Passengers

$3.8 $97.4

Discounted at 7%

Large Bus Weighted

45/54 Passengers

$3.8 $97.4

102

Table X-5a




(Discounted at 3%)


50%

Passengers Use at

15%

Drivers Use at

83%

Passengers Use at

83%

Mid-Size Bus

Driver

$0.2 $2.6

Mid-Size Bus

Passengers

($15.6) $7.8

Total Mid-Size Bus

Driver and

Passenger

($15.3) $10.4

Table X-5b




(Discounted at 7%)


50%

Passengers Use at

15%

Drivers Use at

83%

Passengers Use at

83%

Mid-Size Bus

Driver

$0.1 $1.9

Mid-Size Bus

Passengers

($14.9) $2.9

Total Mid-Size Bus

Driver and

Passenger

($14.8) $4.9

103

Table X-6


Mid-Size Bus Lap Belts


Usage Passengers Use at

5%

Passengers Use at

73%

Discounted at 3%

Mid-Size Bus

Passengers

($3.8) $14.4

Discounted at 7%

Mid-Size Bus

Passengers

($3.9) $10.0

Table X-7

Breakeven Point Analysis in Belt Usage for

Large and Mid-Size Bus Passengers

Discounted @ 3% Discounted @ 7%

Large Bus

Lap/Shoulder Belt

4% 5%

Large Bus

Lap Belt

2% 3%

Mid-Size Bus

Lap/Shoulder Belt

60% 71%

Mid-Size Bus

Lap Belt

19% 24%

With an estimated breakeven point of 4-5 percent for lap/shoulder belts and 2-3 percent

for lap belts, the difference in use between the two types of belts systems becomes very

important. The agency has found in the rear seat of passenger cars that lap/shoulder belt

usage was 10 percentage points higher than lap belts. Assuming this would apply to large

buses, lap/shoulder belts would be more cost effective since the difference in breakeven

points is only 2 percentage points.

104

XI. ALTERNATIVES The Alternative of Lap Belts

MAP-21 requires a regulation for lap/shoulder belts at each designated seating position

on motorcoaches (over-the-road buses). A lap belt requirement would not satisfy this

mandate.

For buses with a GVWR greater than 26,000 lb other than over-the-road buses, NHTSA

has applied this final rule to those buses in accordance with the National Traffic and

Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We reviewed the underlying chassis structure of high-

occupancy vehicles involved in fatal crashes. Some had a monocoque65

structure with a

luggage compartment under the elevated passenger deck (“over-the-road buses”).

However, an elevated passenger deck over a baggage compartment was not an element

common to the buses involved in fatal intercity transport. In FARS data for buses with a

GVWR greater than 26,000 lb, 36 percent of the fatalities were in the other bus and

unknown bus categories, i.e., not in the over-the-road bus category. Some buses were

built using body-on-chassis configurations. We believe that body-on-chassis

configurations are newer entrants into the motorcoach services market. They appear to

be increasing in number. The agency has determined that it would be unreasonable to

exclude from this final rule a growing segment of buses that are associated with an

unacceptable safety risk that are used as motorcoaches, simply because the buses do not

look like the traditional motorcoach.

The agency examined the alternative of a lap belt only requirement instead of

lap/shoulder belts for buses other than over-the-road buses and determined that a lap belt

only requirement cannot be supported.

Real world data on light vehicles and sled testing with motorcoach seats both show that

lap/shoulder belts are more effective than lap belts in reducing injuries and fatalities.

This is particularly true in frontal impacts. See Table VII-1a versus VII-1b.

Testing done in NHTSA’s motorcoach test program found that lap/shoulder belts in

forward-facing seats prevented elevated head and neck injury values and provided

enhanced occupant protection compared to lap belts. In the VRTC full-scale motorcoach

crash, the lap/shoulder-belted dummies exhibited the lowest injury measures and

improved kinematics, with low head and neck injury measures and little movement

outside the seating area, compared to the lap-belted dummies and unbelted dummies.

In the VRTC sled tests of lap/shoulder-belted dummies—

• Average HIC and Nij values were low for all dummy sizes and below those

seen in unbelted and lap-belted sled tests. This was consistent with the lap/shoulder belt

results from the full scale crash test.

65

Monocoque means a type of vehicular construction in which the body is combined with the chassis as a

single unit.

105

• Lap/shoulder belts retained the dummies in their seating positions and were able

to mitigate head contact with the seat in front.

• When lap/shoulder-belted dummies were subject to loading (of their seats) by

an aft unbelted dummy, there was additional forward excursion of the lap/shoulder-belted

dummies, but the resulting average head injury measures were still relatively low in most

cases, even with head contact with the seat in front in some cases.

On the other hand, VRTC sled tests of lap belted dummies in frontal impacts showed

much higher dummy measurements (both head and neck) than unbelted dummies.

Further, the data lead NHTSA to believe that certain types of injuries would be far more

severe if passenger seats only were equipped with lap belts, rather than lap/shoulder belts.

In Table V-6 of this FRIA, we highlight the average injury measurements from two sled

tests conducted with lap-belted 5th

percentile adult female and 50th

percentile adult male

dummies. Both tests were conducted with no rear occupants. Table V-6 shows the

average dummy response in the lap belted sled tests. In every instance, the dummies

exceeded the head and neck IARVs when the dummies were lap belted.

In Figure V-17, we compare the average HIC15 and Nij values for the 5th

percentile adult

female and 50th

percentile adult male dummy sizes in the sled testing program, as a

means to compare the relative performance of each restraint strategy (unbelted, lap belts,

and lap/shoulder belts). Figure V-17 shows that the lowest average HIC and Nij values

were associated with the lap/shoulder belt restraint for both dummy sizes. The lower

HIC15 and Nij values for the lap/shoulder restraint condition are consistent with the

dummy kinematics, which indicated that the lap/shoulder belt restraint limited head

contact with the forward seat back, particularly for the 5th

percentile adult female

dummies. In contrast, most of the average injury measures for the lap belt restraint

condition were at or above the IARVs. In the sled tests, lap belts resulted in more

injuries than being unrestrained, while lap/shoulder belts were the most effective restraint

strategy. We also note that abdominal injuries have been shown to be a problem with lap

belts.66

All this information overwhelmingly shows that lap/shoulder belts would provide more

safety benefits to occupants on the affected buses than lap-only belts. Further, data

indicate that motorists are more inclined to use lap/shoulder belts than lap-only belts.

Thus, the agency has adopted a lap/shoulder belt requirement for non-over-the road buses

under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Given the cost estimates and effectiveness estimates assumed in this analysis, the

breakeven point for lap belt use is 2-3 percent and for lap/shoulder belt use is 4-5 percent

(a difference of 2 percentage points). The agency has found that lap/shoulder belt usage

is 10 percentage points higher than lap belt usage in the rear seat of passenger cars.

66

Morgan, June 1999, “Effectiveness of Lap/Shoulder Belts in the Back Outboard Seating Positions,”

Washington, DC, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. In the VRTC test program, we did not

assess the risk of abdominal injuries using the test dummies,

106

Assuming that this relationship would hold for the covered buses, if would appear that

lap/shoulder belts would be more cost effective than lap belts.

Alternative Anchorage Strength Requirements

NHTSA considered international standards for harmonization and other purposes. The

agency reviewed regulations issued by Australia, Japan, and the European community.

We based our regulation on the best available science.67

In Australia, buses with 17 or more seats and with GVWRs greater than or equal to

3,500 kg (7,716 lb) must comply with ADR 68 (Occupant Protection in Buses). The

ADR 68 anchorage test specifies simultaneous application of loading from the belted

occupant, the unbelted occupant in the rear (applied to the seat back), and the inertial seat

loading from a 20 g crash pulse. We estimate that the ADR 68 anchorage test would

result in significantly greater (1.5 times higher) anchorage loads than those measured in

our sled tests. In addition, the maximum deceleration in our 48 km/h (30 mph)

motorcoach crash test was only 13 g compared to the 20 g specified for inertial seat

loading in ADR 68. For these reasons, NHTSA decided not to further consider ADR 68.

NHTSA decided against further consideration of Japan’s regulation because Japan

requires lap belts, and the performance requirements we are seeking are for lap/shoulder

belts.

ECE Requirements

NHTSA has considered the alternative of applying the requirements of ECE R.14 and

ECE R.80 rather than FMVSS No. 210, but has decided against this alternative, as

discussed below. (See also the discussion in the previous section on Weight, supra.)

ECE Regulation No. 14, “Vehicles with Regard to Safety-Belt Anchorages, ISOFIX

Anchorages Systems and ISOFIX Top Tether Anchorages,” applies to M2 and M3

vehicles68

and specifies a static test method to evaluate seat belt and seat anchorage

strength. The ECE R.14 load does not include the load that unbelted occupants aft of the

seat being evaluated (we call this the “target seat”) may impose on the target seat. For

M3 vehicles, ECE R.14 applies a load of 4,500 N to the shoulder belt and 4,500 N to the

lap belt (total of 9,000 N). In addition, for M3 vehicles it also specifies an additional

inertial seat load of 6.6g x the weight of the seat. For M2 seats, it specifies an addition

load of 10g x the weight of the seat.69

67

See §32703(e)(1)(C) of MAP-21. 68

ECE Regulations define the M2 vehicle category as vehicles having more than eight seating positions

and mass not exceeding 5 metric tons (11,023 lbs.). The M3 vehicle category consists of vehicles having

more than eight seating positions and mass exceeding 5 metric tons (11,023 lbs.). 69

Seats designed to meet ECE R.14 for M3 vehicles are referred to in this final rule document as “7 g”

seats and seats designed for M2 vehicles are referred to as “10 g” seats.

107

ECE Regulation No. 80, “Seats of Large Passenger Vehicles and of These Vehicles with

Regard to the Strength of the Seats and Their Anchorages,” applies to M2 and M3

vehicles. The ECE R.80 procedures evaluate the seat back’s strength, energy absorption

capability and impact protection for occupants in the rear seat aft of the target seat and

the target seat’s anchorage strength. The seat back performance is assessed with either a

dynamic or a static test option. The ECE R.80 load does not include the seat belt loads

from the restrained occupant in the target seat, and instead evaluates anchorage

performance in terms of the loading of the seat back from unrestrained occupants in the

rearward row.

The dynamic test option of ECE R.80 loads the seat back with an unrestrained70

50th

percentile male dummy in a 30 – 32 km/h (18.6 – 19.9 mph) delta V, 6.5 – 8.5 average g

pulse. Performance value limits on the injury measures of the dummy are HIC = 500,

chest acceleration = 30 g, femur force = 10,000 N (2,248 lb) and 8,000 N (1,798 lb) for

not more than 20 milliseconds.71

The static test option assesses seat back performance

through a static force-deflection test that applies 5,000 N (1,124 lb) to the seat over a 200

millisecond time period.

I. The agency is adopting FMVSS No. 210 after analyzing the seat belt anchorage

test data obtained in the VRTC motorcoach crash test and sled test program.

Our sled and static testing indicated that ECE R.14/ECE R.80 regulations do not provide

the level of seat belt anchorage strength required for the foreseeable frontal crash

scenario represented by a 48 km/h (30 mph) barrier impact. The static load requirements

for ECE R.14 and ECE R.80 are far below that required to generate the peak seat

anchorage loads that NHTSA measured in its sled tests, which means a seat that

minimally meets the ECE required static loads for M3 vehicles may separate from its

floor anchorages in a crash, especially in a severe frontal crash where tri-loading of the

seat occurs.

We studied five sled tests from the sled test program to determine the loads measured at

the seat belt anchorages.72

These five were selected because they represented demanding

yet potentially common scenarios for the loads we believe will be imparted to seat belt

anchorages during a motorcoach crash. We identified the loads recorded in the sled tests

at the seat anchorage points in the second row target seat, the loads on the lap/shoulder

belts in the target seat in which test dummies were restrained, and the loads to the seat

back of the target seat from the unrestrained dummies in the third (aft) row. We then

70

We note that ECE R.80 also requires testing with a restrained dummy in the rear “auxiliary” seat.

