[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 103 (Friday, May 30, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22991-22995]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-09746]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0041]
RIN 2127-AM92
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 222; School Bus
Passenger Seating and Crash Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA is proposing to remove obsolete requirements from
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, ``School bus
passenger seating and crash protection.''
DATES: Comments must be received July 29, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments electronically to the docket
identified in the heading of this document by visiting the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, you can file comments using the following methods:
Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is
there to help you, please call (202) 366-9826 before coming.
Fax: (202) 493-2251.
Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number identified in the heading of this document.
Comments on the proposed information collection requirements should
be submitted to: Office of Management and Budget at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. To find this particular information collection,
select ``Currently under Review--Open for Public Comment'' or use the
search function. It is requested that comments sent to the OMB also be
sent to the NHTSA rulemaking docket identified in the heading of this
document.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov. You may also
access the docket at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room
W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through
[[Page 22992]]
Friday, except Federal Holidays. Telephone: 202-366-9826.
Confidential Business Information: If you claim that any of the
information in your comment (including any additional documents or
attachments) constitutes confidential business information within the
meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) or is protected from disclosure pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1905, please see the detailed instructions given under the
Public Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section
of this document.
Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under the
Regulatory Analyses section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may contact
James Myers (email: [email protected]). For legal issues, you may
contact John Piazza at [email protected]. You can reach these
officials by phone at 202-366-1810. Address: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA is proposing to remove obsolete
requirements from FMVSS No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash
protection. This proposal removes requirements that are no longer
applicable. Several of the obsolete requirements apply to school buses
manufactured before a specific date, including: S5(a)(1), for buses
manufactured before October 21, 2011; S5(b)(1)(i), for buses
manufactured before September 1, 1991; and S5.1.2(a), for buses
manufactured before October 21, 2009. In addition, this proposal
removes references to dates requirements in S5.1.6 and S5.1.7, which
occurred more than a decade ago. We seek comment on all aspects of this
proposal. This action does not affect the applicability of 49 U.S.C.
30122, which prohibits certain entities from making inoperative any
part of a device or element of design installed in vehicle pursuant to
an FMVSS applicable on the date of manufacture.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166; delegation
of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
Regulatory Analyses
Rule Summary
As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this proposed rule
can be found at regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2025-0041, in the SUMMARY
section of this proposed rule.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
This proposed rule does not meet the criteria of a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, as amended by
Executive Orders 14215 and 13563. Therefore, the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this rulemaking under those orders.
This regulation is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action.
Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation
The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609 provides
that the regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ
from those taken by the United States to address similar issues, and
that in some cases the differences between them might not be necessary
and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and
compete internationally. It further recognizes that in meeting shared
challenges involving health, safety, and other issues, international
regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as
protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such
cooperation and can reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary
differences in regulatory requirements.
In addition, section 24211 of the Infrastructure, Investment, and
Jobs Act, Global Harmonization, provides that DOT ``shall cooperate, to
the maximum extent practicable, with foreign governments,
nongovernmental stakeholder groups, the motor vehicle industry, and
consumer groups with respect to global harmonization of vehicle
regulations as a means for improving motor vehicle safety.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ H.R. 3684 (117th Congress) (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the proposed changes are deleting obsolete regulatory text,
they do not implicate any issues regarding international regulatory
cooperation.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), agencies must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rulemaking on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of
an agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the proposed rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. NHTSA has concluded and hereby certifies that this
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities; therefore, an analysis is not
included. This proposed recission rule will only remove directives that
are no longer needed.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This proposed rule does not contain Federal mandates (under the
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local and
Tribal governments, or the private sector of $100 million or more in
any one year. Thus, the rulemaking is not subject to the requirements
of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Executive Order 13175
Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and
coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies
that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative
comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or
actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian
Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. NHTSA has assessed the impact
of this proposed rule on Indian tribes and determined that this
proposed rule would not have tribal implications that require
consultation under Executive Order 13175.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501-3520), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the
collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) control number. This proposed rule is deregulatory and so would
not impose any additional information collection requirements.
