[Federal Register: July 31, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 147)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 44892-44901]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31jy03-16]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2002-13704]
RIN: 2127-AH23
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Definition of
Multifunction School Activity Bus
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule establishes a new class of school buses,
multifunction school activity buses, for use in transporting children
on trips other those than between home and school. We anticipate that
this final rule will also facilitate efforts by the Federal Transit
Administration to provide funding to Head Start programs and
coordinated transportation providers to purchase the school buses.
Currently, that Administration is prohibited from providing financial
assistance to purchase regular yellow school buses that exclusively
transport students and school personnel in competition with a private
school bus operator. We anticipate that the new buses will be used for
coordinated transportation purposes by State and local social services
agencies, which may, for example, use the new buses to transport
children from Head Start facilities to school in the morning, and to
transport senior citizens later in the day. Finally, enabling schools
and other institutions to choose the new buses instead of a 15-
passenger van will provide them with a safer transportation
alternative.
DATES: Effective date: The effective date for the final rule is:
September 2, 2003. Manufacturers are provided optional early compliance
with this final rule beginning July 31, 2003. Petitions for
reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of the final rule must
be received not later than September 15, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of the final rule must refer
to the docket and notice number set forth above and be submitted to the
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20590, with a copy to Docket
Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For non-legal issues, you may call Mr. Charles Hott, Office of
Crashworthiness Standards at (202) 366-0247. His FAX number is (202)
493-2739.
For legal issues, you may call Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the
Chief Counsel at (202) 366-2992. Her FAX number is (202) 366-3820.
You may send mail to both of these officials at National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC,
20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background--Relevant NHTSA Laws and Policies
III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
IV. Public Comments to the NPRM and NHTSA's Response
A. Should the Multifunction School Activity Bus Subcategory be
Created?
B. Should the MFSAB be a ``Bus'' or ``School Bus?'
C. Other Vehicle Classification Issues
D. Limits on Gross Vehicle Weight Rating for the MFSAB
E. FMVSS No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash
Protection
F. Warning Labels
G. Passenger Restraints
H. Emergency Exits
I. State Law Issues
V. Final Rule
VI. How This Final Rule Affects Other Federal Agencies
A. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)--Head
Start Bureau
B. Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
C. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
VII. Leadtime
VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
C. Executive Order 13045 (Economically Significant Rules
Affecting Children)
D. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
F. National Environmental Policy Act
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
J. Plain Language
K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
Text of the Final Rule
I. Executive Summary
This final rule establishes a new class of school buses,
multifunction school activity buses (MFSABs), for use in transporting
children on trips other those than between home and school.
Under current Federal law, dealers cannot sell a bus for the
purpose of transporting school-age students to or from school or
related events unless it meets all requirements in all Federal motor
vehicle safety standards for school buses. Among those requirements are
ones requiring all school buses to be equipped with control traffic
(i.e., flashing lights and stop arms) designed to avoid crashes and
injuries to pedestrians. The standards require those devices to deploy
automatically when the front entrance door is opened.
Those traffic control devices are primarily intended to be used on
trips involving picking school children up from or dropping them off at
a roadside location at or near home. However, not all school children
trips involve picking children up from or dropping them off at such
locations. For example, some trips involve taking children from a
before-school facility to a school or from a school to an after-school
facility. State laws do not permit the use of the traffic control
devices on those trips.
This rulemaking excludes MFSABS from the requirements for the
traffic control devices. This exclusion resolves the conflict between
the NHTSA standards that previously required all
[[Page 44893]]
new school buses to be equipped with traffic control devices, and State
laws that do not permit the use of the traffic control devices on the
types of trips that the new buses will be making. The new buses are not
required to have those devices since the buses, unlike regular yellow
school buses, are not intended for the roadside picking up and dropping
off of children during service between home and school. While the
MFSABs are not required to be equipped with the traffic control
devices, they are, however, required to meet all requirements in the
school bus crashworthiness standards, all other requirements in the
school bus crash avoidance safety standards, and all post-crash school
bus standards.
We anticipate that this final rule will also facilitate efforts by
the Federal Transit Administration to provide funding to Head Start
programs and coordinated transportation providers to purchase the
school buses. Currently, that Administration is prohibited from
providing financial assistance to purchase regular yellow school buses
that exclusively transport students and school personnel in competition
with a private school bus operator. We anticipate that the new buses
will be used for coordinated transportation purposes by State and local
social services agencies, which may, for example, use the new buses to
transport children from Head Start facilities to school in the morning,
and to transport senior citizens later in the day.
Finally, enabling schools and other institutions to choose the new
buses instead of a 15-passenger van will provide them with a safer
transportation alternative since the new buses comply with all school
bus requirements in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards except
those relating to traffic control devices.
II. Background--Relevant NHTSA Laws and Policies
NHTSA's statute requires any person selling or leasing a new
vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards
issued by the agency. Under our regulations, a ``bus'' is any vehicle
(including a van) that has a seating capacity of 11 persons or more.
The statute defines a ``school bus'' as any vehicle that is designed
for carrying 11 or more persons and that is likely to be ``used
significantly to transport preprimary, primary, and secondary students
to or from school or an event related to school.'' (Emphasis added.) 49
U.S.C. 30125.
More broadly, we deem a bus likely to be used significantly to
transport preprimary, primary, or secondary students to or from school
or school-related events if, for example, it will be used for any of
the following purposes on a regular basis: Pick students up from home
to take them to school; pick them up from a place other than home
(e.g., a before-school care facility) and drop them off at school; or
pick them up from school and drop them off at home or a place other
than home (e.g., an after-school care facility). The term ``school''
does not include pre-school (nursery) centers, or Head Start programs.