However, this auxiliary seat need not be the same as the forward seat that is the focus of the test. If the test

with the belted dummy in the rear is conducted with the manikin restrained by a 3-point belt and the injury

criteria are not exceeded, the auxiliary seat is considered to have met the requirements relating to the static

test loads and movement of the upper anchorage of ECE R.14. 71

These injury criteria do not match those in FMVSS No. 208 for the 50th

percentile male test dummy,

except for the upper limit on femur force. The chest acceleration limit in FMVSS No. 208 is 60 gs.

FMVSS No. 208 specifies a HIC15 limit of 700. The HIC limit in ECE R.80 does not appear to have a

time limit. 72

For a description of the five sled tests, see 75 FR 50973, col. 2.

108

compared those loads to the loads that seat belt and seat anchorages are required to

withstand under FMVSS No. 210, ECE R.14 and ECE R.80. In that way, we could

determine which performance test best accounted for the loads imparted on the seat belt

anchorages.

Of the five sled tests, the highest total load experienced by the seat anchorages in the

forward direction was 46,570 N (10,469 lb). This load resulted from a test of a 10 g seat

with two 50th

percentile male test dummies restrained with lap/shoulder belts in the

middle row with two unrestrained 50th

percentile male dummies in the rear (aft) row.

Applying a static load of 48,569 N (10,918 lb) (or approximately 24,285 N (5,460 lb) per

seating position) to the seat belt anchorages, using the loading devices and technique

specified in FMVSS No. 210, reproduces the load measured at the seat anchorages in the

sled test.73

FMVSS No. 210 best accounts for the loads imparted on the seat belt anchorages. The

total load on the seat belt anchorages of 48,569 N (10,918 lb) (approximately 24,285 N

(5,460 lb) per seating position) required to generate the same peak total load experienced

in the sled test is only slightly lower than the total forces required by FMVSS No. 210 of

53,380 N (12,000 lb) (or 26,690 N (6,000 lb) per seating position). That is, the highest

total peak dynamic loading recorded by the seat anchorage of the tests (48,569 N) was

about 91 percent of that applied in FMVSS No. 210 (26,690 N (6,000 lb) per seat, or

53,380 N (12,000 lb) for a two-person bench seat). These data indicate that the FMVSS

No. 210 load accounts for seat belt loads generated by a restrained occupant, seat inertia

loads, and loading from unbelted occupants in the rear.

ECE R.14 and ECE R.80 both determine seat belt and seat anchorage strength by

separately considering the loading from the belted occupant in the seat and the loading

due to unrestrained occupants in the rear row. NHTSA believes that the loads specified

in these regulations are not sufficiently high to sustain the combined loads from the

restrained occupant in the seat and rear occupant loading. In the test of the 7 g seat with

restrained 50th

percentile male dummies in the target seat and unrestrained 50th

percentile

male dummies in the rear, we estimated that the total peak load on the anchorages from

the lap/shoulder belts alone for one motorcoach seating position was 11,400 N (2,563 lb)

and that from rear occupant loading was 8,150 N (1,832 lb). The contribution of

anchorage loads in this sled test from the seat belt loading alone was greater than the

9,000 N (2,023 lb) applied by ECE R.14 and the loading from rear occupant loading was

greater than the 5,000 N (1,124 lbs/) applied by ECE R.80. We believe that a seat

manufactured to meet FMVSS No. 210 will be better be able to withstand this tri-loading

on the seat in a severe yet not uncommon bus crash, than a seat that was not

manufactured to account for the rearward loading.

73

This relationship was determined by testing a seat to failure using the loading device specified in FMVSS

No. 210 and measuring the load applied through the seat belt anchorages and the load experienced at the

seat anchorages (in the x-direction). This method was referred to as “Method B” in the NPRM and in

research report DOT HS 811 335, NHTSA’s Motorcoach Safety Research Crash, Sled, and Static Tests,

dated May 2010.

109

There are no adverse consequences associated with applying FMVSS No. 210 to the seat

belt anchorages of the affected vehicles, rather than ECE R.14. As explained below, data

from our testing program indicated that the Amaya 7 g seats we acquired to evaluate in

our testing program were already made to meet the more stringent requirements of

FMVSS No. 210. (See also previous discussion in this FRIA’s discussion of the costs of

this final rule.)

In April 2009, NHTSA tested existing Amaya lap/shoulder belt seat designs to evaluate

FMVSS No. 210 performance. The agency sought to understand the extent to which

changes will be needed to existing 7 g and 10 g seat and seat anchorage designs in order

to meet the performance requirements in FMVSS No. 210. Two static tests were

performed on the seats using a test fixture and the FMVSS No. 210 test method.74

Both

the 7 g and 10 g seats were able to meet the FMVSS No. 210 performance requirements,

which shows not only the practicability of the FMVSS No. 210 requirements with current

designs, but also that meeting FMVSS No. 210 will not adversely affect the weight or

comfort of current “7 g” seats.

We have also compared ECE R.14 and ECR R.80 to FMVSS No. 210 to see if the ECE

regulations offer less costs than FMVSS No. 210. The information from the seat

manufacturers indicate that meeting ECE R.14 and R.80 would not necessarily result in

cost or weight savings. Seat supplier IMMI stated that its own review determined that

meeting ECE R.14 would result in minor material reductions compared to a seat meeting

FMVSS No. 210, resulting in minimal savings per seat assembly. U.S. seat suppliers

C.E. White and IMMI and possibly others already have established their structural

concepts and production to meet FMVSS No. 210. For these reasons, we have decided to

adopt FMVSS No. 210 and not the ECE standards.

74

An additional test was conducted on a 10 g seat because an initial FMVSS No. 210 test was conducted on

a 10 g seat using the same seat mounting rails used during the 7 g seat test. During this 10 g seat test, the

seat failed to meet the FMVSS No. 210 loads. However, we determined that this test should be deemed

invalid because the seat rails were reused. It was unknown to what extent the rails were damaged during

the previous test, thus affecting the results of the subsequent test. The rails were replaced on the test fixture

and a second test using a 10 g rated seat was performed successfully.

110

II. In an effort to quantify a measure of the difference between the ECE loads and

FMVSS No. 210, we converted the force levels required by the two standards to a

gauge of crash severity. We conservatively estimate the ECE standards would

result in at least a 60 percent reduction in the population of fatal motorcoach

crashes protected against.

We have reanalyzed our data in an effort to quantify the effect of the ECE regulations as

compared to FMVSS No. 210. (For M3 vehicles (which includes motorcoaches), ECE

R.14 applies a greater static load to the seat structure than ECE R.80 so we will focus of

ECE R.14.)

The ECE R.14 and FMVSS No. 210 are written in terms of static loads that are applied to

the seat belt anchorages. The ECE R.14 static load is approximately 1/3 of that required

by FMVSS No. 210. If we assume a total seat mass of 40 kg (88.3 lb), the load applied

per seating position by ECE R.14 and FMVSS No. 210 are shown in the table below.

The exact ratio would be 38.7% [10,320/26,688].

Table XI-1

Static Load Comparison

ECE R.14 FMVSS No. 210

Upper anchorages 4,500 N (1,012 lb) 13,345 N (3,000 lb)

Lower anchorages 4,500 N (1,012 lb) 13,345 N (3,000 lb)

Seat Mass inertia 1,320 N (297 lb) = 20

kgx10x6.6

0

Total 10,320 N (2,320 lb) 26,688 N (6,000 lb)

The basis for the ECE R.14 static load as applied to M3 vehicles is unknown. In contrast,

the basis for the agency’s reasons to apply the FMVSS No. 210 to heavy buses is based

on the below analysis.

The agency derived the static load value for the belt anchorages by first crashing a

motorcoach into a rigid barrier at 30 mph (48 km/h). We then replicated the crash pulse

of the motorcoach on a deceleration sled75

(see page 115 of preamble). Next, we set up

sled tests replicating the motorcoach crash. Included was a set-up consisting of two

motorcoach seats, one with two belted crash test dummies in front of the second seat with

two unbelted 50th

percentile male dummies. We found that the FMVSS No. 210 loads

are only about 10% higher than the peak load applied to the anchorage of the seat with

the belted dummies measured dynamically in the sled tests.

75

The motorcoach crash pulse had a peak deceleration of 13 g, peak velocity change (delta-V) of 33 mph

(53.1 km/h), and a duration of more than 500 ms. Due to technical limitations of our sled, we were not able

to match these parameters exactly. The sled pulse had a peak deceleration of 10 g, peak delta-V of 25 mph

(40.2 km/h) and a 225 ms duration. So, in general, it was less severe than the motorcoach pulse.

111

To quantify the difference between the ECE regulations and FMVSS No. 210, we

analyze how the difference would affect occupant protection in real-world crashes. To

understand what the ECE R.14 and FMVSS No. 210 force levels mean in terms of

occupant protection, we converted the force levels required by the standards to a measure

of crash severity.

We used the relationship of F = ma, where:

F = peak applied force, m = affected mass, a = peak vehicle deceleration

Crash Severity Measured by Change in Velocity (delta-V)

When the agency assesses planar (non-rollover) crash severity, we typically use velocity

change (delta-V) as the most relevant metric. Using real-world accident data on the

distribution of frontal crash delta-V, it is possible to estimate the population of crashes

represented by a particular delta-V.

What crash delta-V is represented by the seat anchorage loading applied by FMVSS No.

210? As stated above, the FMVSS No. 210 loads are approximately 10% higher than the

loads measured dynamically in the sled tests. Using the relationship of F = ma, we

assume that to achieve the FMVSS No. 210 belt loading, the peak deceleration would be

1.1 times the sled test peak deceleration. However, what would be the delta-V for the

sled pulse that achieved the FMVSS No. 210 belt loads? As an approximation for this

pulse, we assume that the existing sled pulse is uniformly scaled up by 10 percent. Thus,

the delta-V (area under the deceleration time history) also increases by 10 percent.

Accordingly, we assume that to achieve the FMVSS No. 210 loading under the

occupant loading conditions previously described, the delta-V equals 27.5 mph (44.3

km/h) [1.1 x 25 mph].

What crash delta-V is represented by the seat anchorage loading applied by ECE R.14?

The static load applied by ECE R.14 is 38.7% of the FMVSS No. 210 load. Again, using

the relationship of F = ma, we assume that for a seat belt anchorage to experience loading

equal to 38.7% of the FMVSS No. 210 loads, it would have to be exposed to 38.7% of

the peak deceleration of a bus that had seats which experience the FMVSS No. 210 loads.

Also, just as above, we assume the delta-V can be derived by taking the area under the

deceleration curve that has been scaled down by a factor of 38.7%. Accordingly, we

calculate that the delta-V for the ECE R.14 loading is 10.63 mph (17.1 km/h)[0.387 x

27.5 mph].76

Now that we have estimates of the delta-V values that are represented by FMVSS No.

210 and ECE R.14 static loads, we can compare these values to the distribution of fatal

frontal crashes. Due to the sparseness of heavy bus crashes, there are no data available

76

We recognize that the agency only performed a single crash test of a single motorcoach model to derive

the deceleration pulse used to evaluate anchorage loading. In order to more accurately determine the

various crash pulse shapes and other crash speeds (delta-Vs), multiple tests and varying impacts speeds

would be desirable. However, we believe that the delta-V derived by scaling down the crash test pulse by a

factor of 0.387 provides the upper bound of delta-V of a crash with the appropriate peak deceleration. This

is because we would also expect the crash duration to also be scaled down for a lower speed impact.

112

on the distribution of delta-V for fatal frontal impact crashes. Because of this, we use, as

a surrogate for heavy bus crashes, the distribution of light vehicle frontal crashes with an

unbelted occupant fatality in the rear seat.77

Figure XI-1 and Table XI-2 below show this

distribution.

