[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 5, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67373-67382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-27996]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under existing Federal requirements, all school buses must be 
equipped with crash avoidance devices designed to control traffic 
(i.e., flashing lights and stop arms) because the use of most school 
buses includes stopping in the roadway to pick children up from and 
drop them off at home. There is a

[[Page 67374]]

need in those circumstances to stop nearby traffic during the loading 
and unloading of children.
    This notice proposes to establish a subcategory of relatively small 
school buses that would not be used to pick school children up from or 
drop them off at home. These school buses would, accordingly, not be 
required to have traffic control features. They would, however, be 
required to meet all other school bus crash avoidance requirements and 
all crashworthiness and post-crash requirements. These buses would be 
known as ``multifunction school activity buses.''
    It is anticipated that these buses would be used by child care 
facilities to drop children off at school at the beginning of the 
school day or pick them up from school at the end of the school day, by 
schools to transport children from school to extracurricular activities 
and back, and by ``coordinated transportation'' systems to provide a 
wide range of transportation services that can include transporting 
children to or from Head Start Programs and transporting senior 
citizens to social service facilities. These buses could be used for 
the Head Start Program transportation because they would qualify as 
``allowable alternate vehicles'' under the regulations for that 
program.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that 
Docket Management receives them not later than January 6, 2003.

ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments in writing to: Docket 
Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 
20590. Alternatively, you may submit your comments electronically by 
logging onto the Docket Management System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to view 
instructions for filing your comments electronically. Regardless of how 
you submit your comments, you should mention the docket number of this 
document.
    You may call the Docket at 202-366-9324. You may visit the Docket 
from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for Federal 
holidays.

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

Executive Summary
I. What Is the Purpose of This Rulemaking?
II. Relevant Laws and Policies of Affected Federal Agencies
    A. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
    B. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services `` Head Start 
Bureau
    C. Federal Transit Administration
    D. National Transportation Safety Board
IV. How Did This Rulemaking Begin?--Rabun-Gap Nacoochee School 
Petition
V. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking `` What Is the Multifunction School 
Activity Bus?
    A. Vehicle Classification
    B. Must Meet Most School Bus Standards
    C. Would Not Be Required To Meet S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 and 
Standard No.131
    D. Would Be Required To Meet School Bus Seating Requirements
    E. Relationship of This Rulemaking to Laws and Policies of Other 
Federal Agencies
    1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services `` Head Start 
Bureau
    2. Federal Transit Administration
    3. National Transportation Safety Board
    F. Additional Issues
VI. Leadtime
VII. 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)
Proposed Regulatory Text

I. Executive Summary

    When selling a new bus that is likely to be used significantly to 
transport preprimary, primary, secondary students to or from school or 
related events, a motor vehicle dealer is required by Federal law to 
sell a bus that meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for 
school buses. In this document, we (NHTSA) propose to create a 
subcategory of school buses, the ``multifunction school activity bus'' 
(MFSAB). The MFSAB would be defined as a school bus with a gross 
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 6,804 kg (15,000 pounds) or less sold 
for purposes that do not include transportation between home and school 
for students from kindergarten through Grade 12. Since the MFSAB would 
not be used by schools for picking up children from, or dropping them 
off at, home, they would not make stops under circumstances in which 
there is a need to control traffic.
    As a consequence of their more limited usage compared to other 
school buses, the MFSAB would not be required to be equipped with 
traffic control features, i.e., the 4-way/8-way alternating flashing 
lights and stop arms. They would, however, be required to meet all 
requirements in the school bus crashworthiness, all other requirements 
in the crash avoidance safety standards, and all post crash standards.

II. What Is the Purpose of This Rulemaking?

    This notice proposes to create a subcategory of school buses 
consisting of school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 6804 
kg (15,000 pounds) and under that meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards (FMVSSs) applicable to school buses, except for S5.1.4 of 
Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, 
and Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices. This 
rulemaking seeks to resolve the conflict between current NHTSA 
requirements that all new school buses be equipped with those devices, 
regardless of whether a particular school bus will ever be used in 
circumstances for which those devices are intended, and State laws that 
do not permit the use of those devices on trips that do not involve 
transporting children between home and school. MFSABs within the new 
subcategory of school buses would not be required to be equipped with 
flashing lights and stop arms. They would be intended to be used to 
transport children to places other than between home and school, and 
would afford children the crashworthiness protection of other school 
buses.
    As will be explained in more detail, creating the MFSAB school bus 
classification without the Standards Nos. 108 and 131 traffic control 
devices will facilitate Head Start programs' purchases of school buses 
(which will be the ``allowable alternate vehicles'' defined in Head 
Start regulations). It is anticipated that this new school bus 
classification will also be used for coordinated transportation 
purposes by State and local social services agencies, that may, for 
example, use the school buses to transport Head Start participants in 
the morning, and to transport senior citizens later in the day. At 
present, there are Federal restrictions on financial assistance to 
purchase school buses that exclusively transport