We have informed motor vehicle dealers that new buses sold to
child-care providers and other entities that routinely drop students
off at school or pick them up from school are required to be buses that
meet the school bus safety standards, even though the purchasing
organizations are not schools themselves. (See, e.g., July 23, 1998
letter to Mr. Don Cote, Northside Ford, filed in this docket at 13704-
51)
In our interpretations of Section 30125, we have stated that a bus
that is sold for school transportation must meet all standards
applicable to school buses, including the four-way/eight-way
alternating flashing lights required by FMVSS No. 108 and the stop-arm
required by FMVSS No. 131.\1\ Thus, even if school buses will be used
only to transport children on activity trips or other trips that do not
include home-to-school transportation, dealers currently cannot sell a
school bus unless those buses are equipped with flashing lights and
stop arms. This is true even if these devices are not likely to be used
on such trips. It is also true even if State law does not allow them to
be used on such trips or requires them to be removed before making such
trips.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The flashing lights are required by FMVSS No. 108 to operate
automatically when the bus entrance door is opened. The stop arm is
required by FMVSS No. 131 to operate automatically when the lights
are flashing, except that a manual override device may be provided
by the vehicle manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One reason we are issuing this final rule is that after selling or
leasing school buses, dealers cannot remove the four-way/eight-way
flashing lights and stop-arms from them. Under 49 U.S.C. Section 30122,
``Making safety devices and elements inoperative,'' manufacturers,
distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses may not
``knowingly make inoperative'' any part of a device or element of
design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in
compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Before the
issuance of this final rule, all school buses had to be equipped with
the four-way/eight-way flashing lights and stop arms. Since it does not
appear to make sense to have dealers sell school buses with equipment
that the buyer wants removed, we are defining a new category of school
buses without four-way/eight-way flashing lights and stop arms.
III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
On November 5, 2002 (67 FR 67373) (DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2002-
13704), we published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to create a new school bus category, the
``Multifunction School Activity Bus'' (MFSAB). We proposed to except
the new category from the requirement for school bus warning lamps at
S5.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps,
reflective devices and associated equipment, 49 CFR 571.108, and from
the requirement for stop signal arms in FMVSS No. 131, School bus
pedestrian safety devices, 49 CFR 571.131. We proposed to limit the
category to buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,804 kilograms
(15,000 pounds) or less, and invited comment as to whether the new
buses should have a label warning drivers that the buses were not for
home-to-school service. We denied aspects of the Rabun-Gap petition
relating to seat strength, seat spacing, and seat width for reasons set
forth in the NPRM. A full explanation of why we granted or denied
aspects of Rabun-Gap's petition is in the November 5, 2002 NPRM at 67
FR 67373.
IV. Public Comments to the NPRM and NHTSA's Response
NHTSA received a total of 48 public comment submissions in response
to the NPRM. Some commenters commented more than once, and several
submissions had identical or similar wording. We received comments from
Alabama Department of Education, Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU),
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Black Gold Regional Schools
Educational Authority, Blue Bird Body Company, Brownsville Independent
School District (of Brownsville, Texas), Department of California
Highway Patrol, Correctrack Inc., Transportation Consultant John
Fairchild, Ford Motor Company, Hurst-Euless-Bedford Independent School
District (of Bedford, Texas), IC Corporation, Indiana Department of
Education, Kibois Area Transit System (of Stigler, Oklahoma), Les
Entreprises Michel Corbeil Inc. (Corbeil), Maine Department of
Education, National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS), National
Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services
(NASDPTS), National Automobile Dealers
[[Page 44894]]
Association (NADA), National Child Care Association (NCCA), National
School Transportation Association (NSTA), National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB), Public Schools of North Carolina, Public Citizen,
Pupil Transportation Safety Institute, Inc., Rabun Gap Nacoochee School
(Rabun), Texas Association for Pupil Transportation, Texas Department
of Public Safety, Thomas Built Buses, U.S. Bus Corporation, Utah State
Office of Education, Virginia Association for Pupil Transportation
(VAPT), Wisconsin Department of Transportation, and many private
citizens. The following summarizes the comments, and our response to
the comments.
A. Should the Multifunction School Activity Bus Subcategory Be Created?
Most commenters wrote in favor of the proposed new school bus
category. However, some individual citizens, the state of Maine and AAP
wrote against the proposal. The state of Maine commented that creating
a new subcategory of school buses without traffic control features
``creates a level of complexity and potentially an elevated hazard
level * * * without producing a significant offsetting benefit.'' AAP
expressed concern about the MFSAB classification, stating that the
traffic control features on a school bus ``are meant to protect
pedestrians, who account for significantly more school bus related
fatalities than school bus passengers.'' In its May 1996 Policy
Statement on School Transportation Safety (R9616), regarding deaths to
children as a result of school-bus related events, AAP stated that the
``majority of pedestrians killed were young children who were struck by
their own school buses.'' NHTSA notes that activated traffic control
devices on a school bus make surrounding motorists aware that children
are outside and around a school bus and that the motorists should take
extra precautions for the children. NHTSA and the States have other
measures and programs (including school bus driver training) to lessen
the chances that school children will be struck by their school buses.
