Document headings vary by document type but may contain the following:
See the Document Drafting Handbook for more details.
AGENCY:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY:
This final rule establishes Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217a, “Anti-ejection glazing for bus portals; Mandatory applicability beginning October 30, 2027,” to drive the installation of advanced glazing in over-the-road buses (motorcoaches) and other large buses to reduce passenger and driver ejections. This final rule, issued pursuant to the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), specifies impactor tests of the glazing material of side and roof windows. The impactor and impact speed simulate the loading from an average size unrestrained adult male impacting a window on the opposite side of a large bus in a rollover.
DATES:
Effective date: December 30, 2024.
Compliance date: The compliance date for FMVSS No. 217a and the amendments to FMVSS No. 217 is October 30, 2027. Optional early compliance with the standards is permitted.
Reconsideration date: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, your petition must be received by December 16, 2024.
ADDRESSES:
Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer to the docket and notice number set forth above and be submitted to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Note that all petitions received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov at any time or to 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Telephone: (202) 366-9826.
Privacy Act: The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all documents 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) or you may visit https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices.
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 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. When you send a submission 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).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For technical issues, you may contact Mr. Dow Shelnutt, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, Telephone: (202) 366-8779, Facsimile: (202) 493-2739. For legal issues, you may contact Mr. Matthew Filpi, Office of the Chief Counsel, Telephone: (202) 366-2992, Facsimile: (202) 366-3820. The mailing address of these officials is: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
a. NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach Safety
b. U.S. DOT Motorcoach Safety Action Plan
c. Congressional Action: MAP-21 and the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act
d. NHTSA's 2013 Motorcoach Seat Belt Final Rule
e. NHTSA's 2021 Motorcoach Structural Integrity Final Rule
f. Data and Safety Need for Strengthening Motorcoach Window Glazing
g. The 2016 NPRM
III. NHTSA's Statutory Authority
a. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act)
b. MAP-21 (Incorporating the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of 2012)
IV. The Final Rule and Response to Comments
a. Establishing FMVSS No. 217a and New Requirements
b. Differences Between the NPRM and the Final Rule
V. Summary of Comments and Agency Responses
a. Overview of Comments
b. Applicability
c. Occupant Injury Protection
d. Test Procedures and Equipment
e. Performance Requirements
f. Organization of the Standard and Language Used in the Standard
g. Compliance Date
h. Retrofitting
i. Definitions and Descriptions
j. Costs and Benefits
VI. Overview of Costs and Benefits
VII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
I. Executive Summary
In 2007, NHTSA published a comprehensive plan on possible improvements in motorcoach safety. NHTSA's motorcoach safety plan identified four specific areas to most expeditiously achieve our goals: requiring seat belts (minimizing passenger and driver ejection from the motorcoach), improved roof strength, emergency evacuation, and fire safety. This final rule is another step in the agency's efforts to improve over-the-road bus (OTRB ) and large bus safety. This final rule establishes a new FMVSS, FMVSS No. 217a, “Anti-Ejection Glazing for Bus Portals; Mandatory applicability beginning October 30, 2027,” to mitigate partial and complete ejection of passengers from windows on the side and roof of motorcoaches and large buses and to ensure that emergency exits remain operable after a rollover crash.
Docket No. NHTSA-2007-28793, NHTSA's Approach to Motorcoach Safety.
An over-the-road bus is characterized by an elevated passenger deck located over a baggage compartment.
Generally, certain buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 26,000 pounds (lb) (11,793.4 kilograms (kg)).
This final rule fulfills a statutory mandate in the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of 2012 (Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act), which was incorporated and passed as part of MAP-21. The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act required the DOT to prescribe regulations that address passenger ejection in motorcoaches. Additionally, MAP-21 required DOT to consider requiring advanced glazing standards for motorcoach portals.
In section 32702(6) of MAP-21, a motorcoach is defined as an over-the-road bus, not including transit buses or school buses.
The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act emphasizes anti-ejection safety countermeasures, particularly advanced glazing. Section 32703(b)(2) of MAP-21 directs the Secretary to consider requiring advanced glazing standards for each motorcoach portal and to consider other portal improvements to prevent partial and complete ejection of motorcoach passengers, including children. Section 32703(b)(2) also states that in prescribing such standards, the Secretary shall consider the impact of such standards on the use of motorcoach portals as a means of emergency egress. MAP-21 requires NHTSA to adopt a final rule if NHTSA determines that such standards meet the requirements and considerations in subsections (a) and (b) of section 30111 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. As discussed in this final rule, NHTSA has made such a determination regarding an FMVSS for motorcoaches and certain large buses.
MAP-21, section 32703(b) and (b)(1).
The May 6, 2016, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was among the rulemakings issued pursuant to NHTSA's 2007 Approach to Motorcoach Safety and DOT's Departmental Motorcoach Safety Action Plan. Both of these agency documents recognized that there was work to be done in protecting the public from death and serious injury in OTRB and large bus crashes. Although there are relatively few OTRB and large bus crashes when compared to other vehicle types, OTRB and large bus crashes tend to be serious when they do occur because they generally carry large numbers of passengers. Since producing these safety plans, NHTSA has promulgated several final rules targeted at protecting OTRB and large bus passengers. These final rules include a requirement that all seats on OTRBs and large buses be equipped with seat belts, a requirement that all OTRBs and large buses be equipped with electronic stability control, and requirements for improved structural integrity of OTRBs and large buses. This final rule is designed to work in tandem with these other requirements to further improve OTRB and large bus occupant safety.
81 FR 27904.
In 2009, DOT also issued a Motorcoach Safety Action Plan that addressed additional factors, such as driver fatigue and operator maintenance schedules. An update to the Departmental plan was issued in December 2012 https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/Motorcoach-Safety-Action-Plan-2012.pdf.