[[Page 67375]]

students and school personnel in competition with a private school bus 
operator. If made final, we anticipate that this rulemaking will 
facilitate funding from the U.S. Federal Transit Administration to Head 
Start programs and coordinated transportation providers to purchase the 
school buses.

III. Relevant Laws and Policies of Affected Federal Agencies

A. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

    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. 
Our 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, secondary'' 
students to or from school or related events. (Emphasis added.) 49 
U.S.C. section 30125. For example, many before and after school child 
care facilities use 15-passenger vans to transport children between 
school and the care facility several times a week. A 15-passenger van 
that will be used in that way is regarded as likely to be ``used 
significantly'' to transport students and is, therefore, a ``school 
bus'' and must meet the school bus safety standards.
    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 those 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). Under current NHTSA 
interpretations, the term ``preprimary, primary, and secondary school'' 
includes kindergarten, elementary school, middle or junior high school, 
and senior high school. However, the term ``school'' does not include 
pre-school (nursery) centers, day care centers or Head Start programs.
    Thus, for example, in answering questions about the sale or leasing 
of a new bus in situations involving transportation of children to or 
from multiple institutions, one of which was a school, we have informed 
motor vehicle dealers that new buses sold to day-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. (See, e.g., July 23, 1998 letter to Mr. Don Cote, Northside 
Ford, explaining that when the dealership sells or leases new buses to 
a child care facility to drop-off students at school and pick them up 
from school on ``regular school days,'' the dealership must sell or 
lease only buses that meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards 
(FMVSSs) for school buses. A copy of this letter has been placed in the 
docket for this rulemaking.)
    In our interpretations of section 30125, we have stated that in 
order to be sold as a school bus, a vehicle must meet all applicable 
school bus FMVSSs and requirements, including the 4-way/8-way 
alternating flashing lights required by Standard No. 108 and the stop-
arm required by Standard No. 131. Thus, dealers cannot sell school 
buses that will be used only to transport children on trips that do not 
include ``regular route'' school transportation (i.e., normal to and 
from school transportation involving multiple stops for the purposes of 
pick-up from home and/or drop-off at home) unless those buses are 
equipped with flashing lights and stop arms. This is true even if these 
devices are not likely to be used, or State law does not allow them to 
be used, on such trips.
    After selling or leasing school buses, dealers cannot remove the 
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.

B. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services--Head Start Bureau

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services'' (DHHS) Head 
Start Bureau administers the Head Start Program. There is no statutory 
requirement for the Head Start Program to provide transportation for 
children participating in the Program. However, if a Head Start agency 
provides transportation, it must follow the regulations established in 
45 CFR part 1310 Head Start Transportation. Beginning on January 18, 
2006, if it provides transportation for the children, a Head Start 
agency must comply with the following provision in 45 CFR section 
1310.12 ``Required use of School Buses or Allowable Alternate 
Vehicles:'

(a) Effective January 18, 2006, each agency providing transportation 
services must ensure that children enrolled in its program are 
transported in school buses or allowable alternate vehicles that are 
equipped for use of height- and weight-appropriate child restraint 
systems, and have reverse beepers.

    ``Allowable alternate vehicle'' is defined at 45 CFR section 1310.3 
as: ``a vehicle designed for carrying eleven or more people, including 
the driver, that meets all the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 
applicable to school buses, except 49 CFR 571.108 and 571.131.''

C. Federal Transit Administration

    Under the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) statutory 
authority at 49 U.S.C. section 5323(f) ``School Transportation,'' the 
FTA may provide financial assistance ``for a capital project, or to 
operate mass transportation equipment or a mass transportation 
facility, only if the applicant agrees not to provide schoolbus 
transportation that exclusively transports students and school 
personnel in competition with a private schoolbus operator.'' Thus, FTA 
funds may not be used to purchase schoolbuses that will be used 
exclusively to transport students and school personnel. In order to 
make FTA funds available to Head Start agencies to purchase buses to 
transport Head Start children, on June 24, 1994, the FTA issued an 
interpretation that Head Start is a broad-based social services program 
rather than an educational program.
    The FTA provides funding to Regional Transit Authorities, which 
provide transportation services to different population groups, e.g., 
children, persons with disabilities, senior citizens, and others in 
need of public transportation services. Many of these authorities also 
have contracts with Head Start to transport its participants to and 
from Head Start programs. Thus, these authorities need buses that can 
serve multiple needs.