NHTSA has decided to adopt the multifunction school activity bus
vehicle classification, as proposed. NHTSA is conducting this
rulemaking to promote flexibility in the choice of vehicles. NHTSA
emphasizes that the MFSAB is not to be used by schools or school
districts to transport school children on regular school bus route
transportation. Because of this limitation, school children will not be
exposed as pedestrians to traffic situations that stop arm and four-
way/eight-way traffic control devices are designed to control, and we
have concluded that the MFSAB will not lead to an increase in school
children pedestrian fatalities as the AAP comments suggested. NHTSA
agrees with Maine that creating a new category of school bus adds an
additional level of complexity for school districts because it creates
a school bus category that cannot be used for normal home-to-school
transportation. However, NHTSA does not agree that this new school bus
category will increase the risk of injuries or fatalities for the
reasons explained above and below.
As explained in the NPRM, this final rule makes it easier for
transportation providers other than schools or school districts to buy
the MFSAB, which will be a safer transportation alternative to the 15-
passenger van and motor coach bus for use by Head Start programs or
senior citizens. If, after carefully considering all possible bus
types, the transportation provider decides that the persons it
transports are best served by a school bus with traffic control
features, it is free to buy such a school bus rather than the MFSAB.
B. Should the MFSAB Be a ``Bus'' or ``School Bus?''
NADA and NCCA recommended that the new vehicle category should be a
``multifunction activity bus,'' rather than a ``multifunction school
activity bus.'' NADA suggested that the MFSAB does not suit its
intended purpose and recommended that the multifunction activity bus be
defined as ``a bus that is designed for purposes that include
transporting students to and from school, but not to and from home.''
NADA stated that this definition has the advantage of avoiding the use
of the term ``school bus, which has a number of legal and practical
Federal, State and local ramifications.'' NADA further suggested that
NHTSA should redefine the term ``school bus'' more narrowly and
establish a new ``bus'' subcategory. They suggested that NHTSA should
redefine ``school bus'' (in 49 CFR 571.3 ``Definitions'') to read ``a
bus that is designed for purposes that include carrying students
between home and school, but not a bus designed for operation as a
common carrier in urban transportation.'' \2\ NADA also stated that the
``sold or introduced in interstate commerce'' language in the present
definition of school bus, ``places an undue focus on the new vehicle
sale or lease transaction and inherently requires sellers or lessors to
ascertain a purchaser's intended use,'' and that the primary burden of
standards compliance should be placed on manufacturers of these
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ At present, ``school bus'' is defined at 49 CFR Section
571.3 as ``a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce,
for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or
related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for
operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following reasons, NHTSA has decided not to adopt NADA's
and NCCA's recommendations for the redefinitions of ``school bus'' and
``bus.'' First, redefining these terms would be outside the scope of
the rulemaking, as NHTSA in the NPRM proposed a definition of
``multifunction school activity bus,'' not redefinitions of ``school
bus'' or ``bus.'' Second, statutory language specifies that only a new
school bus may be sold ``significantly to transport preprimary,
primary, and secondary school students to or from school or an event
related to school.'' (See 49 U.S.C. 30125(a)). This statutory
definition takes precedence over any regulatory definition, and
amending 49 CFR 571.3 (``Definitions'') would not alter the statute.
Therefore, defining the MFSAB as a ``bus'' would put NHTSA in the
anomalous situation of fining sellers and lessors that sell or lease
new ``buses'' to child care centers or other transportation providers
that use the MFSAB to take children to and from school or on school-
related activities. Thus, defining the MFSAB as a ``bus'' would defeat
the purpose of this rulemaking.
Third, NHTSA does not agree that in ensuring that nonconforming new
buses are not sold for school transportation purposes, the emphasis on
sellers or lessors of new motor vehicles poses a burden on sellers or
lessors or on NHTSA. NHTSA's position was explained in an
interpretation letter of May 9, 2001 to Collins Bus Corporation, a bus
manufacturer. When a day care center wished to purchase a bus to
transport children to their homes, Collins asked for guidance about
assurances the day care center had to provide a dealer or manufacturer
that the intended use does not dictate a school bus. Collins noted that
the user is the only person who can actually know how the bus will be
used during its life. As part of our answer, we stated that although
NHTSA does not currently presume that day care centers universally are
engaged in the transportation of children to and from school:
* * * where it is likely that the purchaser or lessor of a new
bus is a day care center, in light of the widespread publicity that
has surrounded the issue, we expect a dealer to inquire as to
whether the vehicle would also
[[Page 44895]]
be used to drop off or pick up students from school. If it appears
that a vehicle will be used significantly for student
transportation, the requirement to sell a certified school bus that
meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses
would apply. Confirmation in writing would appear to be prudent.
Thus, if the present definition of ``school bus'' does not include
the term ``sold, or introduced in interstate commerce,'' NHTSA's
enforcement efforts to ensure that dealers and lessors of new vehicles
do not sell or lease nonconforming buses for school transportation
purposes may be frustrated.\3\ Therefore, when this final rule takes
effect, where it is likely that the purchaser or lessor of a new MFSAB
is a State agency, private or public school, or school district, we
expect a dealer to inquire as to whether the vehicle will also be used
to drop off or pick up students from school. If it appears that the
MFSAB will be ``used significantly'' for transportation between
children's homes and school, the requirement to sell a school bus that
meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses,
including FMVSSs No. 108 and No. 131 would apply. NHTSA also notes that
changing the ``school bus'' and ``bus'' definitions would not affect
dealers' and lessors' statutory responsibilities in ensuring that they
do not sell new nonconforming buses for school transportation purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 49 U.S.C. Section 30112 ``Prohibition on manufacturing,
selling, and importing noncomplying motor vehicles and equipment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Other Vehicle Classification Issues
Public Citizen stated that it recognized Head Start programs' need
to purchase vehicles that meet the crashworthiness and crash avoidance
protection of school buses and did not object to NHTSA's proposal.