We can match the delta-V distribution for 27.5 mph and 10.63 mph by interpolation

within the appropriate ranges. A delta-V of 27.5 mph represents a crash population of

79.3% [71.6% + (27.5-25)/5x15.5%]. A delta-V of 10.63 mph represents a crash

population of 19.4% [17.0 + (10.63-10)/5*18.8%]. Thus, the difference in the covered

population of fatal crashes is 59.9% [79.3%-19.4%]. These results are shown in Table

XI-3.

Figure XI-1

77

It is not intuitively obvious if the rear seat light vehicle occupant fatalities over represent lower delta-V

crashes as compared to heavy buses. The reason for the relatively large percentage of fatalities in the 6-10

mph and 11-15 mph ranges is unclear.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51+

Cu

mu

lati

ve D

elt

a-V

Mph Ranges

Population of Fatalities to Rear Unrestrained Light Vehicle Occupants by Delta-V (2000-2011 NASS CDS)

113

Table XI-2

Fatal Unbelted Rear Seat Occupant Light Vehicle Crash Population by Delta-V Ranges

Delta V

MPH Fatalities Percent Cumulative

0-5 0 0.0% 0.0%

6-10 67 17.0% 17.0%

11-15 74 18.8% 35.8%

16-20 53 13.5% 49.2%

21-25 88 22.3% 71.6%

26-30 61 15.5% 87.1%

31-35 28 7.1% 94.2%

36-40 14 3.6% 97.7%

41-45 7 1.8% 99.5%

46-50 0 0.0% 99.5%

51+ 2 0.5% 100.0%

Total 394 100.0%

Table XI-3

Fatal Unbelted Rear Seat Occupant Crash Population at Specific Delta-Vs

Static Requirement Delta-V (mph) Crash Population

FMVSS No. 210 27.5 79.3%

ECE R.14 10.63 19.4%

Difference 59.9%

III. We estimate the differential benefit of FMVSS No. 210 over ECE R.14 for non-

rollover crashes to range at a minimum from 11% - 22% of all fatal benefits

accruing from the rule annually. Additional lives saved and injuries prevented by

FMVSS No. 210 are likely to occur in rollover crashes, but cannot be currently

quantified.

To derive an estimate for the differential benefit of FMVSS No. 210 over ECE R.14, we

will first focus on non-rollover benefits, under the assumption that most of the differential

benefit will accrue from non-rollover crashes. Table XI-4 shows the non-rollover

benefits estimated in the final rule for all heavy buses. The second column in Table XI-4

shows that the total estimated lives saved for the final rule (rollover and non-rollover)

range from 1.7 to 9.2 for assumed passenger belt use rates of 15% and 83%, respectively.

These include drivers and passengers. The lives saved at 50% passenger belt use rate are

simply derived by interpolation between the 15% and 83% values. Subtracting out the

lives saved from rollover crashes, we estimate the non-rollover benefits at 15%, 50% and

83% belt use to be 0.35, 1.1 and 1.84 lives, respectively (see column 3 in Table XI-4).

114

In making the estimate in the previous section that FMVSS No. 210 will be protective in

60% more fatal crashes than ECE R.14, we evaluated the loads applied by each

requirement in the context of the delta-V that is present in fatal crashes. The assumption

that underlays this estimate in the previous section is that the “harm” we are addressing

accrues from a loading case where a seat anchorage is subjected to the combined load of

the belted occupant, the seat mass and an unbelted occupant directly behind. In the

present exercise, we quantify the difference in the population of fatal crashes between the

FMVSS No. 210 and ECE R.14 strength requirements assuming the occupants to the rear

are belted.

As was done in in the section above, we make use of the relationship F = ma. We assume

that when there are no unbelted occupants to load the seat, the acceleration acts only on

the mass of the belted occupant and the seat. Thus, irrespective of the acceleration, the

ratio of loads applied to the seat anchorage between the assumption of having an unbelted

occupant behind (Funbelted) and not having one (Fbelted) is the ratio of the total masses:

Funbelted/Fbelted = (2*moccupant + mseat)/ (moccupant + mseat)

Assuming an occupant mass for a 50th

percentile male dummy of 78 kg (172 lb) and a

seat mass of 20 kg (44 lb), the ratio equals 1.8. So assuming the same acceleration value,

the seat anchorage with the unbelted occupant behind must sustain 1.8 times more force.

We calculated in section II that for the case involving an aft unbelted occupant, a

deceleration pulse of 1.1 times the sled test peak deceleration (asled) generates the FMVSS

No. 210 loads. This is represented as follows.

FFMVSS 210 = 1.1 x Funbelted = 1.1 x 1.8 x Fbelted = 2Fbelted

So the question to be answered is what deceleration (A1) will achieve these same loads

for the belted case. We can write the following equations.

FFMVSS 210 = 2Fbelted = (moccupant + mseat) x A1

2 x (moccupant + mseat) asled = (moccupant + mseat) x A1

2asled = A1

As we did before, we determine the delta-V for this pulse that achieves the FMVSS No.

210 belt loads and find that the delta-V from the original sled pulse is scaled up by a

factor of 2. Accordingly, we find that to achieve the FMVSS No. 210 loading under an

occupant loading condition that does not include a rearward unbelted occupant, the delta-

V equals 50 mph (80.5 km/h) [2 x 25 mph]. Going to Table XI-2, supra, we see that this

represents 100% of all fatal crashes. In other words, seat belt anchorages meeting

FMVSS No. 210 would be strong enough to withstand the forces from the restrained

occupant in 100% of all fatal crashes, if the aft occupant were belted.

115

Now we determine the delta-V for the pulse that achieves the seat anchorage loading

applied by ECE R.14. The static load applied by ECE R.14 is 38.7% of the FMVSS No.

210 load. So we write the following equation.

FFMVSS 210 x 0.387= FR.14 = 1.1 x (2*moccupant + mseat) x asled x 0.387 = (moccupant + mseat) x

A2

1.1 x (2*moccupant + mseat)/ (moccupant + mseat) x asled/0.387 = 1.1 x 1.8 x 0.387 x asled = A2

0.77 asled = A2

As we did before, we determine the delta-V for this pulse that achieves the ECE R.14 belt

loads. The delta-V is the original sled pulse delta-V scaled down by a factor of 0.77.

Accordingly, we assume that to achieve the ECE R.14 loading under an occupant loading

condition that does not include a rearward unbelted occupant, the delta-V equals 19 mph

(30.6 km/h) [0.77 x 25 mph]. Table XI-2, supra, shows that this delta-V represents 44%

of all fatal crashes. Thus, the difference in the covered population of fatal crashes

between FMVSS No. 210 and ECE R.14 when there is not an unbelted occupant

loading from behind is 56% [100% - 44%].

Assuming a full bus, the probability of having an unbelted occupant behind you is a

function of overall belt use.78

Thus the chance of having an unbelted occupant to the rear

is 100 percent minus the percent belt use rate. So at 15%, 50% and 83%, the chance of

having an unbelted occupant to the rear is 85%, 50% and 17%, respectively. To calculate

the difference in non-rollover lives saved between FMVSS No. 210 and ECE R.14, we

multiply the total possible non-rollover lives saved, times the difference in fatal crash

population covered when unbelted occupants are to the rear, times the probability of

having an unbelted occupant to the rear. This is then added to the same calculation

assuming no unbelted occupant to the rear. For example, at the 83% belt use rate the

estimate is 0.9 [1.84x0.6x0.17+1.84x0.56x0.83]. The results for each belt use rate are

given in the last column of Table XI-4. The greatest difference is at the 83% belt use

rate. Compared to the total lives saved by the final rule, having anchorages that meet the

ECE R.14 standard will result in about an 11% decrease in benefits for all three belt use

rates (0.2/1.7, 0.6/5.45 and 1.0/9.2).

78

For simplicity we disregard the fact that the rear rows cannot have an occupant to the rear.

116

Table XI-4

Total Lives Saved, Non-Rollover Lives Saved and Minimum Difference in Non-Rollover

Lives Saved for FMVSS No. 210 Over ECE R.14

Belt

Use

Rate

Total Lives

Saved by

Final Rule

Non-Rollover Lives Saved by

FMVSS No. 210 and Upper

Bound on Difference in Non-

Rollover Lives Saved by

FMVSS No. 210 over ECE R.14

Lower Bound on

Difference in Non-

Rollover Lives Saved by

FMVSS No. 210 Over

ECE R.14

15% 1.7 0.35 0.2

50% 5.45 1.1 0.6

83% 9.2 1.84 1.0

We believe that the differential benefits shown in the fourth column of Table XI-4 are

conservative and represent a lower bound on the difference in frontal benefits. We

believe differences are likely to be greater, as will be explained below.

We believe that it is reasonable to assume the differential benefit for fatal non-rollover

crashes between FMVSS No. 210 and ECE R.14 is represented by the entire non-rollover

fatal benefit at each belt use rate. That is to say, seats just meeting ECE R.14 would

provide little or no benefit in fatal non-rollover crashes.

This is because fatal non-rollover crashes where seat belts would be effective are

relatively severe and would include a significant amount of vehicle crush. We theorize

that once plastic deformation of the vehicle structure begins, the vehicle deceleration will

be such that the force level on the seats will be at the level seen in the motorcoach crash

test performed by the agency. Less severe fatal crashes will simply have shorter

durations and less vehicle crush, rather than lower forces on the seat anchorages. Based

on this theory, we believe the upper bound on fatal non-rollover benefits would be

represented by the third column in Table XI-4.

To summarize the above analysis, assuming a belt use rate of 83%, we have estimated the

differential benefit of FMVSS No. 210 over ECE R.14, for non-rollover fatal benefits, to

be 1 to 2 lives saved annually. This range represents 11% - 22% of the total fatal benefit

for the final rule.

Differential in Moderate to Critical Injuries

The difference in the number of injuries prevented annually is calculated as follows.

Considering the difference in benefits estimated between the FMVSS No. 210 loads

compared to the ECE loads, we assume that the injury benefits for moderate to critical

injuries (MAIS 2-5) will be proportional to the fatality benefits. The difference estimated

is 1-2 more lives saved by the FMVSS No. 210 loads as compared to the ECE loads at

the upper bound of restraint use (83%), where we estimated 9.2 lives could be saved by

restraint use. Based on the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, the estimated MAIS 2-5

injuries reduced at 83% belt use were 322. Thus, per the calculations below, 35 to 70

MAIS 2-5 injuries are estimated to be reduced:

117

1/9.2 lives = .109 * 322 AIS 2-5 injuries = 35 AIS 2-5 injuries

2/9.2 lives = .217 * 322 AIS 2-5 injuries = 70 AIS 2-5 injuries

We assume that there would be little difference for the minor injuries (MAIS 1) because

most minor injuries (where the minor injury is the maximum injury to the occupant)

would occur in lower delta V crashes where the difference in anchorage load strength

between FMVSS No. 210 loads and ECE loads probably would not be important.

Differential in Rollover Benefits

We would like to mention a final point about rollover fatalities. The final rule indicates

that approximately 80% of the fatal benefits are attributed to rollovers.

Although we have not attempted to determine the extent to which some of these rollover

benefits would be lost if the final rule required a lesser requirement than FMVSS No.

210, that should not be interpreted as a tacit affirmation that there would be no loss in

benefits. On the contrary; in rollover testing performed by the agency, seats with

integrated lap/shoulder belts, occupied by 50th

percentile male dummies, completely

detached from the vehicle structure. Although we don’t know the characteristics of these

seats and anchorages with respect to the ECE R.14 load requirements, these results show

that even in rollovers, the kinematics will be severe enough to cause failures in seat

anchorages.