D. National Transportation Safety Board

    In a report dated June 8, 1999, the National Transportation Safety 
Board (NTSB) recommended that the 50 States and the District of 
Columbia:

Require that all vehicles carrying more than 10 passengers (buses) 
and transporting children to and from school and school related 
activities, including, but not limited to, Head Start programs and 
day care centers, meet the school bus structural standards or the 
equivalent set forth in 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571. 
Enact regulatory measures to enforce compliance with the revised 
statutes.


[[Page 67376]]


The NTSB also recommended that child transportation providers: ``Inform 
your members about the circumstances of the accidents discussed in this 
special investigation report and urge that they use buses built to 
Federal school bus structural standards or the equivalent to transport 
children. (H-99-25)'' The NTSB made these recommendations after 
investigating four crashes involving buses that did not meet NHTSA's 
school bus standards that resulted in the deaths of eight children, one 
adult, and injuries to 36 people.

IV. How Did This Rulemaking Begin?--Rabun-Gap Nacoochee School Petition

    Rabun-Gap Nacoochee School of Rabun-Gap, Georgia (Rabun) petitioned 
us to create a new motor vehicle type classification known as the 
``school activity bus.'' Rabun is a private school that offers 
education from Grades 6 through 12.
    Specifically, Rabun petitioned us for the following:
    [sbull] Create an official ``category'' of school buses to be 
called ``school activity buses'' that consists of buses that are used 
for transporting school children to or from school-related activities, 
but are not used to transport children between home and school. Require 
that the classification ``school activity bus'' be displayed on the 
vehicle certification label. (49 CFR 576.4(g)(7) and 49 CFR 
568.4(a)(6).)
    [sbull] Exclude school buses that meet the criteria for this new 
category from the requirement for School Bus Warning Lights at 49 CFR 
part 571.108, S5.1.4. (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 
Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.)
    [sbull] Exclude school buses that meet the criteria for this new 
category from the requirement for Stop Signal Arms at 49 CFR part 
571.131 (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus 
Pedestrian Safety Devices.)
    [sbull] Provide an alternative to passenger seating and crash 
protection so that buses meeting the criteria for this new category may 
either meet the compartmentalization requirements of 49 CFR 571.222, 
School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (Standard No. 222), 
or be equipped with either an ``acceptable'' passive restraint system 
(other than compartmentalization) or seat belts for each designated 
seating position.
    [sbull] Require buses meeting the criteria for this new category to 
provide approximately 18 inches of seat [seating] width for each 
designated seating position. In a letter dated March 26, 2001, NHTSA 
granted Rabun's petition for rulemaking.

V. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking--What Is the Multifunction School 
Activity Bus?

    The following describes the proposed FMVSS features of a 
``multifunction school activity bus'' that would distinguish it from 
other school buses and a ``bus'' such as a 15-passenger van. We also 
discuss the extent to which we propose to adopt requests in Rabun's 
petition for rulemaking. For those requests that we are not proposing 
to adopt, we explain why we are not doing so.

A. Vehicle Classification

    Petitioner Rabun asked that the proposed new vehicle be called a 
``school activity bus.'' We believe that a more generic name is needed 
because we believe that the proposed type of school bus would be used 
for more than school activity trips. As earlier discussed, we are 
proposing the new vehicle classification with the expectation that this 
new school bus type would be used by coordinated transportation systems 
and other types of transportation service, such as Head Start and day 
care. ``Coordinated transportation'' is a term used by the transit 
community to signify that the transportation is coordinated among all 
user transportation organizations. These services usually involve 
social services transportation including senior citizens and/or Head 
Start. We propose to call the new vehicle a ``multifunction school 
activity bus'' (MFSAB), a term that does not necessarily imply a use 
limited to school activity trips.
    Petitioner Rabun asked that the classification ``school activity 
bus'' be required to be displayed on the vehicle certification label so 
that its intended use is clearly stated. Rabun recommended that 49 CFR 
567.4(g)(7) be amended to require this vehicle type to be listed on the 
certification label. Rabun also recommended that the incomplete vehicle 
document required by section 568.4(a)(6) be amended to require the 
vehicle classification. The agency notes that a vehicle's 
classification, as determined in accordance with the definitions in 49 
CFR part 571.3 Definitions, is already required to be on the vehicle's 
certification label and on any incomplete vehicle document. Although 
Rabun asked us to do so, the agency believes that it is not necessary 
to propose to amend parts 567 and 568 to provide another example of a 
type classification.