However, Public Citizen urged NHTSA to go further and create a new
category of buses called the ``Multi-Function Activity Buses'' to
ensure that all buses weighing less than 15,000 pounds GVWR, including
15-passenger vans, meet the school bus crash avoidance,
crashworthiness, and post-crash requirements required for school buses.
The NPRM did not propose to apply the school bus requirements to buses
that are not used to transport school children. Public Citizen's
recommendation is thus outside the scope of the present rulemaking.
However, the adoption of this final rule will give transportation
providers the alternative for a safer transportation choice.
The California Highway Patrol recommended that the MFSAB be defined
as a school bus whose purpose does not include transporting students to
and from home ``or a school bus stop.'' The rationale for this
suggestion was that school buses often pick children up at designated
school bus stops, rather than at their homes. Specifying the school bus
stop in the definition would make explicit that children should not be
picked up from their homes or from school bus stops when transported in
a MFSAB. NHTSA agrees that specifying that children should not be
picked up from school bus stops would eliminate a potential ambiguity.
Thus, in this final rule, the definition of MFSAB states: ``a school
bus whose purposes do not include transporting students to and from
home or school bus stops.''
D. Limits on Gross Vehicle Weight Rating for the MFSAB
The majority of commenters on this issue, including NTSB,
recommended that NHTSA not adopt the 6,804 kg (15,000 pound) gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) limitation on the MFSAB. NTSB stated that
it did not believe the risk of misuse is significant because using
vehicles other than school buses to pick up and drop off children at
home ``is generally prohibited.'' NTSB stated that it is not aware of
evidence that school districts are misusing vehicles in this manner.
Blue Bird Body Company stated that removing the GVWR weight
limitations would meet the need for safety, in that more organizations
would be encouraged to buy MFSABs in lieu of non-school buses. Blue
Bird noted the increasing public awareness that school buses are safer
than non-school buses, and reported increases in requests for school
buses (including larger school buses) from churches and colleges to
replace the ``vans'' that had been used. Blue Bird also noted that many
schools own used motorcoaches, especially in the western states where
travel distances are greater. Blue Bird stated that there is a market
demand for a ``school activity bus'' that is more comfortable than a
``typical school bus.'' Since the motorcoaches do not meet school bus
safety standards, the students are unnecessarily placed at risk. Blue
Bird stated its belief that having no weight restrictions on the MFSABs
will encourage the schools to buy MFSABs ``that meet the school bus
crashworthiness standards of construction.''
NASDPTS cautioned that the proposed 15,000 pound GVWR limitation
``would eliminate larger buses from the potential of federal funding
under the Federal Transit Administration,'' possibly frustrating
coordinated transportation providers' efforts in meeting the needs of
its customers. It also noted that it would not be practicable to expect
a school, child care center, Head Start program, or coordinated
transportation provider to purchase two or more small MFSABs in lieu of
one large MFSAB because of the additional costs that would be incurred
for more drivers, additional maintenance, and insurance.
The Texas Department of Public Safety stated that if MFSABs
included all sizes of school buses, Texas could change its definition
of a ``school activity bus'' to include the MFSAB. This would mean a
school district could buy a vehicle as safe as a school bus to
transport students on activity trips.
NSTA, on the other hand, supported the limitation of the MFSAB to
buses not larger than 15,000 pounds GVWR. NSTA expressed concern about
the possibility of misuse, especially by private schools that often
come under less scrutiny by state agencies than do public schools. NSTA
also noted that coordinated transportation systems could combine adult
and student passenger loads and stage pick-ups at curbside bus stops.
Although this would not constitute home-to-school transportation,
students could be endangered because there would be roadside loading
and offloading without the benefit of the school bus traffic control
devices. NSTA also expressed concern that school student safety would
be compromised because the large MFSAB would not require a school bus
driver, that the MFSAB driver would need only a passenger endorsement,
without the additional safety training of a school bus driver.
Regarding the potential misuse of the MFSAB by home to school
transportation providers, NHTSA shared this concern. However, every
State has laws that require school bus drivers to activate the warning
lamps and stop signal arm whenever the school bus is stopped to pick up
or discharge students on public roads. A driver failing to activate
these devices would be in violation of State law. Thus, every State
already has a law that prohibits school districts from using a MFSAB to
transport children to and from school, since it would be picking up or
discharging students without activating warning lamps and the school
bus stop arm. The misuse issue is discussed in greater detail in
Section I., ``State Law Issues.''
These State laws have also persuaded NHTSA that it is unlikely that
larger
[[Page 44896]]
MFSABs would be misused, and therefore, weight limitations for MFSABs
are not necessary. Hence, NHTSA has decided to not adopt the 6,804 kg
(15,000 pound) GVWR limitation on MFSABs.
Removing a weight limitation on MFSABs would also further NHTSA's
goal of promoting choice for transportation providers since it would
mean that those whose transportation choices are now buses over 6,804
kg or school buses over 6,804 kg would have an alternative bus over
6,804 kg (i.e., the MFSAB) that provides the same crashworthiness,
crash avoidance and post-crash safety protection as does a school bus,
without the traffic control features that are not used.
NSTA's concern about coordinated transportation systems where
children could be loaded and offloaded without the benefit of school
bus traffic control devices is an issue of vehicle use, regulated by
the States. Some areas in the U.S. may not be financially able to
provide a school bus system for school transportation and a separate
bus system for everyone else. Transportation systems using MFSABs would
offer all riders more protection than if non-school buses were used.