The agency measured the acceleration at the floor level of three motorcoaches that were

rollover tested. As shown in Table XI-5, the acceleration values ranged from 6.0g to

13.7g. We realize that both ECE R.14 and FMVSS No. 210 require the seat anchorage

strength to resist a predominately forward pull, rather than an upward pull that would

occur in these rollover tests. However, making the assumption that the anchorage

strength is similar in all directions, and assuming a 78 kg (172 lb) occupant and a seat

mass of 20 kg (44 lb), the ECE R.14 loads are exceeded at 10.7g’s. Based on these

assumptions, just the rollover kinematics would in some locations exceed the ECE R.14

requirements. Therefore, we caution that with one third the strength level of FMVSS No.

210, seat anchorages meeting ECE R.14 will be much more likely to fail in rollovers than

seats meeting FMVSS No. 210.

Table XI-5

Resultant Acceleration (G’s) at Floor in NHTSA Rollover Testing of Motorcoaches

2000 MCI 102EL3 1992 MCI MC-12 1991 Prevost

LeMirage XL

Front Floor

CL:

10.8 10.6 13.7

Mid Floor

CL:

6.0 7.4 5.6

Rear Floor

CL:

6.9 13.4 6.9

Average: 7.9 10.5 8.7

118

IV. Field Relevance of 30 mph Delta-V for Fatal Heavy Bus Crashes

We have seen above in Section II that we conservatively estimate that FMVSS No. 210

protects belted passengers in frontal crashes with delta-Vs up to 27.5 mph when there are

unbelted occupants behind them. An important follow-on question is: are heavy buses

involved in crashes of this severity? Our analysis says yes.

Table XI-6 below can be found on page 126 of the final rule. It contains information

about frontal crashes of motorcoaches investigated by NTSB. In the footnote in the final

rule describing this table we state that the investigation of these crashes provided crash

speed, which, while typically not the same as a barrier impact speed, were double to 2½

times the barrier crash speed of 48 km/h (30 mph). We also state that depending on the

object struck, this suggests a crash severity--as represented by delta-V--similar to or

greater than the 48 km/h (30 mph) barrier impact.

In addition, as part of this effort to determine the relevance of protecting motorcoach

occupants in frontal delta-V crashes of 27.5 mph, we further analyzed the crash severity

(delta-V) of these NTSB-investigated crashes. Table XI-7 provides more detail about the

motorcoach in each crash (except New Orleans 199979

) and estimates the bus GVWR and

struck object mass. These two parameters, in combination with the estimate of the crash

speed, allow for an estimate of delta-V using the equation for conservation of

momentum.80

The GVWRs of the motorcoaches were not available from the NTSB reports. However,

the reports had information on occupant capacity, and in some cases, the length of the

vehicle. From this information, we determined that the largest motorcoach was an MCI

102 DL-3 in the Osseo crash. Based on our knowledge of similar motorcoaches, we

estimate this bus to have a GVWR of about 50,000 lb. The remainder of the buses

represented in Table XI-7 had fewer than 50 passenger capacity and were more typical of

buses having a GVWR of about 40,000 lb.

We estimated the struck masses as follows. The Osseo 2005 crash report estimated the

mass of the overturned semitrailer to be a combination of the 21,440 lb empty trailer and

a 23,200 lb load. The Tallaulah 2003 crash report made no estimate of the truck tractor

and trailer combination. However, it did report the load as unginned cotton. We

assumed a tractor mass of 20,000 lb and an empty trailer mass of 20,000 lb. We did not

add any additional weight for the cotton. The Loraine 2002 crash report estimated the

combined tractor and trailer weight as 40,710 lb. Finally, the Burnt Cabin 1998 crash

report did not estimate the tractor and trailer weight. We made the same assumptions as

we did for the Tallulah crash.

79

The delta-V of the New Orleans 1999 crash was not estimated since it went off the road and impacted a

dirt embankment. 80

Conservation of momentum for a completely inelastic collision can be expressed as: m1*v1 + m2*v2 =

(m1 + m2)*V. In this case v2 represents the speed of the struck object and is assumed to be zero. We also

assume that the combined mass slides along on a frictionless surface after the crash. Thus, the initial post-

crash velocity quickly decays on an actual road surface.

119

Figures XI-2 to XI– 5 show images of each of the NTSB investigated crashes. They are

all frontal crashes into semitrailers. All crashes are into the rear of the trailer, except for

the Osseo crash. For all except the Osseo crash, the mass of both the trailer and tractor

interact with the motorcoach in producing the delta-V. We did not estimate the delta-V

of the New Orleans 1999 crash because it went off road and impacted a dirt embankment.

Figure XI-6 is provided for comparative reference and shows the post-impact image of

the motorcoach subjected to the 30 mph full frontal barrier crash test by NHTSA. It is a

54 passenger MCI 102 DL-3 motorcoach built in 2000.

Figure XI-7 shows several photographs of a March 2012 crash of a Van Hool motorcoach

head-on into a tunnel wall in the Swiss Alps on a highway with a 62 mph (100 km/h)

speed limit. All of the occupants of the bus were reportedly wearing seat belts. Out of

the 52 passengers on the bus, a reported 28 people were killed (22 of the killed were 11

and 12 year old students), and 24 were hospitalized.

Table XI-7 shows that all of the estimated delta-V ranges are at or above 30 mph, except

for the Loraine crash, which was nearly at 30 mph. We also note that “GVWR” refers to

a fully loaded motorcoach. The Tallulah and Burnt Cabin motorcoaches were less than

half full of passengers, which would have lessened their weight by several thousand

pounds and increased their crash delta-V. We have very little detail on the bus involved

in the Swiss crash. However, since it impacted a rigid barrier, the delta-V is equal to the

assumed impact speed of 62 mph. The crash severity (delta-V) of all of the NTSB

investigated crashes was at the level of FMVSS No. 210 and grossly surpassed the

level of protection provided by ECE R.14.

120

Table XI-6

Examples of Frontal Motorcoach Crashes Investigated by the NTSB Involving Impact

Velocities Well in Excess of the NHTSA 48 km/h (30 mph) Barrier Crash Test

Incident Total

Occupants

Injury Severity† Approximate Impact

Velocity Fatal Serious Minor None

Osseo 2005 45 5 (inc.

driver)

5 30 5 102 - 126 km/h (64 -

78 mph)

Tallulah 2003 15 8 7 (inc.

driver)‡

0 0 97 – 105 km/h (60 -

65 mph)

Loraine 2002 38 3 6 (inc.

driver)

24 5 77 – 89 km/h (48 - 55

mph)

New Orleans

1999

44 22 16 6 0 93 km/h (58 mph)

Burnt Cabins

1998

23 7 (inc.

driver)

1 15 0 97 – 105 km/h (60 to

65 mph)

Table XI-7

Additional Motorcoach and Struck Object Information

Incident Model Year Capacity Length Approximate

GVWR of

Bus

Estimated

Weight of

Struck Object

Delta-V

Estimate

Osseo 2005 MCI 102

DL-3

1993 55 45 ft. 50,000 lb 44,640 lb 30.2-41.2

mph

Tallulah

2003

Neoplan

USA Corp.

1992 49 40 ft. 40,000 lb ≈ 40,000 lb 30.0-32.5

mph

Loraine 2002 MCI MC-

12

1993 47 No Data 40,000 lb 40,710 lb 24.0-27.5

mph

Burnt Cabins

1998

MCI 1997 47 No Data 40,000 lb ≈ 40,000 lb 30.0-32.5

mph

Sierre,

Switzerland

2012

Van Hool - - - - Rigid Barrier 62 mph

121

Summary

The strength requirements of ECE R.14 and ECE R.80 are approximately 1/3 that of

FMVSS No. 210. A seat meeting the ECE required static loads for M3 vehicles can

separate from its floor anchorages in a 48 km/h (30 mph) frontal crash. Our contacts in

the European governmental automotive safety community could not direct us to, and

were not aware of, any supporting information or data for the development of ECE R.14

or R.80 and any associated cost/benefit analysis.

We reanalyzed our data to try to quantify the difference between the ECE regulations and

FMVSS No. 210. As discussed above, we conservatively estimate the ECE standards

would result in at least a 60% reduction in the population of non-rollover fatal heavy bus

crashes that the final rule (FMVSS No. 210) protected against, in the very likely scenario

of a mix of belted and unbelted occupants.

We determine that this difference in non-rollover protection is estimated to be 56% when

all occupants are assumed to be belted. At the upper range of belt use (83%), we estimate

that this loss of protection would result in at least 1-2 lives lost annually and 35 to 70

more serious-to-critical injuries a year. This range represents 11% - 22% of the total fatal

benefit for the final rule. The percentage difference in fatal benefits remains fairly

constant, regardless of belt use, although the potential benefits decrease with belt use

because the target population decreases. Note that these estimates are conservative in the

sense that we analyzed only non-rollover crashes.

Although we are unable to quantify the potential loss, our rollover test data indicate that

if seat anchorages were only required to meet the ECE regulations even more lives and

injuries would be lost in rollover crashes.

We demonstrate that the seat anchorage strength required by FMVSS No. 210 is field

relevant, as is obvious from multiple frontal crashes investigated by NTSB and the Sierre

crash.

Given the preceding analysis we believe it is important to emphasize that the agency has

determined that there are no cost savings associated with the ECE regulations. Seat

manufacturers commenting on the NPRM indicate that meeting the ECE regulations

would not necessarily result in cost or weight savings. Seat supplier IMMI stated that its

own review determined that meeting ECE R.14 would result in minor material reductions

compared to a seat meeting FMVSS No. 210, resulting in minimal savings per seat

assembly. The arguments made by certain European bus manufacturers that there are

significant cost differences are also based upon a comparison between a low-end

European seat and a high-end 210-compliant seat, which tells nothing about the costs of

minimal compliance.

In conclusion, we estimate that adopting the ECE regulations instead of FMVSS No. 210

would result in a substantial reduction of protection of fatal heavy bus crashes, with

122

quantified loss of life and serious to critical injuries, without a cost savings. The “best

available science”81

supports adopting FMVSS No. 210.

Figure XI-2 – Osseo 2005

81

The regulation requiring seat belts on motorcoaches shall “be based on the best available science.”

MAP-21, §32703(e)(1)(C).

123

Figure XI-3 – Tallulah 2003

124

Figure XI-4 – Loraine 2002

125

Figure XI-5 – Burnt Cabin 1998

126

Figure XI-6 – 2000 MCI 102EL3 Bus from NHTSA 30 mph Barrier Crash Test

127

Figure XI-7 – March 2012 Crash of a Van Hool Motorcoach that Killed 28 Persons

in Switzerland

128

XII. RETROFITTING

The agency has assessed the feasibility, benefits, and costs of a retrofitting requirement,

consistent with §32703(e)(2) of the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, “Retrofit

Assessment for Existing Motorcoaches.” That section states that “The Secretary may

assess the feasibility, benefits, and costs with respect to the application of any

requirement established under subsection (a) or (b)(2) to motorcoaches manufactured

before the date on which the requirement applies to new motorcoaches under paragraph

(1).” Subsection (a) of §32703 is the provision in the Act that directs the establishment

of the final rule for safety belts on motorcoaches. After considering all available

information, we have decided not to undertake rulemaking on a retrofit requirement for

seat belts.

In the NPRM, we asked for comments on the issue of retrofitting existing (used) buses

with seat belts at passenger seating positions. Our understanding at the time of the

NPRM was that significant strengthening of the motorcoach structure would be needed to

accommodate the additional loading from the seat belts, particularly for the older buses.

It was not apparent that establishing requirements similar to or based on the proposed

requirements would be cost effective, or feasible from an engineering perspective. It was

our impression at the time of the NPRM that the cost of and engineering expertise needed

for a retrofitting operation would be beyond the means of bus owners (for-hire operators),

many of which are small businesses.