B. Must Meet Most School Bus Standards

    As a type of bus, the proposed ``multifunction school activity 
bus'' would be required to meet all the FMVSSs applicable to a ``bus.'' 
As a type of school bus, it would also have to meet provisions in the 
following FMVSSs applicable to school buses:
    Standard No. 105, Hydraulic and electric brake system, requires 
school buses with hydraulic brakes to stop in shorter distances than 
other vehicle types;
    Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors, requires the school bus driver 
to be able to see, either directly or through a system of mirrors, 
certain areas in front of and along both sides of the school bus;
    Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and 
release, specifies means of readily accessible emergency egress, makes 
the emergency exits easier for children to use and requires increased 
outside conspicuity, to aid in nighttime evacuation;
    Standard No. 220, School bus rollover protection, specifies minimum 
strength requirements for school bus roofs, to reduce the likelihood of 
roof collapse in the event of a rollover, and requires that emergency 
exits (except roof exits) be operable after the roof is subjected to 
forces that can be encountered in rollovers;
    Standard No. 221, School bus body joint strength, specifies minimum 
strength requirements for body panel joints, to improve the structural 
integrity of the passenger compartment, and to reduce the likelihood of 
lacerative injuries to occupants caused by the sharp edges of body 
panels that tear loose in crashes;
    Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash 
protection, specifies seating restraining barrier and impact zone 
requirements for school buses, relying on compartmentalization between 
well-padded and well-constructed energy-absorbing seats to provide 
occupant protection, and specifies requirements for wheelchair 
restraint systems;
    Standard No. 225, Child restraint anchorage systems, establishes 
requirements for child restraint anchorage systems (except school buses 
do not have to meet the requirement for vehicles to be equipped with 
tether anchorages);
    Standard No. 301, Fuel system integrity, specifies requirements for 
the integrity and security of the entire fuel system, including the 
fuel tanks, fuel pump, fuel delivery system, emission controls, lines, 
and connections in severe barrier impact crash tests; and

[[Page 67377]]

    Standard No. 303, Fuel system integrity of compressed natural gas 
vehicles, specifies, for school buses using compressed natural gas, 
requirements for the integrity and security of the entire fuel system 
and connections in severe barrier impact crash tests.
    In Section D., below, we explain why, despite Petitioner Rabun's 
request, we have decided not to propose to exclude the ``multifunction 
school activity bus'' from Standard No. 222, School bus passenger 
seating and crash protection.