NSTA's concern that a large MFSAB would not require a school bus
driver is a matter that would be addressed by State law. State law
would determine the type of license (bus v. school bus) a driver would
need to drive the MFSAB.
E. FMVSS No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection
Although the NPRM denied those aspects of the Rabun-Gap petition
pertaining to school bus seats, several comments addressed the issue of
seating. Blue Bird Body Company recommended that FMVSS No. 222, School
bus passenger seating and crash protection, be amended to make the
provisions that presently apply to school buses 10,000 pounds GVWR and
under to also apply (at the option of the manufacturer) to MFSABs over
10,000 pounds GVWR.
Blue Bird stated that many schools want their ``school activity
buses'' to have reclining seats, wider seat width for each passenger,
and more seat separation so that tall and large students are more
comfortable on long trips. They stated that FMVSS No. 222
``compartmentalization'' requirements restrict school bus
manufacturers' ability to meet comfort requirements, especially for
school buses over 10,000 pounds GVWR. Blue Bird noted that FMVSS No.
222 requires that small school buses (10,000 pounds GVWR or under) be
equipped with Type 1 or Type 2 seat belts and does not require that
they meet S5.2, Restraining Barrier Requirements, of FMVSS No. 222.
Thus, MFSABs with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less would not be
restricted as to the requirement for a restraining barrier forward of a
passenger seat and, therefore, would not be constrained as to a maximum
allowable seat spacing.
Blue Bird went on to note that if MFSABs over 10,000 pounds GVWR,
when equipped with seat belts, were excepted (as small school buses are
now excepted) from S5.2, then seat spacing would no longer be an issue.
Blue Bird therefore recommended that manufacturers of large MFSABs be
allowed to meet the provisions of FMVSS No. 222 as they apply to school
buses 10,000 pounds GVWR or under.
Blue Bird also recommended that S4.1 of FMVSS No. 222 be amended to
permit a manufacturer of MFSABs to install only two seat belts on any
seat that is between 22.5 inches and 39 inches in width, ``to meet
customer requirements for no more than two passengers per seat on a
MFSAB.'' Blue Bird cited market demand for more seating room on school
bus bench seats and stated that ``something will need to be changed to
permit the installation of only two seat belts on a 39-inch wide seat
in a MFSAB.''
Rabun addressed NHTSA's discussion in the NPRM that the MFSAB could
be equipped with reclining motorcoach style seating and still meet
FMVSS No. 222 because the standard specifies that when the school bus
is tested, adjustable seat backs are to be ``adjusted to its most
upright position.'' (See NPRM at 67 FR 67378.) Rabun responded that its
discussions with school bus manufacturers have led them to believe that
``such seats, when in the reclined position, do not meet the intent of
FMVSS No. 222 and are therefore not available for sale in buses
certified as school buses.'' Rabun recommended the use of combination
lap/shoulder belts since they believed ``a passenger who is seated
behind a seat in the reclining position and who is wearing a lap/
shoulder restraint would be better protected in a frontal collision
than if the passenger did not have seat belts, even if the seating
system was certified to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 222.'' Rabun
also expressed the view that if each passenger was provided a lap/
shoulder restraint and was required to use it, the issue of
compartmentalization and seat spacing would be ``correspondingly
insignificant.''
AAP expressed concern that the proposed rule did not require
seating positions to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts and LATCH. AAP
called on NHTSA to ``move in the direction of ensuring greater safety
of children on school buses by requiring them to be equipped with lap/
shoulder belts.'' John Fairchild recommended that NHTSA should at least
``encourage'' every MFSAB to provide Type II lap/shoulder seat belt
systems at every seating position, and to provide ``appropriate
securement systems for the child restraint devices Head Start
specifies, and could serve other paratransit clients as well.''
Since none of these suggested amendments were proposed in the NPRM,
we are unable to adopt them without further notice and opportunity for
comment. We are aware of the continuing interest in possible
improvements to school bus seating. In May 2002, we reported to
Congress on prospective improvements for occupant protection in school
buses, as required by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21)(P.L. 105-178).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Section 2007(b) of TEA-21 states: ``School Bus Occupant
Safety Study--The Secretary shall conduct a study to assess occupant
safety in school buses. The study shall examine available
information and occupant safety and analyze options for improving
occupant safety.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA is in the process of developing test procedures for
voluntarily installed lap/shoulder belts in school buses over 4,536 kg
(10,000 pounds) gross vehicle weight rating. We expect to propose some
improvements in this area in the next year or so.
F. Warning Labels
Commenters on this issue expressed skepticism about the efficacy of
interior labels warning that MFSABs should not be used to transport
school children between home and school. NASDPTS questioned the benefit
of a warning label on the MFSAB as to its intended use. That
organization stated that using the MFSAB to transport students to and
from school would violate laws in every state. It noted that if
``someone with this knowledge is pre-conditioned to violate state laws,
and expose themselves and their school district to extreme liability
risks, it does not seem reasonable to assume that the addition of a
warning label will change that individual's mind.'' NASDPTS also noted
that there are already ``a large number'' of labels on school buses,
and that at some point, there are diminishing returns of adding even
more warning labels. NASDPTS recommended that any potential MFSAB
misuse be addressed through school bus driver training rather than by
another warning label.
[[Page 44897]]
John Fairchild recommended the adoption of a ``performance standard
for an interior warning device that specifies the vehicle's current
operational status.'' Fairchild suggested that the device or label
should at a minimum indicate whether the vehicle is in use as a school
activity bus, Head Start AAV, or other type of service. Vehicles
dedicated to a single use would need to provide ``only the one
appropriate indicator related to its defined activity.''