The agency estimated in the NPRM that the service life of an affected bus can be 20

years or longer. We estimated that the cost of retrofitting can vary substantially. To

retrofit a vehicle with lap belts, we estimated it could cost between $6,000 (assuming that

the bus structure is lap belt-ready, and can accommodate the loads set forth in the NPRM)

to $34,000 per vehicle to retrofit the vehicle with the lap belts and with sufficient

structure to meet the NPRM’s requirements. To retrofit it with lap/shoulder belts and

reinforced structure so as to meet FMVSS No. 210 to support the loads during a crash, we

estimated it could cost $40,000 per vehicle. The existing fleet size is estimated to be

29,325 buses. Hence, the fleet cost of retrofitting lap belts was estimated to range from

$175,950,000 ($6,000 x 29,325) to $997,050,000 ($34,000 x 29,325), while the fleet cost

of retrofitting lap/shoulder belts was estimated to be $1,173,000,000 ($40,000 x

29,325). These costs did not include increased remaining lifetime fuel costs incurred by

adding structural weight to the bus. Later in the analysis we examine a range of costs and

include the lifetime fuel costs for the weight of the belts themselves. Weight would vary

depending upon the needed structural changes, and lifetime fuel cost would vary

depending upon the age of the vehicle retrofitted.

Comments on Retrofitting Buses

Commenters were sharply divided in their opinion of the merits of a retrofit requirement.

In general, consumer advocate groups strongly supported a retrofit requirement, while

seat suppliers, bus manufacturers, and bus operators strongly opposed a retrofit

requirement as being economically and technically untenable.

129

The following is a detailed summary of the comments.

The Westbrook Families supports a mandatory retrofitting requirement. It commented

that without one it could take up to 20 years or more before all motorcoach models are

equipped with 3-point lap/shoulder seat belts. While acknowledging that for older large

buses, design and cost burdens may necessitate the installation of lap belts rather than 3-

point lap/shoulder belts, the group notes that large buses remain in use for decades. It

said it would be “unfair and unwise” to have a dual system of motorcoach transportation

available to the public -- one offering the protection of seat belts and the other not doing

so.

National Association of Bus Crash Families (NABCF) commented that it is

inconceivable that NHTSA would not require a retrofit program. It noted that the

average life span of large buses could be as long as 23 years before the nation’s

motorcoach fleet achieves adequate protection for all occupants. It urged NHTSA to

require the retrofitting of all existing buses with lap/shoulder belts not more than three

years after January 1, 2011. It said it would support an interim rule allowing buses

manufactured before 2000 that do not meet the structural requirements for lap/shoulder

belts to have lap belts only.

Advocates supports a retrofit requirement for seat belts on existing large buses, but

opposed the approach presented in the NPRM. It urged NHTSA to adopt a retrofit

provision for large buses manufactured more than five years prior to the implementation

date and without an arbitrary cutoff date. It said NHTSA should work with motorcoach

carriers, and especially manufacturers, to determine which existing vehicles require

retrofit before evaluating whether it is feasible to retrofit such vehicles with lap/shoulder

belts. It believes that some makes of large buses could be retrofitted with seat belts at a

reasonable cost, or at least at the lower end of the cost range cited in the NPRM.

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) supports a mandatory retrofit requirement.

SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A and Safe Ride News Publications would like a mandatory retrofit

program for motorcoaches less than ten years old.

IMMI supports the concept of retrofitting but believes NHTSA should not require retrofit

of lap-shoulder belts, but rather establish technical/performance standards/requirements

when a retrofit is determined to be necessary or desirable to fulfill a market driven need.

It added that retrofitted motorcoaches should be made capable of meeting the same

performance standards as newly manufactured motorcoaches. IMMI concurs with the

many practical issues identified by the agency in the NPRM and believes that each

individual bus would have to be evaluated before a retrofit could be accomplished

adequately.

IMMI said that, if NHTSA decides to impose a retrofit requirement, the requirement

should be limited to late model construction motorcoaches. IMMI concurs with the

approach suggested in the NPRM that buses manufactured in the five years prior to the

130

effective date of the rule be required to have lap-shoulder belts by 3 years after the

effective date. It believes that this would alleviate retrofits on older buses that may not

be technically or structurally able to accommodate them. IMMI added that this approach

would also promote the purchase of new motorcoaches equipped with lap-shoulder belts.

IMMI added that any retrofitting requirement should specify lap-shoulder belts only

because NHTSA research strongly suggests they provide the best protection overall.

Before allowing retrofit and use of lap-only belts on motorcoaches, IMMI said it believes

further research by NHTSA is needed to confirm any benefits.

Freedman Seating and ABC would like NHTSA to establish voluntary retrofitting

requirements for motorcoaches. ABC also believes that Federal funding should be made

available for companies to retrofit their motorcoaches. Furthermore, ABC commented

that a definition of retrofit should be developed to ensure that vehicles that have already

been delivered with seat belts or delivered during any transition period are deemed

compliant and not subject to any additional retrofit requirements. ABC added that

retrofitting should occur on the fleet only where it is structurally feasible and that there

should be liability protection for manufacturers and dealerships during any transition

period.

Van Hool said any program to retrofit existing buses would be expensive, face practical

difficulties, and should be voluntary. It noted that there are a variety of different design

standards in older motor coaches. Van Hool believes that under any voluntary retrofit

program, any motorcoach currently equipped with seat belts should be grandfathered, that

compliance with ECE R.14 and R.80 should be permitted as an alternative to applicable

FMVSS standards, and that either two point or three point seat belts should be allowed.

Additionally, Van Hool believes that the agency should make available a funding

mechanism for owners and operators to retrofit existing motorcoaches, to certify retrofits

meet applicable standards, and to provide liability protection for owners/operators,

dealerships, and manufactuers during any transition period.

American Seating does not believe that retrofitting is financially feasible. It added that if

NHTSA decides on a voluntary retrofitting program, the agency should also provide

requirements for the retrofit including limitations on vehicles suitable for retrofit based

on manufacture date.

Peter Pan commented that retrofitting motorcoaches that are less than 5 years old is

expensive and unnecessary and there is no way for the operator to certify that retrofitted

vehicles would meet the government standard. It believes that, if the agency decides to

require retrofits, it should be voluntary and the retrofit requirement should be

implemented in a similar manner as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), where

operators were given 12 years (the average fleet turnover rate) to equip their fleet with

lifts.

The American Bus Association (ABA) commented that in some cases the installation of

seat belts would also require structural reinforcements. In such cases, ABA believes that

the technical and economic challenges to a retrofit requirement would disproportionately

131

affect small businesses. It noted that the vast majority of motorcoach operators

(approximately 80%) are small businesses with less than 10 employees operating fewer

than 7 motorcoaches. It believes that the only way to ensure consistency in the

evaluation and upgrading of in-use motorcoaches to a retroactive manufacturing standard

is to establish Federal specifications and a Federal inspection and evaluation program.

Without Federal grants for motorcoach operators to perform such retrofits, ABA believes

many operators would not be able to finance such vehicle upgrades.

ABA stated that if the agency should decide that retrofits are necessary, a voluntary

retrofit program could potentially be implemented for vehicles that were originally built

to European standards (or to the FMVSS) but that were sold without seat belts. ABA

also believed that NHTSA does not have the authority to impose retroactive, vehicle-

based performance standards.

Prevost supported ABA’s suggested approach on retrofitting and feels that the burden is

mostly on operators. It commented that it would be helpful if NHTSA supported realistic

retrofit solutions and considered that it may take some time.

Setra estimated that the cost of a retrofit requirement for its buses would be on the order

of $85,000 per bus. It commented that retrofitting an existing motorcoach would involve:

removing existing seats; removing the flooring; removal of the engine in order to gain

access to the bus structure at the rear; welding in new frame structure to accommodate

FMVSS No. 210 seat belt requirements; reinstallation of the engine; reinstallation of

removed parts; installation of seats; and verification of compliance critical elements to

meet the FMVSS standards. It said this level of investment would cause economic

hardship to motorcoach operators.

IC Bus does not believe a retrofit requirement is financially feasible.

Turtle Top does not believe retrofitting is possible without a structural assessment of each

bus and extensive work. It does not support any retrofit requirement.

Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (AORC) recommended a study on the

cost/benefit of rollover curtains as an alternative to retrofitting motorcoaches with seat

belts. It does not believe retrofitting motorcoaches with seat belts would be effective. It

noted that deployable curtains would prevent the ejection of occupants and would require

less retrofit to vehicles.

Twenty-seven (27) operators submitted identical form letters commenting that any

retrofit requirement would either put their company out of business or severely restrict

their operations.

Several operators82

commented that they do not have the technical capacity to test

vehicles to ensure that they would comply with any new performance requirements and

82

Rockport tours, Black Hills & Western tours dbaGray line of the Black Hills, Chicago Sightseeing, All-

ways Trans Plus, Black Tye Limousines / Safety Coach Lines Ltd , Rills Bus Service, Sun Travel

132

no way to ensure or certify that their vehicles, once equipped with seat belts, would meet

the government standards. These motorcoach operators believe that since they cannot

retrofit their motorcoaches they would be forced to replace their current fleet with new

motorcoaches, and concurrently their existing fleets would be severely devalued, which

would put them out of business.

Arrow Coach Lines commented that retrofitting used motorcoaches with seat belts would

be difficult since buses in the fleet will have different levels of deterioration. It stated that

regulatory body or efficient process exists to determine what buses could be retrofitted.

The cost of retrofitting will also be very high and could result in safety compromises.

Chicago Sightseeing Company does not support any type of retrofitting for existing

motorcoaches and feels the agency should put wording in the new regulation that

expressly does not encourage installation of seat belts in existing motorcoaches. It stated

that any type of retrofit should never become the burden of the carrier.

Greyhound commented that any retrofitting should be on a voluntary basis. However, it

added that NHTSA should set a date by which all motorcoaches on the road must have

lap/shoulder belts. Greyhound noted a previous DOT rulemaking83

in which all over-the-

road buses were required to be lift-equipped within 12 years of the effective date.

Greyhound noted that this effective date was chosen because that time frame represents

the average over-the-road bus fleet turnover rate. While Greyhound believes that a

voluntary requirement is the best approach, it also sees merit in the NHTSA proposal to

require all motorcoaches manufactured within five years of the effective date to have

lap/shoulder belts installed. This approach would not require older buses that might not

be able to support lap/shoulder belt loading to have seat belts installed and would

encourage operators to purchase newer motorcoaches with seat belts before the effective

date. It further believes that this approach would limit the economic impact of a retrofit

requirement on smaller businesses. Greyhound commented that it does not believe that

allowing lap belt retrofits is appropriate. It believes that any retrofitted belts must

comply with the same requirements set for originally installed equipment.

Coach USA commented that a retrofitting requirement is not technically practical or

economical due to the various designs of motorcoaches over the years. It added that

retrofitting may not even be possible in some older vehicles. The structure of older

vehicles may not be able to support the necessary modifications and, without standards to

ensure that the seats and the structure of the motorcoach can withstand the forces

imposed in a crash, could result in additional safety risks. Coach USA further noted that

a retrofit requirement could easily push motorcoaches over the statutory weight limits for

operation on highways.

Trailways, Knoxville Tours, Burke International Tours, IncD & F Travel Inc., Anderson Coach & Travel,

McIlwain Charters and Tours, FBC Travel, Inc, Kelton Tours Unlimited, LLC, Jalbert Leasing, Inc. dba

C& J Lines, River City, LLC, Hagey Coach Inc., Atchison Transportation Services, Bailey Coach, Bus

Supply Charters, Inc., Woodlawn Motor Coach, Inc., Capital Tours, Motorcoach Association of South

Carolina, Academy Express, LLC, Kingsmen Coach Lines, 5 Star Transportation, Royal Charters, Inc.,

McIwain Charters, and Trans-Bridge Lines. 83

37 CFR §37.185

133

Coach USA also commented that if a retrofit requirement were imposed, such a

requirement should allow for compliance with R.14 and R.80 EU standards as

alternatives to the FMVSS standards. It further noted that motorcoaches that already

have seat belts should be exempted.