C. Would Not Be Required To Meet S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 and 
Standard No. 131

    Petitioner Rabun seeks relief from the traffic control devices that 
the FMVSSs specify for school buses. These traffic control devices are 
the 4-way/8-way alternating flashing warning lamps specified in 
Standard No. 108 and the stop arm specified in Standard No. 131.
    Petitioner Rabun said that regular route school buses that are used 
for transportation between home and school are required by State 
regulations to utilize the warning lights and stop arms when stopping 
on a highway to receive and discharge student passengers along the 
route. The agency notes that in every State, motorists are required to 
stop and refrain from passing a school bus while those traffic control 
warning devices are activated. A survey conducted by the National 
Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services 
indicated that most States require the use of these devices when a bus 
is receiving or discharging student passengers along a street or 
highway.
    Petitioner Rabun said that when school buses are engaged in 
activity trips, student passengers are typically transported from the 
school to the activity site and returned to the school. Rabun said that 
it would be very unusual for the bus to stop along a highway to receive 
or discharge passengers during one of these trips. Rabun stated that 
when a school bus is engaged in an activity trip, it would normally be 
prohibited by State law from using the school bus warning lights and 
stop signal arm, which are unique to school buses.
    The agency notes that in many cases, the same is true for Head 
Start buses and day-care buses that provide to and from school 
transportation as well as buses used by coordinated transportation 
systems for to and from school and Head Start transportation. Child 
day-care buses normally would load students at their facility and drop 
them off at the school, with no stops along the way to drop off or pick 
up passengers.
    DHHS's regulation, Head Start Transportation (at 45 CFR part 1310) 
generally requires that ``each agency providing transportation services 
must ensure that in planning fixed routes the safety of the children 
being transported is the primary consideration.'' (45 CFR section 
1310.20(a)). Among its specific requirements are: ``When possible, 
stops must be located to eliminate the need for children to cross the 
street or highway to board or leave the vehicle'' (45 CFR section 
1310.20(b)(5)) and ``If children must cross the street before boarding 
or after leaving the vehicle because curbside drop off or pick up is 
impossible, they must be escorted across the street by the bus monitor 
or another adult.'' (45 CFR section 1310.20(b)(6)).
    The agency agrees with Rabun that the alternating flashing warning 
lights and stop-arm are traffic control devices and that their use on a 
bus is generally prohibited by State law except when the bus is 
receiving or discharging student passengers along a roadway. The agency 
is not aware of any State that permits using these school bus traffic 
control devices on trips other than ones between school and home.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ It is the agency's understanding that some States may 
prohibit school buses from deploying their stop arms and 4-way/8-way 
alternating flashing lights when stopped at railroad crossings. 
Later in this notice, the agency asks whether any State allows or 
requires use of these traffic control devices when the school bus is 
stopped at a railroad crossing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency tentatively concludes that 4-way/8-way alternating 
flashing lights and stop-arms are not needed if a school bus is not 
going to be used to transport students between home and school. The 
agency does not believe that there are any safety benefits from 
requiring stop-arms and alternating flashing lights on school buses 
that are solely used for trips during which State law prohibits their 
use.
    Some States do not allow any vehicle other than a school bus that 
is painted yellow to have 4-way/8-way alternating flashing lights and 
stop arms. Other States, for example, Georgia, Maryland, and Indiana, 
require that the alternating flashing lights and stop-arms be 
completely removed from the buses if they are used for purposes other 
than transporting school children to and from home.

D. Would Be Required To Meet School Bus Seating Requirements

    Petitioner Rabun argued that the agency should provide an 
alternative to school bus passenger seating and crash protection so 
that school buses certified as MFSABs may meet either Standard No. 222, 
School bus passenger seating and crash protection or be excluded from 
compartmentalization requirements, provided that they are equipped with 
an ``acceptable'' passive restraint system, or that they are equipped 
with occupant seat belt restraints for each designated seating 
position. Rabun further argued that the new school bus type should 
provide approximately 18 inches of seat width (seating room) for each 
designated seating position. Rabun's rationale was that most new 
vehicles have the option of providing either a passive occupant 
protection system or an active occupant protection system. Only a 
school bus, however, must meet the passive occupant restraint system 
specified in Standard No. 222.
    Rabun stated that the logic behind requiring passive systems on 
school bus routes is not difficult to understand. However, the 
petitioner believes that the wisdom of this logic is coming under 
increasing scrutiny. Rabun stated that, in their search for an activity 
bus, school officials seek a crash protection alternative to 
compartmentalization, the construction techniques that give the school 
bus its passive occupant restraint capability. Rabun stated that 
purchasers of this new bus type would be looking for a passenger 
seating system that would provide comfort for trips of several hours' 
duration and would be comfortable for tall and/or large passengers who 
have difficulty fitting into the typical school bus seat bench and the 
narrow space provided for knees.
    The agency does not agree with Rabun's reasons for not requiring 
the MFSAB to meet Standard No. 222. Rabun's belief that manufacturers 
of most new vehicles have the option of providing either a passive 
occupant protection system or an active occupant protection system is 
incorrect. Except for motorcycles, all motor vehicles with a gross 
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less are 
required to have a type I (lap belt) or a type II (lap and shoulder 
belt) at each designated seating position (active system). In addition 
to the seat belt requirement, passenger cars, trucks, and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,863 kg (8,500 pounds) or less and 
an unloaded vehicle weight of less than 2,500 kg (5,500 pounds) are 
required to have airbags (passive system) at the front outboard seating 
positions. Multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR greater than 
4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) are required to have seat belts at all seating 
positions. Only buses and school buses with a

[[Page 67378]]