E-Government Act Compliance
NHTSA is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, 2002 to
promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to
provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government
information and services, and for other purposes.
Executive Order 13132; Federalism Summary Impact Statement
NHTSA has examined this proposed rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132
[[Page 22993]]
(64 FR 43255; Aug. 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives
is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded
that the proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications
to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the
preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The proposed rule
does 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.''
NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express
preemption provision: When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect
under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may
prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same
aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment
only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this
chapter. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by
Congress that preempts any non-identical State legislative and
administrative law address the same aspect of performance.
The express preemption provision described above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]compliance with a motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express
preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied
preemption of State common law tort causes of action by virtue of
NHTSA's rules--even if not expressly preempted.
This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon the
existence of an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher
standard that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle
manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment
against the manufacturer--notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance
with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards established by an
FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action
that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers
will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict
does exist--for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum
and a maximum standard--the State common law tort cause of action is
impliedly preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S.
861 (2000).
Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, NHTSA has considered whether
this proposed rule could or should preempt State common law causes of
action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the
preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that
preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language
and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of this proposed
rule and does not foresee any potential State requirements that might
conflict with it. NHTSA does not intend that this proposed rule preempt
state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor
vehicle manufacturers than that established by this proposed rule.
Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not
conflict with the standards proposed in this NPRM. Without any
conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State common
law tort cause of action.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA believes this proposed rule, if finalized, would not have a
reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human
environment. The public is invited to comment on the impact of the
proposed agency action.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of
preemption is discussed above in connection with E.O. 13132. NHTSA
notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a
petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding
before they may file suit in court.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments.'' 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 SAE (formerly, the
Society of Automotive Engineers). The NTTAA directs this agency to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. Because
the proposed changes are deleting obsolete regulatory text, they do not
implicate any issues regarding consensus standards.
Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 and E.O. 13563 require 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
isn't 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 the rule easier to
understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this proposal.
Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in
[[Page 22994]]
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.
Privacy Act
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through
www.dot.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate comment tracking and
response, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the name of
their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).
Public Participation
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 indicated in 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.
If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe)
file, NHTSA asks that the documents be submitted using the Optical
Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing NHTSA to search and
copy certain portions of your submissions.
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/dot-information-dissemination-quality-guidelines.
How can I be sure that my comments were received?
If you wish the Docket 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, the Docket will
return the postcard by mail.
How do I submit confidential business information?
You should submit a redacted ``public version'' of your comment
(including redacted versions of any additional documents or
attachments) to the docket using any of the methods identified under
ADDRESSES. This ``public version'' of your comment should contain only
the portions for which no claim of confidential treatment is made and
from which those portions for which confidential treatment is claimed
has been redacted. See below for further instructions on how to do
this.
You also need to submit a request for confidential treatment
directly to the Office of Chief Counsel. Requests for confidential
treatment are governed by 49 CFR part 512. Your request must set forth
the information specified in part 512. This includes the materials for
which confidentiality is being requested (as explained in more detail
below); supporting information, pursuant to Sec. 512.8; and a
certificate, pursuant to Sec. 512.4(b) and part 512, appendix A.
You are required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one
unredacted ``confidential version'' of the information for which you
are seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to Sec. 512.6, the words
``ENTIRE PAGE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION'' or ``CONFIDENTIAL
BUSINESS INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN BRACKETS'' (as applicable) must
appear at the top of each page containing information claimed to be
confidential. In the latter situation, where not all information on the
page is claimed to be confidential, identify each item of information
for which confidentiality is requested within brackets: ``[ ].''
You are also required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one
redacted ``public version'' of the information for which you are
seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to Sec. 512.5(a)(2), the
redacted ``public version'' should include redactions of any
information for which you are seeking confidential treatment (i.e., the
only information that should be unredacted is information for which you
are not seeking confidential treatment).