Coach USA noted that the NPRM does not make clear how retrofitting would occur. It

commented that without guidance, motorcoach operators do not have the technical

capabilities to design and perform the necessary modifications. Manufacturers could

supply kits, but the operators would not be able to properly assess the condition of the

motorcoaches involved and could be reluctant to do so.

Sunshine Travel does not feel retrofits should even be considered because it would not be

cost effective. It also stated that retrofitting has the potential to put smaller companies out

of business.

Star Shuttle and Charter commented that a retrofit requirement would put them out of

business and reduce the value of their existing fleet. They requested that the agency

establish a multi-year grant program, whereby operators could obtain funding for

retrofitting or acquisition of new seat belt equipped coaches.

Plymouth & Brockton Street Railway Company expressed concern about the possibility

of having to retrofit its existing buses with seat belts, citing the cost involved. It noted

that in many cases the cost to retrofit buses would exceed the resale value of the buses

involved. The company said a retrofitting requirement would put it in the position of

having to buy all new buses or simply being unable to use the buses it already owns. It

urged NHTSA to require seat belts in new buses but let the natural process of vehicle

attrition allow companies to fully comply with the regulation over time.

Fabulous Coach Lines commented that retrofitting older coaches with seat belts would be

extremely costly and create a false sense of security since the after-market seat belts are

not reliable.

United Motorcoach Association (UMA) opposed a retrofit requirement for existing

motorcoaches. It noted that the motorcoach industry is “capital intensive, competitive

and generally a marginally profitable business, at best.” The UMA added that any retrofit

requirement or retrofit standard would likely divert financial resources from other safety

related efforts such as training and maintenance. These efforts are at the core of the

current motorcoach industry safety record, and any diversion of resources could have the

undesirable effect of increasing, rather than decreasing, motorcoach accidents and the

related injuries and fatalities.

The UMA commented that a retrofit requirement would either drive companies out of

business or drive up costs of an already safe mode of transportation, adversely affecting

customers who require economical transportation, such as students and the elderly.

Additionally, the variety of motorcoaches in use will drive the cost of retrofitting these

134

vehicles up, since what is required for each vehicle will depend on factors such as the

original manufacturer and age of the vehicle. The UMA commented that the cost to

retrofit a vehicle could easily range between $30,000 and $60,000, however those

estimates remain highly speculative because the structural integrity of every coach

remains unknown. It noted that about 90 percent of motorcoach companies are small

businesses that typically can maintain only small capital reserves to cover such

exigencies as highway breakdowns or business income gaps.

The UMA further noted that a retrofit requirement could create a cottage industry of

unqualified seat belt installers, particularly for motorcoaches not used for public

transportation and owned by institutions such as colleges, churches, and the like. It

suggested that the absence of a retrofit requirement could also result in the largest number

of seat belt equipped motorcoaches on the road in the shortest time through the ongoing

purchase of new vehicles.

AC Transit, MTS, and APTA believe that it is not feasible to require retrofitting on

existing bus fleets as the costs associated with a retrofit could prove devastating to public

transportation commuter services.

Lorenz Bus Service commented that it is not clear how passenger safety will be enhanced

in the event that NHTSA chooses to require existing motorcoaches to be retrofitted with

seat belts. They concurred with NHTSA’s conclusion that retrofitting will cause as much

trouble and danger as it may resolve.

Prestige Bus Charters commented that it would be very difficult to absorb the cost to

retrofit its buses. However, it supported requirements for new coaches to be equipped

with seat belts.

Monterey-Salinas Transit commented that there could be service reductions with

retrofitting based on cost to retrofit and out-of-service time needed to retrofit the

motorcoach.

Orange County Transportation Association (OCTA) would like NHTSA to pay greater

attention to the potential fiscal consequences. Public transit agencies nationwide are

experiencing unprecedented funding shortages and the costs for installing seat belts

systems in new or existing buses, would present a financial hardship that public

transportation agencies may be unable to absorb without cuts to other capital

improvements or overall service levels.

Cost of Retrofitting Lap or Lap/Shoulder Belts on Existing Motorcoach Passenger Seating Positions

In summary, we have NHTSA’s estimate of $40,000 and docket comment estimates

ranging from $30,000 to $85,000 to retrofit large buses with lap/shoulder belts. Retrofit

costs will vary depending upon the structural changes needed for the large bus. For this

135

analysis, we are going to assume that the average retrofit costs will be $40,000, realizing

that there may be a wide range associated with these costs.

The existing fleet size is approximately 29,325 large buses and assuming that all large

buses would require similar structural changes, the total cost for retrofitting the entire

fleet with lap/shoulder seat belts is estimated to be $1.173 billion ($40,000 x 29,325).

Assuming that a large bus is lap belt ready, the cost of retrofitting a large bus with lap

belts only is estimated to be approximately $668 per motorcoach for the belts themselves.

The labor to install the belts on existing seats is estimated to take 2 workers about 3 days

for 8 hours at $20 per hour or $960. Total cost to install lap belts on lap belt ready seats

is estimated to be $1,628 per large bus. The cost of retrofitting the fleet of large buses

with lap belts is $47.7 million ($1,628 x 29,325). If the large buses are not lap belt ready,

then the large buses must be reinforced in order to support lap belts. The agency assumes

that the reinforcement of a large bus that is not lap belt ready to accommodate a lap belt

is similar to the reinforcement of a large bus for a lap/shoulder belt. As a result, the cost

of retrofitting large buses that are not lap belt ready to accommodate lap belts is $997

million ($34,000 x 29,325).

Given the very large expense to retrofit, it is not likely to be economically viable for

small operators. In addition, one might consider the down time for a large bus that is

being retrofit. If the operator cannot find a slow time in demand when the retrofit can be

done without losing business, there will be a loss of income to the operator. The United

Motorcoach Association estimated that this loss of income and goodwill could be valued

at $10,000 to $20,000. In comments to the NPRM, some small operators claimed that

they might be forced to retrofit because consumers might decide to use only buses that

have seat belts. Given that many of the small operators are regional and specialty carriers

that do not compete with large established companies, the agency does not believe that

lacking a seat belt in these large buses would have a significant adverse effect on the

economic viability of small operators.

Cost Effectiveness of Retrofit Requirement

The agency has decided not to propose any requirements to retrofit existing buses with

either lap or lap/shoulder belts. The service life of an over-the-road bus can be over 20

years. Each used vehicle would need to be assessed structurally on a one-by-one basis to

determine the modifications needed to accommodate the additional loading from the seat

belts, and even whether retrofitting is technically possible for some older motorcoaches.

The motorcoach structure might not be able to support the load of belted occupants

during a rollover or severe frontal crash if only belts were added to the seats or new seats

with belts were installed. In many cases, the bus body would need to be reinforced and

the bus seats replaced. Because the entire motorcoach structure is involved to

accommodate the additional loading, the cost and weight implications can vary

substantially. Based on our average estimate of $40,000 to retrofit an older motorcoach,

the total cost of retrofitting lap/shoulder belts to the fleet (without including increased

remaining lifetime fuel costs) is $1.173 billion ($40,000 x 29,325). These estimates

136

indicate that the costs render a retrofit requirement economically unfeasible for small

motorcoach operators.

In an attempt to determine the merits of a retrofit requirement on a cost benefit basis, the

following analysis was prepared using three assumed scenarios. In these scenarios we

look at the cost per equivalent life saved and the use of safety belts necessary for costs

and benefits to break even on a year to year basis as vehicles get older. As a motorcoach

ages, installation costs remain the same (or could increase if the floor structure degrades

over time), but fuel cost decrease and the benefits decrease with age as the useful life of

remaining motorcoaches on the road decrease.

Using the survival rate and VMT from Table IX-2, we find that a

1 year old large bus has 92.9% of its useful life, benefits and fuel costs left





The two scenarios investigated include:

1) An assumption that the most recent large buses can be retrofit with new seats with

lap/shoulder belts and no new structure. Thus, there is little weight gain and fuel

costs are only included for the weight of the belts themselves. This is the lowest

cost assumption. Costs for this scenario assume the average costs of the three

motorcoach seats that we did a cost tear down study with all three with

lap/shoulder belts of $519.23 for a two-position seat

($393.48+$523.68+($87.10+$78.14)/2+$557.92)/3 times 27 seats for a 54

passenger bus and labor costs of 2 persons, 2 days, 8 hours per day, and $20 per

hour for a total cost of $14,659. The weight costs are derived from the lifetime

increase in fuel costs of $1,077 at the 3% discount rate and $794 at the 7%

discount rate (which are decreased by the percentages above based on age and

remaining life).

2) An assumption that new seats and additional structure will be required. For this

scenario we assume the costs are $40,000 for new seats and structure. However,

we don’t have an estimate of the weight of additional structure and only the fuel

costs of the belts themselves are included - $1,077 at the 3% discount rate and

$794 at the 7% discount rate of fuel costs (which are decreased by the percentages

above based on age and remaining life).

Data are presented based on the age of the vehicle for which the retrofit would apply, at

two different restraint usage levels (15% and 83% for lap/shoulder belts) and the

breakeven point in usage necessary to make benefits and costs be equal.

The results are presented in Table XII-1. As would be expected, retrofitting becomes less

attractive as a large bus gets older, because costs remain the same in our example (but

may actually increase in real life), but benefits decrease as there is less remaining life for

the bus. Compared to the guideline of $6.3 million per life saved, even with the lowest

137

cost estimate for a retrofit, belt usage has to be 35% to 50% for a one year old bus to

break even and it increases by 3-4 percentage points per year to get to 54% to 64% by age

five. Under the assumption that it costs $40,000 per large bus to retrofit, the breakeven

point in usage is 76% to 81% for the first year and soon becomes close to or higher than

usage in light vehicles (83%). So, if you estimate the costs of retrofit at $40,000 per large

bus, retrofit is not a cost effective option.

Table XII-1

Cost per Equivalent Life Saved for Retrofit of Lap/Shoulder Belts in Passenger Seats of

Older Large Buses by Age of Bus

Cost per Equivalent

Life Saved

15% Use

($Millions)

(3% to 7% discount)

Cost per Equivalent

Life Saved

83% Use

($Millions)

(3% to 7% discount)

Breakeven Point in

Usage

(%)

(3% to 7% discount)

Scenario 1

(Low Cost $14,650)

Age 1 $8.9 – 11.5 $1.6 – 2.1 39 - 53%

Age 2 9.6 – 12.4 1.7 – 2.2 43 - 56

Age 3 10.3 – 13.3 1.9 – 2.4 47 – 59

Age 4 11.2 – 14.4 2.0 - 2.6 51 – 62

Age 5 12.0 – 15.5 2.2 – 2.8 54 – 64

Scenario 2

(Cost of $40,000)

Age 1 $23.4 – 30.4 $4.2 – 5.5 76 - 81 %

Age 2 25.2 – 32.8 4.6 – 5.9 77 – 82

Age 3 27.2 – 35.5 4.9 – 6.4 79 – 83

Age 4 29.5 – 38.4 5.3 – 6.9 80 - >83

Age 5 31.8 – 41.5 5.8 – 7.5 82 - >83

138

Small Business Impacts of a Retrofit Requirement NHTSA has the authority to promulgate safety standards for existing commercial motor

vehicles under Sec. 101(f) of Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (Public

Law 106-159; Dec. 9, 1999). The August 2010 NPRM discussed, but did not propose,

retrofitting existing buses. Based on the Motorcoach Census, supra, there were 3,137

motorcoach carriers in the United States in 2007. An estimated 78.8 percent (or about

2,470 carriers) have less than 10 motorcoaches in their fleet and an average 3

motorcoaches and 11 employees. The small business definition for all transit and ground

passenger transportation (subsector 485) and in particular the Charter Bus Industry

(NAICS code 485510) is revenue of $7 million. Even though we do not have revenue

information for these firms, it is very likely that the majority of these 2,470 carriers are

small businesses.