GVWR over 4,536 kg are not required to have seat belts for all seating 
positions.
    For the following reasons, we also do not agree with Rabun's 
argument that the seating requirements specified in Standard No. 222 do 
not allow for comfort. Nothing in Standard No. 222 prohibits school bus 
seats from reclining. Standard No. 222's test procedure at S6.4 states: 
``Seat back position. If adjustable, a seat back is adjusted to its 
most upright position.'' Standard No. 222 is a performance standard, 
not a design standard. Therefore, as long as the MFSAB manufacturer 
certifies (and ensures) that its MFSAB will meet Standard No. 222 when 
NHTSA tests the MFSAB, nothing in Standard No. 222 would have the 
effect of prohibiting extra padding or leather on school bus seats.
    Rabun is apparently under the impression that the Standard No. 222 
specifies that school bus seats be close together, which is not the 
case. At present, nothing prohibits school buses from being ordered 
with maximum seat spacing that provides for more leg room. The seat 
spacing requirements for school buses over 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) 
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) allows for comfortable seating. 
Standard No. 222 at S5.2 specifies that the seats be spaced no further 
than 610 mm (24 inches) from the seating reference point to the seat 
back or restraining barrier in front of it. In practice, however, in 
order to maximize seating capacity in the school bus, schools and 
school districts order most school buses used on regular routes with 
seat spacing of approximately 482.6 to 508 mm (19 to 20 inches) from 
the seating reference point.
    S5.2 in effect allows for approximately 711.2 to 787.4 mm (28 to 31 
inches) for seat spacing pitch distance (the distance between the backs 
of two school bus seats, where one seat is placed directly in front of 
the other seat). The 787.4 mm (31 inches) seat spacing is similar to 
that found on coach-type intercity buses. School bus manufacturers 
Thomas Built Buses, and Blue Bird Body Company both offer activity 
seats in school buses that are comfortable on long trips. In addition 
to the school bus manufacturers, Freedman Seating Company, a seat 
manufacturer, also offers activity-seating systems that are designed 
for comfort. The Freeman activity seating systems have seat pitch 
spacing of approximately 787.4 mm (31 inches), which should provide 
adequate knee room.
    We note that there are no parallel spacing requirements between 
rows (to provide knee room) for school buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg 
(10,000 pounds) or under.
    Rabun argued that S4.1 of Standard No. 222 should be modified so 
that seating positions on buses are wider. Rabun suggested that the 
number of seating positions in a bench seat should be calculated by 
dividing the bench seat width by 457.2 mm (18 inches) (for each seating 
position). Rabun believes that its recommended change would also 
eliminate the situation of having a bench seat on a school activity bus 
equipped with three sets of seat belts when only two typical teenage 
passengers will fit on the seat.
    The agency notes that Rabun's argument for considering the minimum 
seat width of each designated seating position to be 457.2 mm (18 
inches) appears to be based on the misconception that the number of 
seating positions is an exact figure that must be the same as the 
number of seats derived from the formula NHTSA uses to determine 
loading forces when testing school bus seats. Rabun also appears to 
believe that school bus users are bound by the number of seating 
positions determined under Standard No. 222, and that that Standard 
unduly restricts the amount of seat width allowed for persons sitting 
in the school bus seat. As explained below, we do not agree with 
Rabun's understanding of minimum seat width requirements.
    Standard No. 222 requires that seats in school buses be able to 
withstand specified minimum/maximum forces, which are intended to 
ensure that the seats (and restraining barriers) are capable of 
providing acceptable levels of crash protection to seated occupants who 
may impact structures within the bus during a crash or sudden driving 
maneuver. In order to determine the amount of force to apply to a seat 
during testing, Standard No. 222 (at S4.1) specifies that the width of 
the seat is divided by 381 and rounded to the nearest whole number. 
That divisor is used because 381 mm (15 inches) is the seat width that 
is necessary to accommodate children and younger teenagers. For 
example, a 990.6 mm (39 inches) wide seat (the most popular width for 
school bus seats) divided by 381 equals 2.6, which is rounded up to 3. 
The loading to which the seat is subjected for the performance tests is 
the specified loading multiplied by 3.
    The logic behind this procedure is to subject school bus seats to 
force levels sufficiently high enough to ensure that the seat is 
unlikely to fail as a result of a severe crash. The force derived in 
the above example by rounding 2.6 up to 3 for a 990.6 mm (39 inches) 
seat is necessarily a greater force than would be exerted if only two 
occupants were in the seat. Subjecting seats to this increased loading 
provides an increased margin of safety for school bus seats.
    The agency has addressed the seating width issue in the past. In an 
October 9, 1990 Federal Register document (55 FR 41117)(No DOT Docket 
No.), we denied a petition for rulemaking asking that Standard No. 222 
be amended by specifying the seating capacity of school bus seats. The 
petitioner sought to have the agency revise the formula discussed above 
by providing for dividing the seating width by 15 (seat width in 
inches) and ignoring the remainder. Thus, a 39-inch wide seat would be 
considered as having two seating positions. The petitioner asserted 
that the change was needed to avoid overcrowding on school buses.
    In denying the petition, we explained that the passenger capacity 
for school buses is not based on the formula in Standard No. 222 for 
determining the test loading for seats. The formula in Standard No. 222 
is not to be used to infer the number of seating positions on a school 
bus seat bench. It is not clear, given the wide range of ages and sizes 
of students carried on school buses (from pre-primary through high 
school football teams), how one could specify a meaningful requirement 
for passenger seating capacity that would be appropriate for all sizes 
of students. For example, a school bus seat that would easily 
accommodate three small children may only be able to accommodate two 
high school seniors.
    We emphasize that Standard No. 222 is not intended to require or 
suggest that a school bus seat bench be occupied by the maximum number 
of persons determined under S4.1 for the purposes of calculating test 
forces. Instead, by imposing loads during testing that are 
representative of severe crash conditions, the Standard is intended to 
ensure that school bus seats and restraining barriers will perform 
safely and effectively. This is the safety margin discussed above. 
Standard No. 222 addresses the issue of potential overcrowding by 
including this safety margin.
    The agency recognizes some state laws require that children 
participating in Head Start Programs must, because of their age, size 
or weight, use child restraint systems while being transported. The 
agency strongly recommends that Head Start Programs utilize MFSABs 
equipped either with seat belt systems or with lower anchors and tether 
for children (LATCH) systems to attach the children restraint systems 
used to transport these children. We are currently reviewing