The Department of California Highway Patrol recommended a warning
label stating: ``This vehicle is not intended for daily school-bus
route use,'' that would be placed in a general location such as the
driver's compartment where it would be easily visible by the driver or
any passenger who enters or exits the vehicle.
NAIS ``sees no harm'' in placing a warning label, and suggested a
label in the driver's view that ``the MFSAB should not load or unload
passengers if the passengers are not protected from traffic.''
VAPT recommended that a warning label be placed in a prominent spot
and that the label state: ``No loading once the trip begins. No
unloading until reaching the destination. [Head Start Only--monitor
shall accompany students crossing the road.]'' NSTA also supported the
requirement for a warning label.
The Utah State Office of Education recommended a warning label near
the front of the occupant compartment stating: ``This Bus Is Not To Be
Used To Bus Students To or From School or Home.''
In the NPRM, NHTSA did not propose a specific warning label, but
did ask for comments on this issue. In particular, NHTSA asked whether
MFSAB manufacturers should be required to place a prominent warning
near the front of the occupant compartment, warning the driver and
passengers that the bus was not intended to be used to pick children up
from and drop them off at places such as home and bus stops. If
commenters believed that such a warning was appropriate, NHTSA asked
for comment on standardized wording, size and other appearance
requirements and location.
A number of commenters addressed the general question of whether or
not a warning label was appropriate, without addressing the more
specific questions. Commenters who did not believe a label was
appropriate expressed concerns about such a label distracting attention
from other warning labels or stated that State laws and liability
concerns would prevent misuse of the MFSAB. Most of those supporting a
label did not give specific information about why a label would be
helpful; however, a few did express concern about the possibility of
misuse.
A few commenters provided specific comment about the form a warning
label should take if required. One commenter, John Fairchild,
recommended the adoption of a ``performance standard for an interior
warning device that specifies the vehicle's current operational
status,'' i.e., school activity bus, Head Start AAV, etc. Other
commenters offered specific language indicating either that the MFSAB
was not to be used for school bus routes or that there should be no
unloading before reaching the final destination, but each commenter's
suggested language differed from the others.
Only one commenter addressed the issues of size and location. Les
Entreprises Michel Corbeil, Inc. indicated that if a warning label were
found to be necessary, the ``label should be as small as possible but
clearly visible to the drivers and to passengers seated in at least the
first three rows.''
After carefully considering the public comments, NHTSA has decided
not to specify a warning label in the final rule. NHTSA is not
convinced that a warning label would be necessary to convey the message
that the MFSAB should not be used for regular school bus use. As
NASDPTS noted, using the MFSAB to transport students to and from school
would violate laws in every state. Further, as many commenters pointed
out, there are already a large number of labels in school buses. For
these reasons, and because NHTSA did not propose a specific label,
NHTSA has decided to monitor the use of the MFSAB. If misuse occurs,
NHTSA will reconsider the warning label at a later date.
G. Passenger Restraints
U.S. Bus Corporation asked for clarification of whether the MFSAB
with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less must meet passenger restraint
system requirements in FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection or in
FMVSS No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection.
NHTSA's response is that as a school bus category, all MFSABs,
including those that are 10,000 pounds GVWR or under, must meet FMVSS
No. 222.
H. Emergency Exits
U.S. Bus Corporation also noted that FMVSS No. 217, Bus emergency
exits and window retention and release, has different requirements for
emergency exit windows and emergency exit doors for buses versus school
buses. They asked for clarification of which set of FMVSS No. 217
requirements the MFSAB must meet. Because the MFSAB would be a category
of school bus, it would have to meet all of the emergency exit
requirements specified in FMVSS No. 217 for school buses.
I. State Law Issues
Commenters offered these additional comments on issues that fall
within the purview of State law.
Potential Misuse by Home to School Transportation Providers
In the NPRM, NHTSA explained that it proposed a size limitation on
MFSABs because it was concerned about the possibility of misuse, i.e.,
the possibility that schools would purchase school buses without
traffic control devices as a means of saving money on buses used to
pick children up from and drop them off at home. In its comments,
NASDPTS addressed NHTSA's concern. NASDPTS stated that every State has
laws that require school bus drivers to activate the warning lamps and
stop signal arm whenever the school bus is stopped to pick up or
discharge students on public roads. A driver failing to activate these
devices would be in violation of State law. Further, if a school
district used a MFSAB to transport children to and from school, it
would be violating its State laws since it would be picking up or
discharging students without activating warning lamps and the stop
signal arm. NASDPTS noted: ``Such actions would not only be punishable
under state law, but would also expose the school district, school
board, state department of education, etc. to extreme liability risks
that would far outweigh any savings that might accrue from ordering a
MFSAB rather than a ``school bus.'''
VAPT stated its belief that the possibility of misuse is lessened
because state agencies that oversee the operations and specifications
for school buses used in the public schools do a very good job of
educating and training its members. VAPT stated that these state
agencies responsible for pupil transportation can also distribute
information to other state agencies, or can notify its member schools
about any new classification and ask the individual school district
directors to distribute notices locally.
NAIS suggested that NHTSA consider requiring schools using MFSABs
to load and unload students in protected areas out of roadways, whether
in a parking space, parking lot, or turnaround area. NAIS suggested
that such a rule ``may be a more appropriate reminder on a sticker in
the bus than one reminding
[[Page 44898]]
users that students should not be dropped off at home or other bus
stops.'' NHTSA does not have the statutory authority to regulate where
and how students are to be picked up or dropped off. Operational
requirements such as this are matters of State law.