With regard to a retrofit requirement applying to a population of on-road vehicles,

NHTSA has decided not to pursue a retrofit requirement. Given the very large expense to

retrofit, it is not likely to be economically viable for small operators. The requirement

appears to be too expensive, considering the costs--particularly for small businesses--and

the benefits so few, to support a finding that a retrofit program would be reasonable.84

84

On a separate note, the agency has heard claims of the possibility that some small operator might be

forced to retrofit because consumers might decide to use only buses that have seat belts. Given that many

of the small operators are regional and specialty carriers that do not compete with large establish

companies, the agency does not believe that lacking a seat belt in the bus would have an adverse effect on

the economic viability of small operators.

139

XIII. REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT AND UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT ANALYSIS

Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. §601 et seq.) requires agencies to

evaluate the potential effects of their proposed and final rules on small businesses, small

organizations and small governmental jurisdictions. In compliance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 60l et seq., NHTSA has evaluated the effects of this final rule on

small entities. The head of the agency has certified that this final rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis

for the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) is set forth below. Although the agency is not

required to issue an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis, we discuss below many

of the issues that an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis would address.

Overview of the objectives of and legal basis for the final rule

This final rule fulfills a statutory mandate on motorcoach safety set forth in the “Moving

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act” (MAP-21), On July 6, 2012, President

Obama signed MAP-21, which incorporated the “Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of

2012” (Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act) in Subtitle G. Among other matters, the

Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act requires DOT to “prescribe regulations requiring safety

belts to be installed in motorcoaches85

at each designated seating position” not later than

1 year after the date of enactment of the Act. We have completed this final rule in

furtherance of NHTSA’s goal to enhance the safety of all heavy buses used in intercity

bus transportation, implemented under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety

Act, while attending to the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act’s focus on over-the-road

buses.

This rule is needed to improve the safety of occupants in motorcoaches (over-the-road

buses), and in other buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) (excepted

from the latter category are transit buses, school buses, perimeter-seating buses, and

prison buses). The final rule requires lap/shoulder belts on the subject buses. Presently a

very small percent of the covered vehicles have a lap/shoulder belt for passengers.

The primary goal of this rulemaking is to reduce occupant ejections occurring in crashes

of the subject vehicles. Data from NHTSA’s Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS)

from 1999-2008 show that most of the fatal crashes involving these buses (63 percent)

are rollover crashes or single vehicle roadside events (e.g., run off the road or hitting

roadside objects). Ejections account for 78 percent of the fatalities in rollover crashes of

these buses and 28 percent of the fatalities in non-rollover crashes. The risk of ejection

can be reduced by seat belts, a simple and effective countermeasure. Seat belts are

85

Under the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, “motorcoach” means an over-the-road bus, but does not

include a bus used in public transportation provided by, or on behalf of, a public transportation agency, or a

school bus.

[Footnote added.]

140

estimated to be 77 percent effective86

in preventing fatal injuries in rollover crashes,

primarily by preventing ejection.

Another goal is to improve passenger crash protection in frontal crashes generally.

NHTSA’s Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) conducted a full-scale 30 mile per

hour (mph) barrier crash of an over-the-road motorcoach and a comprehensive sled test

program involving instrumented test dummies representing 5th

percentile adult females,

50th

percentile adult males, and 95th

percentile adult males. In the VRTC tests,

lap/shoulder belts at forward-facing seating positions were effective at preventing critical

head and neck injury values as measured by the test dummies. Lap belts had higher

injury values than unbelted occupants in the frontal test.

The legal basis for this rule is set forth in Section II of the preamble of the final

rule.

Description and estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule, if made

final, will apply; compliance impacts

This rule directly affects motor vehicle manufacturers, i.e., manufacturers of the covered

buses, seat manufacturers, and seat belt manufacturers.

Business entities are defined as small businesses using the North American Industry

Classification system (NAICS) code, for the purpose of receiving Small Business

Administration assistance. One of the criteria for determining size, as stated in 13 CFR

121.201, is the number of employees in the firm. For establishments primarily engaged

in manufacturing or assembling automobiles, light and heavy duty trucks, buses, motor

homes, new tires, or motor vehicle body manufacturing (NAICS code 336211), the firm

must have less than 1,000 employees to be classified as a small business. For supplier

establishments manufacturing many of the safety systems, the firm must have less than

750 employees to be classified as a small business. For establishments manufacturing

motor vehicle seats and interior trim packages (NAICS code 336360), alterers and

second-stage manufacturers, the firm must have less than 500 employees to be classified

as a small business.

This final rule directly affects bus manufacturers, seat manufacturers, and seat belt

manufacturers. There are several bus manufacturers, of which 9 appear to be small

businesses, and at least five bus seat manufacturers. Three of the five known bus seat

manufacturers are considered small businesses (less than 500 employees for seat

manufacturers).

The volume of seats belts that will be added by having 2200 buses use 54 seat belts

(118,800) is small (0.2%) in comparison to 16 million light vehicles using about 4 seat

belts (64 million).

86

Estimated based on Kahane, “Fatality Reduction by Safety Belts for Front-Seat Occupants of Cars and

Light Trucks,” December 2000, Washington, D.C., National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

141

Table XIII-1

Employment of Subject Bus Manufacturers

Bus Manufacturers Number of Employees

Advanced Bus Industries <1,000

Alexander Dennis 2,000

BCI Bus and Coach International >1,000

Coach and Equipment Manufacturing

Corp.

100 – 250

Collins Bus Corporation (including

Wheeled Coach Ind., World Trans, Mid

Bus Corporation, Corbeil)

>1,000

Creative Mobile Interiors <50

Custom Coach 100 to 249

Daimler Buses (including Setra) >1,000

Forest River (including Federal Coach,

Starcraft, Glaval )

>1,000

Freightliner Custom Chassis Corp >1,000

Gillig 700

IC Bus 14,000

Krystal Koach 800

MCI >1,000

North American Bus Industries (including

Optima)

>1,000

Orion Bus >1,000

Prevost >1,000

Stallion Bus & Transit Corp. <50

Sunliner Coach Group 100 to 250

Turtle Top 250

Employment of Bus Seat Manufacturers

American Seating

C.E.White

Freedman Seating

IMMI

About 500

75

250 to 499

700

Amaya (Brazil) N/A Notes: The employment number on this company was not listed in Dunn and Bradstreet.

This final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of

small entities. The increase in price for the subject buses is estimated to be $2,101.

Compared to the $400,000 to $500,000 price of a new bus, the increase in price is

estimated to be to 0.4 to 0.5 percent, which is not significant compared to the overall

price of the bus. Furthermore, these costs can ultimately be passed on to the bus

purchaser and/or persons purchasing fares for the bus’s services.

In addition, certifying that their buses comply with the safety requirements adopted today

will not have a significant economic impact on the manufacturers. Small manufacturers

142

are already certifying their bus’s compliance, for the driver’s position, with FMVSS No.

207’s seat strength requirements, FMVSS No. 208’s occupant crash protection

requirements, and FMVSS No. 210’s seat belt anchorage strength requirements. The

means they use to certify to those requirements are similar to or the same as those used to

certify to today’s requirements. The certification test is a relatively simple static pull test.

The test has applied to the driver’s seat for decades, and manufacturers are

knowledgeable about conducting it.

Small manufacturers have many options available to certify compliance, none of which

will result in a significant economic impact on these entities. Bus manufacturers

typically obtain seating systems from seat suppliers and install the seats on the bus body

following the instructions of the seat supplier. Seat suppliers already sell bus seats which

meet the requirements adopted today. Following this final rule, the bus manufacturers

can order passenger seats with lap/shoulder belts from the same seat suppliers that

provide them their current seats. Their current manufacturing practices do not have to be

changed.

Seat suppliers currently offer technical assistance to the bus manufacturer regarding

installation of the seats and testing to the FMVSSs.87

If it chooses to do so, the small bus

manufacturer can certify compliance with the requirements adopted by the final rule

using the information and instruction provided by the seat supplier.

Also, the performance requirements of the final rule involve a simple static pull test.

Conducting the test will not have a significant economic impact on the small

manufacturer. If it chooses to do so, a small manufacturer can perform the testing on its

own vehicle, as discussed below.

For small bus manufacturers that wish to perform their own testing, there are several

options available. One option is to “section” the vehicle or otherwise obtain a body

section representative of the vehicle, install the seat in the section as they would in the

actual full vehicle, and test the seat assembly to the FMVSS No. 210 pull test. This is

basically the approach that VRTC used in NHTSA’s motorcoach seat belt research

program. The bus manufacturer could base its certification on these tests, without testing

a full vehicle. The manufacturer could also test a bus that is not completely new. A

manufacturer could test seating systems installed on an old bus chassis or other

underlying structure, and could sufficiently assess the ability of the seating system to

meet the final rule’s requirements.

Moreover, a small manufacturer is not required by this final rule to conduct actual testing.

Manufacturers can certify compliance by using modeling and engineering analyses.

Unlike NHTSA, manufacturers certifying compliance of their own vehicles have more

87

See http://www.cewhite.com/testing-lab (“The entire testing program is FREE for our customers”), see

also http://www.freedmanseating.com/fstl/) (“We Provide…FMVSS/CMVSS 207, 210, and 225

Testing…Special Tests Performed Per Client’s Specifications”) [websites last accessed February 1, 2012].

In addition, IMMI indicated in its comments that it also assists in the testing of buses using its seats.

http://www.cewhite.com/testing-lab

http://www.freedmanseating.com/fstl/

143

detailed information regarding their own vehicles and can use reasonable engineering

analyses to determine whether their vehicles will comply with the requirements. A small

manufacturer is closely familiar with its vehicle design and can use modeling and

relevant analyses on a vehicle-by-vehicle basis to reasonably predict whether its bus

design will meet the requirements of the final rule.

We also note that the product cycle of the covered buses is significantly longer than other

vehicle types. With a longer product cycle, the costs of certification for manufacturers

will be further reduced, as the costs of conducting compliance testing and the relevant

analyses could be spread over a significantly longer period of time.

In addition, under 49 CFR 571.8(b), NHTSA is providing manufacturers of vehicles built

in two or more stages (multi-stage manufacturers) an additional year of lead time for

manufacturer certification of compliance. This additional year provides small multi-stage

manufacturers flexibility and ample time--a total of four years--to work with seat

manufacturers and/or incomplete vehicle manufacturers (both of which are large

manufacturers), or to undertake the evaluation themselves, to make the necessary

assessments to acquire a basis for certifying their vehicles’ compliance.

Some of the purchasers of new buses are small operators. Purchasers of the covered

buses are indirectly covered by this final rule; the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires

only those entities directly covered by proposals or final rules to be analyzed in a

regulatory flexibility discussion or analysis. Nonetheless, we believe that the impact on

the operators will not be significant. The expected price increase of the buses used by

these businesses is small ($2,101 for each bus valued between $400,000 and $500,000).

While fuel costs for these businesses will increase between $794 and $1,077 per bus over

the lifetime of the bus, these expected increases in costs are small in comparison to the

cost of operating each vehicle. We further anticipate that these costs will equally affect

all operators of the covered buses and thus small operators will be able to pass these

purchase and fuel costs to their consumers.

The amendments to the Federal motor vehicle safety standard issued by the final rule do

not apply to vehicles after the first sale of the vehicle for purposes other than resale.

There is no requirement in the final rule applying to the seat belt systems on buses after

the buses have been sold to the operator. There is no requirement in the final rule that

applies to the operators, such as a maintenance requirement.

A description of the projected reporting, recording keeping and other compliance

requirements of a final rule including an estimate of the classes of small entities

which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary

for preparation of the report or record.

There are no reporting requirements associated with this final rule.

An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules which may

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the final rule.

We know of no Federal rules which duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the final rule.

144

A description of any significant alternatives to the final rule which accomplish the

stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic

impact of the final rule on small entities.