[[Page 67379]]

research test results to develop a proposal regarding the installation 
of seat belt systems and/or LATCH systems in school buses.

E. Relationship of This Rulemaking to Laws and Policies of Other 
Federal Agencies

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services--Head Start Bureau
    If this proposal were made final, it would create a subcategory of 
school buses that would 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.
2. Federal Transit Administration
    If made final, this proposal would specify a vehicle type, the 
MFSAB, that would 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 would not have the school bus flashing lights 
and stop arms, it is NHTSA's hope that transit authorities and other 
transportation providers could 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).
3. National Transportation Safety Board
    By making available a category of school bus that is potentially 
slightly cheaper than the conventional school bus, NHTSA believes that 
the final adoption of this proposal would aid 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.''

F. Additional Issues

    We also seek responses to the following questions.
    1. In order to get a better estimate about the number of vehicles 
that would be affected by this rulemaking, NHTSA seeks the following 
information. What is the total number of MFSABs that would be sold each 
year if this proposed rule were made final? Would the adoption of this 
proposal lead to any change in the total sales of the existing smaller 
(6,804 kg (15,000 pound) and under) van-based school bus (with the 
flashing lights and stop arm)?
    2. The agency proposes to limit this new subcategory of school bus 
to the smaller school buses that are generally used by day-care, Head 
Start and schools (private and public) for activity trips. NHTSA 
proposes the size limitation on the new school bus subcategory to 
reduce 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. Current van-based school buses have a gross vehicle weight 
rating (GVWR) between less than 4536 kg (10,000 pounds) to 6804 kg 
(15,000 pounds). Alternatively, the agency seeks comment on whether the 
proposed GVWR restriction should be adjusted to include larger school 
buses.
    3. Should MFSAB manufacturers be required to place a prominent 
warning label near the front of the occupant compartment of their 
vehicles to warn the driver and passengers that the bus is not intended 
to be used to pick children up from and drop them off at places such as 
home and bus stops? If you believe a label should be used, what 
standardized wording should be specified to provide that warning? 
Should any size or other appearance requirements be specified? For 
example, should such a label be required to have the appearance of the 
air bag warning labels required by FMVSS 208, Occupant Crash 
Protection, 49 CFR 571.208?\2\ Where should the label be placed so that 
it is visible to both drivers and passengers?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ These labels have a heading area and a message area. The 
heading area is yellow with the word ``warning'' and the alert 
symbol (consisting of an exclamation mark inside a triangle) in 
black. The message area is white with black text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. It is the agency's belief that most States prohibit school buses 
from deploying their stop arms and operating their 4-way/8-way 
alternating flashing lights when stopped at railroad crossings. NHTSA 
seeks information on whether any States allow or require the use of the 
4-way/8-way alternating flashing lights on school buses stopped at 
railroad grade crossings.