The Amalgamated Transit Union encouraged NHTSA to prohibit school
districts from using passenger vans to transport children to and from
school and school-related activities. Because regulation of vehicle use
is a matter of State law, NHTSA cannot adopt this recommendation.
However, NHTSA and the National Transportation Safety Board have been
on record as recommending that school children be transported in school
buses (including the MFSAB), and not in buses that do not meet NHTSA's
school bus standards.
School Bus Color
Corbeil (a school bus and bus manufacturer), the National Child
Care Association, John Fairchild, and U.S. Bus Corporation recommended
that the final rule contain a provision prohibiting the MFSAB from
being painted National School Bus Glossy Yellow. This recommendation
will not be adopted because NHTSA did not propose to regulate MFSAB
color in the NPRM and thus, the issue is outside the scope of this
rulemaking. Although NHTSA does not at present regulate school bus
color, all States require school buses that provide home-to-school
transportation to be painted National School Bus Glossy Yellow, as
recommended in Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, ``Pupil
Transportation Safety.''
NHTSA is also aware that some States allow ``activity buses'' used
by schools to be painted a color other than National School Bus Glossy
Yellow. When this final rule takes effect, each State will determine
whether MFSABs used by schools for activity trips, child care
facilities for point-to-point school transportation, or coordinated
transportation systems for various transportation services, must be
painted a color other than National School Bus Glossy Yellow. NHTSA is
not aware of any safety problems associated with color identification
in buses that are already performing these services. Should it appear
that there is a safety need, NHTSA will consider regulating school bus
color.
School Bus Driver Training
John Fairchild recommended that NHTSA develop specific training
materials related to operational issues for the MFSAB drivers and
riders. NASDPTS recommended that any potential MFSAB misuse be
addressed through school bus driver training rather than by a warning
label.
School bus driver training is primarily a responsibility of State
and local governments. However, NHTSA will consider developing
educational materials, to be used voluntarily by school transportation
trainers, that discuss restrictions on the use of MFSABs, especially
involving to and from school transportation for school children.
V. Final Rule
After reviewing the public comments, NHTSA has decided to adopt a
new school bus category, the ``multifunction school activity bus,''
with the following characteristics:
1. The MFSAB is classified as a ``school bus,'' not a ``bus.''
2. There is no upper weight limit on the MFSAB.
3. The MFSAB must meet FMVSS No. 222, as FMVSS No. 222 is presently
written.
4. The MFSAB must meet all warning label requirements applicable to
school buses. There is no label unique to the MFSAB.
5. Because school bus color is regulated by State law, NHTSA does
not prohibit the MFSAB from being painted National School Bus Glossy
Yellow.
VI. How This Final Rule Affects Other Federal Agencies
A. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)--Head Start
Bureau
With this final rule, we intend to create a subcategory of school
buses that qualify as ``allowable alternate vehicles'' under DHHS' Head
Start regulations, 45 CFR 1310.12, and thus could be used to transport
Head Start Program participants.
B. Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
We anticipate that creation of the MFSAB will aid the efforts of
Regional Transit Authorities (which must serve the general public) and
Head Start both to meet State law and to satisfy the limitations on the
availability of funding from the FTA. Since the MFSABs do not have the
school bus flashing lights and stop arms, NHTSA expects that transit
authorities and other transportation providers can readily obtain FTA
funding to buy MFSABs, provided that such vehicles are not used as
school buses to provide home-to-school service. Further, as noted
above, in many States, the flashing lights and stop arms are permitted
only on ``school buses'' (as defined by State law).
C. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
By making available a category of school bus that may be somewhat
less expensive than the school bus with traffic control devices, NHTSA
anticipates that the final rule will help child transportation
providers in implementing the NTSB's recommendation that children be
transported in buses that ``meet the school bus structural standards or
the equivalent set forth in 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571.''
VII. Leadtime
All public commenters addressing the leadtime issue urged that this
final rule take effect as soon as possible. Accordingly, this final
rule is effective thirty days from the date this document is published
in the Federal Register. Optional early compliance with this final rule
is provided as of the date this document is published in the Federal
Register.
VIII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action''
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
We have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory
Planning and
[[Page 44899]]
Review.'' The rulemaking action is also not considered to be
significant under the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
For the following reasons, we believe that this final rule will not
increase vehicle manufacturers' costs to provide school buses for uses
other than transportation of students between home and school. In order
to manufacture a ``multifunction school activity bus,'' vehicle
manufacturers need only manufacture a school bus and omit including the
four-way/eight-way alternating flashing lights and stop arm.
For the following reasons, depending on how the new ``multifunction
school activity bus'' is priced, NHTSA believes that organizations that
at present purchase school buses for transportation purposes other than
to and from home to school might realize a cost benefit as a result of
this rulemaking.
As earlier discussed, this final rule creates a subcategory of
school buses that need not meet requirements for flashing four-way/
eight-way alternating flashing lights or a stop arm. Estimates supplied
by Blue Bird Body Company (a school bus manufacturer) indicate that the
average cost of the four-way/eight-way alternating flashing lights is
approximately $417 per school bus and the average cost of the stop-arm
is approximately $560. Estimates supplied by Thomas Built Buses
(another school bus manufacturer) indicate that the cost for the four-
way/eight-way alternating flashing lights ranges from $175 for the
least expensive four-way system to $2,300 for the most expensive eight-
way system and the cost for stop-arms ranges from $250 to $720. Based
on those figures, the cost of adding stop-arms and alternating flashing
lights ranges from $425 to $3020 per school bus.