This final rule provides an alternative lead time to manufacturers of vehicles built in two

or more stages (multi-stage manufacturers). It provides an additional year of lead time

for manufacturers to certify the compliance of their buses. (49 CFR 571.8(b).) This

additional year provides small multi-stage manufacturers flexibility and ample time--a

total of four years--to work with seat manufacturers and/or incomplete vehicle

manufacturers (both of which are large manufacturers), or to undertake the evaluation

themselves, to make the necessary assessments to acquire a basis for certifying their

vehicles’ compliance.

As to performance and other requirements, the agency has considered the alternatives of

requiring only lap belts for passengers, and has considered the alternative of the ECE

regulations (R.14 and R.80). These alternatives would not accomplish the objectives of

this rulemaking, as discussed below.

NHTSA has considered the alternative of requiring lap belts for passengers instead of

lap/shoulder belts. This alternative would not accomplish the stated objectives of

applicable statutes. MAP-21 requires a regulation for lap/shoulder belts at each

designated seating position on motorcoaches (over-the-road buses). A lap belt

requirement would not satisfy this mandate.

For buses with a GVWR greater than 26,000 lb other than over-the-road buses, NHTSA

has included these buses in this final rule in accordance with the National Traffic and

Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We reviewed the underlying chassis structure of high-

occupancy vehicles involved in fatal crashes. Some had a monocoque88

structure with a

luggage compartment under the elevated passenger deck (“over-the-road buses”).

However, an elevated passenger deck over a baggage compartment was not an element

common to the buses involved in fatal intercity transport. In FARS data for buses with a

GVWR greater than 26,000 lb, 36 percent of the fatalities were in the other bus and

unknown bus categories, i.e., not in the over-the-road bus category. Some buses were

built using body-on-chassis configurations. We believe that body-on-chassis

configurations are newer entrants into the motorcoach services market. They appear to

be increasing in number. The agency has determined that it would be unreasonable to

exclude from this final rule a growing segment of buses that are associated with an

unacceptable safety risk that are used as motorcoaches, simply because the buses do not

look like the traditional motorcoach.

The agency examined the alternative of a lap belt only requirement instead of

lap/shoulder belts for buses other than over-the-road buses and determined that a lap belt

only requirement cannot be supported. Lap belts, while effective against ejection, would

provide only a portion of the benefits of passenger frontal crash protection as

88

Monocoque means a type of vehicular construction in which the body is combined with the chassis as a

single unit.

145

lap/shoulder belts. Further, test data also leads NHTSA to believe that certain types of

injuries would be far more severe if passenger seats only were equipped with lap belts,

rather than lap/shoulder belts. In Table V-6 of this FRIA, we highlight the average injury

measurements from two sled tests conducted with lap-belted 5th

percentile adult female

and 50th

percentile adult male dummies. Both tests were conducted with no rear

occupants. Table V-6 of the FRIA shows the average dummy response in the lap belted

sled tests. In every instance, the dummies exceeded the head and neck IARVs when the

dummies were lap belted.

In Figure V-17 of this FRIA, we compare the average HIC15 and Nij values for the 5th

percentile adult female and 50th

percentile adult male dummy sizes in the sled testing

program, as a means to compare the relative performance of each restraint strategy

(unbelted, lap belts, and lap/shoulder belts). Figure V-17 shows that the lowest average

HIC and Nij values were associated with the lap/shoulder belt restraint for both dummy

sizes. The lower HIC15 and Nij values for the lap/shoulder restraint condition are

consistent with the dummy kinematics, which indicated that the lap/shoulder belt restraint

limited head contact with the forward seat back, particularly for the 5th

percentile adult

female dummies. In contrast, most of the average injury measures for the lap belt

restraint condition were at or above the IARVs. In the sled tests, lap belts resulted in

more injuries than being unrestrained, while lap/shoulder belts were the most effective

restraint strategy. We also note that, while in the test program we did not measure risk of

abdominal injuries, abdominal injuries have been shown to be a problem with lap belts.89

All this information overwhelmingly shows that lap/shoulder belts would provide more

safety benefits to occupants on the affected buses than lap-only belts. Further, data

indicate that motorists are more inclined to use lap/shoulder belts than lap-only belts.

Thus, the agency has adopted a lap/shoulder belt requirement.

We considered but rejected the alternative of ECE R.14 and ECE R.80 (as an alternative

to FMVSS No. 210’s anchorage strength requirements). This alternative would not

accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes. The ECE regulations offer fewer

benefits than FMVSS No. 210 and no significant cost savings. Our sled and static testing

indicated that ECE R.14/ECE R.80 regulations do not provide the level of seat belt

anchorage strength required for the foreseeable frontal crash scenario represented by a 48

km/h (30 mph) barrier impact. The static load requirements for ECE R.14 and ECE R.80

are far below that required to generate the peak seat anchorage loads that NHTSA

measured in its sled tests, which means a seat that minimally meets the ECE required

static loads for M3 vehicles may separate from its floor anchorages in a crash, especially

in a severe frontal crash where tri-loading of the seat occurs. We have also compared

ECE R.14 and ECR R.80 to FMVSS No. 210 to see if the ECE regulations offer less

costs than FMVSS No. 210. The information from the seat manufacturers indicate that

meeting ECE R.14 and R.80 would not necessarily result in cost or weight savings. Seat

supplier IMMI stated that its own review determined that meeting ECE R.14 would result

in minor material reductions compared to a seat meeting FMVSS No. 210, resulting in

minimal savings per seat assembly.

89

Morgan, June 1999, “Effectiveness of Lap/Shoulder Belts in the Back Outboard Seating Positions,”

Washington, DC, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

146

In addition, NHTSA has concluded that neither the lap belt or strength alternative would

“minimize any significant economic impact of the final rule on small entities.” First, the

economic impact of the final rule is not significant, for the reasons discussed in this

document. Second, under both alternatives, a bus manufacturer would be required to

install seating systems that have a belt system. Under the first alternative, the belt system

would be a lap belt instead of a lap/shoulder belt. Under the second alternative, the belt

system would have to meet ECE requirements rather than FMVSS No. 210 requirements.

Under both alternatives, the manufacturer would have to certify the bus as having belts

that meet strength requirements. There would be no significant difference in the impact

on the manufacturer under either alternative, compared to the final rule.

UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4) requires agencies to

prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final

rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditures by States, local or

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million

annually (adjusted annually for inflation with base year of 1995). Adjusting this amount

by the implicit gross domestic product price deflator for the 2008 results in $133 million

(122.42/92.106 = 1.33). The assessment may be included in conjunction with other

assessments, as it is here. The final rule is not likely to result in expenditures by State,

local or tribal governments of more than $133 million annually. The costs of this final

rule are estimated to be less than $9 million.

147

Appendix A

Appendix A shows the available data with accompanying charts for fatalities. There is

no trend in the number of fatalities per year. The number bounces up and down

depending upon when a fatal crash with a large number of fatalities occurred. Example:

see Figure A1 and Table A1 below.

Figure A1: Trends in Bus Occupant Fatalities (2000-2009) for GVWR >26,000 lb

Table A1

For buses with a GVWR of 26,000 lb or less, again there is no trend in fatalities (see

Figure 2 below). The numbers go up and down from year to year. There are many fewer

fatalities involving these lighter buses than buses with a GVWR greater than 26,000 lb.

There were no crashes with a large number of fatalities (no double digit fatal crashes).

Figure A2: Trends in Bus occupant fatalities (2000-2009) for GVWR<26,000 lb

Table A2

Trends in fatalities GVWR >26,000 lbs

motorcoachOther Bus Unknown Bus

2000 3 1 1

2001 3 7 3

2002 20 4 8

2003 2 9 8

2004 23 5 0

2005 33 4 5

2006 8 2 3

2007 18 8 0

2008 38 4 0

2009 9 3 0

157 47 28

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

motorcoach

Other Bus

Unknown Bus

Trends in fatalities GVWR <26,000 lbs

motorcoachOther Bus Unknown Bus

2000 0 0 0

2001 0 0 1

2002 0 5 0

2003 1 1 1

2004 0 5 0

2005 0 4 1

2006 0 6 1

2007 1 1 0

2008 0 1 3

2009 0 8 2

2 31 9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

motorcoach

Other Bus

Unknown Bus

148

Figure A3: Trends in driver/passenger fatalities for buses with GVWR>26,000 lb

Table A3 (a)

Table A3 (b)

Bus crashes where at least one occupant died (GVWR>26,000 lb)

by body type and rollover/initial impact

rollover front side rear Other

motorcoach 21 23 0 0 2

Transit 5 9 3 1 3

Other 8 14 4 0 3

unknown 1 12 0 0 0

35 58 7 1 8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

driver

pass

Trends in fatalities GVWR >26,000 lbs

Motorcoach Other Bus Unknown Bus Total

driv pass driv pass driv pass driver pass

2000 2 1 0 1 1 0 3 2

2001 1 2 1 6 2 1 4 9

2002 2 18 1 3 3 5 6 26

2003 1 1 1 8 0 8 2 17

2004 4 19 1 4 0 0 5 23

2005 3 30 0 4 0 5 3 39

2006 1 7 1 1 2 1 4 9

2007 6 12 4 4 0 0 10 16

2008 1 37 1 3 0 0 0 40

2009 1 8 1 2 0 0 2 10

22 135 11 36 8 20 41 191

149

Figure A4: Bus crashes where at least one occupant died (GVWR>26,000 lb)


Figure A5: Bus crashes where at least one occupant died (GVWR10-26K lb)


Table A5 (a)

0

5

10

15

20

25

rollover front side rear other

motorcoach

transit

other

unknown

0

5

10

15

20

25


motorcoach

transit

other

unknown

Buses 10,000-26,000 lbs


motorcoach 2 0 0 0 0

transit 2 0 0 1 3

other 4 5 2 1 7

unknown 7 1 0 0 1

150

Table A5 (b) Occupant fatalities by body type, GVWR and ejection status (missing values accounted

for) – all crash modes

23 fatalities in a motorcoach (cross country bus) fire in Wilmer Texas were excluded.

GVWR Motorcoach other bus unknown bus

no eject eject no eject eject no eject eject

10K-26K 1 1 16 15 8 1

>26K 62 72 35 12 19 9



10K-26K driver 0 0 4 1 2 0

passenger 1 1 11 15 6 1

>26K driver 17 5 9 2 6 2

passenger 45 67 26 10 12 8

Table A5(c) Occupant Fatalities in Rollover Events by body type, GVWR, and ejection status

(missing values accounted for)



10K-26K

driver 0 0 0 0 1 0

passenger 1 1 0 13 7 0

>26K

driver 4 2 0 1 1 0

passenger 25 64 7 7 2 1

151

Figure A6: Bus crashes with at least one fatal occupant by Body type, Bus Use, and

GVWR.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

351

0K

-26

K

>2

6K

UN

K

10

K-2

6K

>2

6K

UN

K

10

K-2

6K

>2

6K

UN

K

10

K-2

6K

>2

6K

UN

K

10

K-2

6K

>2

6K

UN

K

10

K-2

6K

>2

6K

UN

K

10

K-2

6K

>2

6K

UN

K

school bus service tour commuter shuttle Personal Unknown

school bus

Motorcoach

transit

other bus

unknown bus

152

Figure A7: Bus crashes with at least one fatal occupant by body type and GVWR

Figure A8: Occupant fatalities in cross country/intercity buses by bus use, GVWR, and

person type

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

school bus Motorcoach transit other bus unknown bus

10K-26K

>26K

UNK

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10

K-2

6K

>2

6K

un

kno

wn

10

K-2

6K

>2

6K

un

kno

wn

10

K-2

6K

>2

6K

un

kno

wn

10

K-2

6K

>2

6K

un

kno

wn

10

K-2

6K

>2

6K

un

kno

wn

10

K-2

6K

>2

6K

un

kno

wn

10

K-2

6K

>2

6K

school bus service tour commuter shuttle Personal Unknown

Motorcoach Driver

Motorcoach Pass

fmvss no. 208 lap/shoulder belts for all over-the-road

Documents