VI. Leadtime

    We propose that, if made final, the rule take effect thirty days 
from the date the final rule appears in the Federal Register. Since the 
fact that Rabun has petitioned us for rulemaking has become publicly 
known, school bus manufacturers and their customers, child 
transportation providers, are anticipating this rulemaking. To meet the 
expected demand for multifunction school activity buses, we believe 
manufacturers should be permitted to manufacture, and certify them as 
soon as possible. Nothing in this proposed rule would require any motor 
vehicle manufacturer to manufacture the new subcategory of school buses 
proposed in this NPRM. We do not believe that manufacturing 
multifunction school activity buses would involve any new technology, 
or performance specifications that manufacturers cannot meet with 
existing design, tooling, or manufacturing capabilities. We believe 
that in order to manufacture a multifunction school activity bus, 
manufacturers need do nothing more to existing school buses than to 
simply not install the signal arms and 4-way/8-way alternating flashing 
lights. If enough interest from manufacturers is expressed, we may 
provide for optional early compliance with the final rule.

VII. 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 Review.'' The rulemaking action is also not considered to 
be significant under the Department's Regulatory Policies

[[Page 67380]]

and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
    For the following reasons, we believe that this proposal, if made 
final, would 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 4-way/8-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 notice proposes a subcategory of school 
buses that would not be subject to the requirements for flashing 4-way/
8-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 4-way/8-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 4-way/
8-way alternating flashing lights ranges from $175 for the least 
expensive 4-way system to $2,300 for the most expensive 8-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 
the adoption of this proposal would save child transportation providers 
approximately $2.6 million dollars per year in the small ``Type A'' 
school bus market. However, this estimate is based on the assumption 
that school bus manufacturers would reduce the prices of the 
``multifunction school activity bus'' by the amount of money saved as a 
result of not having to install 4-way/8-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 proposed rule would 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 proposed rule, if made final, would apply to 
motor vehicle manufacturers, not to the States or local governments. 
This proposed rule, if made final, would assist child transportation 
providers by making available a school bus that would meet the traffic 
control laws of States and local governments. Thus, the requirements of 
Section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule, if 
made final, would make 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. If this proposed rule were made final, the chances 
that children would be transported in MFSABs, rather than in buses that 
are not school buses, would increase and the children's safety would 
thereby be enhanced.

D. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12778, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' we 
have considered whether this proposed rule would have any retroactive 
effect. We conclude that it would 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

[[Page 67381]]

the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal 
standard, except 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 proposal would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We believe 
that if this proposed rule were made final, small businesses, small 
nonprofits and small local governments might benefit slightly because 
they would be 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) 
would 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 proposal would, if made 
final, have 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 
4-way/8-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 proposal 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, if made final, this proposed rule would 
not impose any ``collection of information'' burdens on the public, 
within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). This 
rulemaking action would 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 applicable voluntary consensus standards.

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 proposal would 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 proposal 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:
    [sbull] Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
    [sbull] Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
    [sbull] Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is 
not clear?
    [sbull] Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, 
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
    [sbull] Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
    [sbull] Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or 
diagrams?
    [sbull] What else could we do to make this rulemaking easier to 
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them 
in your comments on this NPRM.

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.

[[Page 67382]]

Comments

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). 
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under 
ADDRESSES.
    You may also submit your comments to the docket electronically by 
logging onto the Dockets Management System website at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain 
instructions for filing the document electronically.

How Can I Be Sure That my Comments Were Received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should 
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above 
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed 
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover 
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential 
business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider 
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket 
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in 
developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider 
that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments 
on the Internet, take the following steps:
    1. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
    2. On that page, click on ``search.''
    3. On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the four-
digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. Example: 
If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type ``1234.'' 
After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
    4. On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may 
download the comments. Although the comments are imaged documents, 
instead of word processing documents, the ``pdf'' versions of the 
documents are word searchable.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber 
products, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that the Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR part 571), be amended as set 
forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    2. Section 571.3 is amended by 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 with a 
gross vehicle weight rating of 6,804 kilograms (15,000 pounds) or less 
whose purposes do not include transporting students to and from home.
* * * * *
    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:
* * * * *
    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: October 29, 2002.
Noble N. Bowie,
Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 02-27996 Filed 11-4-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P