The Annual Fact Book published by School Transportation News
reports a strong increase in sales of ``Type A'' school buses
(approximately 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) GVWR); increasing from 6,389 in
the 1995-1996 school year to 10,475 in the 1998-1999 school year. The
agency notes that from 1990 through 1997, approximately 6,000 ``Type
A'' school buses were sold each year. The agency believes that the
increase in the sales of small school buses for years following 1997 is
mostly due to purchases by organizations such as day care centers and
Head Start, which provide child transportation. The agency does not
have any data to indicate what percentages of the ``Type A'' school
buses are sold to organizations that provide transportation other than
between home and school. We note that since approximately 6,000 small
``Type A'' school buses were sold per year prior to 1997, a reasonable
assumption would be that about 4,000 of these buses are sold to day
care centers and others for transportation purposes other than to and
from home to school.
Based on the cost figures discussed above and the conservative
estimate of 4,000 Type A school buses sold each year, we estimate that
this final rule may save child transportation providers approximately
$3.9 million dollars per year in the small ``Type A'' school bus
market. However, this estimate assumes that school bus manufacturers
will reduce the prices of the ``multifunction school activity bus'' by
the amount of money saved as a result of not having to install four-
way/eight-way alternating flashing lights or stop arms on those
vehicles.
Because the economic impacts of this proposal are so minimal (i.e.,
the annual effect on the economy is less than $100 million), no further
regulatory evaluation is necessary.
B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13132 requires us to develop an accountable process
to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' is
defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under
Executive Order 13132, we may not issue a regulation with Federalism
implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and
that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides
the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by
State and local governments, or unless we consult with State and local
governments, or unless we consult with State and local officials early
in the process of developing the proposed regulation. We also may not
issue a regulation with Federalism implications and that preempts State
law unless we consult with State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed regulation.
This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132.
The reason is that this final rule, applies to motor vehicle
manufacturers, not to the States or local governments. This final rule
assists child transportation providers by making available a school bus
that meets the traffic control laws of States and local governments.
Thus, the requirements of Section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply
to this final rule.
C. Executive Order 13045 (Economically Significant Rules
Disproportionately Affecting Children)
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by us.
This final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is
not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866 and does not
involve decisions based on environmental, health or safety risks that
disproportionately affect children. However, this final rule makes a
school bus vehicle type available for transportation purposes other
than to and from home to school. Although we do not have any estimates
of the extent or nature of the practice throughout the country, the
agency is informed by the National Child Care Association that at
present, in many cases, children provided transportation to and from
child care facilities are transported in 15-passenger vans or other
buses that do not meet the special requirements for school buses. This
final rule increases the chances that children are transported in
MFSABs, rather than in buses that are not school buses and the
children's safety is thereby enhanced.
D. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
Pursuant to Executive Order 12778, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' we
have considered whether this final rule has any retroactive effect. We
conclude that it does not have such an effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103,
whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State
may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable to the same
aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal standard,
except
[[Page 44900]]
to the extent that the state requirement imposes a higher level of
performance and applies only to vehicles procured for the State's use.
49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial review of final
rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor vehicle safety
standards. That section does not require submission of a petition for
reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before parties may
file suit in court.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies the rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
The agency Administrator has considered the effects of this
rulemaking action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) and certifies that this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We believe
that this final rule benefits small businesses, small nonprofits and
small local governments slightly because they are now able to purchase
a school bus without traffic control devices on them, potentially
saving $977 per school bus (using figures provided by Blue Bird Body
Company), and saving small entity providers of transportation other
than to and from home to school transportation approximately $3.9
million dollars per year. This cost savings assumes that school bus
manufacturers (some of which are small businesses) pass on to customers
the cost savings resulting from not installing the traffic control
devices on the school buses.
Accordingly, the agency believes that this final rule has a small
beneficial cost effect on small motor vehicle manufacturers considered
to be small business entities, on small businesses (that presently
transport children in school buses with the four-way/eight-way
alternating flashing lights and stop arms) providing transportation
other than to and from home to school, or child care, small nonprofits,
and small local governmental entities.
F. National Environmental Policy Act
We have analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have any
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
NHTSA has determined that this final rule will not impose any
``collection of information'' burdens on the public, within the meaning
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). This rulemaking action
will not impose any filing or recordkeeping requirements on any
manufacturer or any other party.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)
directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
After conducting a search of available sources, we have determined
that there are not any voluntary consensus standards applicable to this
rulemaking.
I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal 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 expenditure by State, local or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base
year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
if we publish with the final rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted.
This final rule will not result in costs of $100 million or more to
either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
J. Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
--Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
--Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not
clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
--What else could we do to make this rulemaking easier to
understand?
K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber
products, Tires.
0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (49 CFR part 571), are amended as set forth below.
[[Page 44901]]
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
0
2. Section 571.3 is amended by adding a definition of ``Multifunction
school activity bus'' to paragraph (b), in the appropriate alphabetical
order, to read as follows:
Sec. 571.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
Multifunction school activity bus (MFSAB) means a school bus whose
purposes do not include transporting students to and from home or
school bus stops.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 571.108 is amended by revising the introductory sentence in
S5.1.4 to read as follows:
Sec. 571.108 Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and
associated equipment.
* * * * *
5.1.4 Except for multifunction school activity buses, each school
bus shall be equipped with a system of either:
* * * * *
0
4. Section 571.131 is amended by revising S3 to read as follows:
Sec. 571.131 Standard No. 131, School bus pedestrian safety devices.
* * * * *
S3. Application. This standard applies to school buses other than
multifunction school activity buses.
* * * * *
Issued on: July 21, 2003.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 03-19457 Filed 7-28-03; 10:13 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P