NHTSA is currently treating electronic submission as an acceptable
method for submitting confidential business information to the agency
under part 512. Please do not send a hardcopy of a request for
confidential treatment to NHTSA's headquarters. The request should be
sent to Dan Rabinovitz in the Office of the Chief Counsel at
[email protected]. You may either submit your request via email
or request a secure file transfer link. If you are submitting the
request via email, please also email a courtesy copy of the request to
John Piazza at [email protected].
Will the agency consider late comments?
We will consider all comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent
possible, we will also consider comments that the docket receives after
that date. If the docket receives a comment too late for us to consider
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 the docket 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, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
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.
You can arrange with the docket to be notified when others file
comments in the docket. See www.regulations.gov for more information.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Buses, Motor vehicles, Motor vehicle safety.
For the reasons set forth above, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 571 as follows:
[[Page 22995]]
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 1.95.
0
2. Amend Sec. 571.222 by revising paragraphs S5(a), S5(b)(1), S5.1.2,
introductory text of S5.1.6, and introductory text of S5.1.7 to read as
follows:
Sec. 571.222 Standard No. 222; School bus passenger seating and crash
protection.
* * * * *
S5. * * *
(a) Large School Buses. Each school bus with a gross vehicle weight
rating of more than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) shall be capable of
meeting any of the requirements set forth under this heading when
tested under the conditions of S6 of this standard or Sec. 571.210.
However, a particular school bus passenger seat (i.e., a test specimen)
in that weight class need not meet further requirements after having
met S5.1.2 and S5.1.5, or having been subjected to either S5.1.3,
S5.1.4, S5.1.6 (if applicable), or S5.3. If S5.1.6.5.5(b) is
applicable, a particular test specimen need only meet S5.1.6.5.5(b)(1)
or (2) as part of meeting S5.1.6 in its entirety. Each vehicle with
voluntarily installed Type 1 seat belts and seat belt anchorages at W
seating positions in a bench seat, voluntarily installed Type 2 seat
belts and seat belt anchorages at Y seat belt positions in a fixed
occupancy seat, or voluntarily installed Type 2 seat belts and seat
belt anchorages at Y and Y + 1 seat belt positions in a flexible
occupancy seat, shall also meet the requirements of:
(1) S4.4.3.2 of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208);
(2) Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209), as they apply to school
buses; and,
(3) Standard No. 210 (49 CFR 571.210) as it applies to school buses
with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds.
(b) * * *
(1) The requirements of S4.4.3.2 of Sec. 571.208 and the
requirements of Sec. Sec. 571.207, 571.209 and 571.210 as they apply
to school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg or less;
and,
* * * * *
S5.1.2 Seat back height, position, and surface area. Each school
bus passenger seat must be equipped with a seat back that has a
vertical height of at least 610 mm (24 inches) above the seating
reference point. The minimum total width of the seat back at 610 mm (24
inches) above the seating reference point shall be 75 percent of the
maximum width of the seat bench. Each school bus passenger seat must be
equipped with a seat back that, in the front projected view, has front
surface area above the horizontal plane that passes through the seating
reference point, and below the horizontal plane 610 mm (24 inches)
above the seating reference point, of not less than 90 percent of the
seat bench width in millimeters multiplied by 610.
* * * * *
S5.1.6 Quasi-static test of compartmentalization and Type 2 seat
belt performance. This section applies to school buses with a gross
vehicle weight rating expressed in the first column of Tables 2 through
4, and that are equipped with Type 2 seat belt assemblies.
* * * * *
S5.1.7 Buckle side length limit. This section applies to rear
passenger seats on school buses that are equipped with Type 1 or Type 2
seat belt assemblies. All portions of the buckle/latchplate assembly
must remain rearward of the limit plane defined in S5.1.7.1 when tested
under the conditions of S5.1.7.2.
* * * * *
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95, 501.4, and
501.5.
Peter Simshauser,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2025-09746 Filed 5-27-25; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P