While the agency's previous rulemakings in this area are expected to improve OTRB and large bus safety, passenger ejection in OTRB and large bus crashes remains a concern. Although seat belts are now required on OTRBs and large buses, not all states require that passengers wear seat belts on OTRBs and the agency believes seat belt use is generally low among large bus passengers. Additionally, while the structural integrity requirements enhance occupant safety by providing a “survival space” in a rollover, they do not mitigate glazing breakage during the crash, which would create ejection portals. This final rule is designed to ensure window glazing remains intact during a crash and windows do not open, even if a passenger is thrown against the glazing during the crash.
To accomplish this safety objective, the new FMVSS No. 217a specifies certain benchmarks that OTRB and large bus window glazing must meet when it is contacted by an impactor projected at the window at a specified speed. In the adopted test, a 26 kilogram (kg) (57 pound (lb)) impactor is propelled from inside a test vehicle toward the window glazing at 21.6 kilometers per hour (km/h) (13.4 miles per hour (mph)). Each side window and glass panel/window on the roof would be subject to any one of three impacts, as selected by NHTSA in a compliance test: (a) an impact near a latching mechanism, discrete attachment point, or (for windows without latches) the center of the lower window edge of an intact window; (b) an impact at the center of the daylight opening of an intact window; and (c) an impact at the center of the daylight opening of a pre-broken glazing. The windows would have to prevent passage of a 102-millimeter (mm) (4 inch) diameter sphere both during and after the impact. Additionally, emergency exits are required to remain operable after each impactor test. The impactor and impact speed simulate the loading from an average size unrestrained adult male thrown from one side of a large bus and impacting a window on the opposite side of the bus in a rollover.
Center of daylight opening is the center of the total unobstructed window opening that would result from the removal of the glazing.
These requirements would ensure that glazing is securely bonded to window frames, no potential ejection portals are created due to breaking of the glass, the windows remain closed when impacted, and emergency exits remain operable after the crash. The test with the pre-broken glazing would encourage the installation of advanced glazing. The requirement would also help ensure the advanced glazing reasonably retains occupants within the structural sidewall of the bus in a crash.
The requirements in FMVSS No. 217a apply to OTRBs and all new large buses, with limited exceptions. The standard does not apply to school buses, prison buses, buses with perimeter seating, or transit buses that are not OTRBs. The FMVSS No. 217a requirements generally apply to those buses that are also required to meet the rollover structural integrity requirements of FMVSS No. 227, “Bus rollover structural integrity.” School bus derivative buses that meet the school bus roof crush requirements of FMVSS No. 220, “School bus rollover protection,” instead of FMVSS No. 227, would also need to meet FMVSS No. 217a.
This final rule adds a new requirement to FMVSS No. 217, “Bus emergency exits and window retention and release,” that emergency exit window latches may not protrude more than 1 inch into the window opening when the window is open to minimize the potential for the latch protrusions to hinder the emergency egress of passengers. This requirement applies to all new buses that are currently subject to FMVSS No. 217, including new school buses.
NHTSA has decided not to require existing large buses to meet the requirements adopted today for new buses. Most of the commenters did not support a retrofitting requirement. Upgraded window glazing on older buses without the requisite improved structural integrity in accordance with FMVSS No. 227 may not mitigate occupant ejections because the advanced glazing could simply pop out of the portal due to excessive structural deformation in a crash. The agency has also decided not to require retrofitting of buses with improved latch designs and window glazing materials. NHTSA believes it is not practical to retrofit improved latch systems on windows of existing buses because of the unique condition (including pre-existing damage or deformation) of each existing window structure and latching mechanism.
NHTSA estimates that this rulemaking will be cost beneficial. The agency estimates the annual cost of this rule to be $0.96 million and annual undiscounted equivalent lives saved to be between 0.37 and 1.91. The main contributor to the cost of this rule is estimated as the material costs for manufacturers to upgrade their window units from a tempered/tempered double-glazed window unit to, at minimum, a laminated/tempered double-glazed window unit. This improvement in window unit construction would not result in a considerable weight change. As outlined in the Final Regulatory Evaluation (FRE), NHTSA projects that the rule would cost between $0.50 million to $4.30 million per equivalent life saved (Table 1). The net benefit/cost impact ranges from a net benefit of $1.92 million to $18.44 million (Table 2).
For details concerning equivalent lives saved, reference the FRE docketed with this final rule.
Table 1—Net Cost to Society Per Equivalent Life Saved
[In millions of 2022 dollars]
Table 2—Annualized Net Benefits
[In millions of 2022 dollars]
15% belt use rate | 90% belt use rate | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Undiscounted | 3% | 7% | Undiscounted | 3% | 7% | |
Benefits from comprehensive costs avoided | $24.72 | $19.40 | $14.80 | $4.82 | $3.78 | $2.88 |
Material costs | 0.96 | 0.96 | 0.96 | 0.96 | 0.96 | 0.96 |
Net benefits | 23.75 | 18.44 | 13.84 | 3.85 | 2.82 | 1.92 |
Table 3—OTRB & Large Bus Fatal Crashes
[FARS 2006-2019]
Rollover | Front | Side | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Over-the-road Bus | 40 | 30 | 3 | 73 |
Large Bus GVWR >11,793 kg | 12 | 23 | 3 | 38 |
Total | 52 | 53 | 6 | 111 |
Table 4—OTRB & Large Bus Occupant Fatalities in Crashes
[FARS 2006-2019]
Crash type | OTRB | Large Bus GVWR >11,793 kg | Total | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Driver | Passenger | Driver | Passenger | Driver | Passenger | All | |
Rollover | 7 | 134 | 2 | 23 | 9 | 157 | 166 |
Front | 23 | 39 | 13 | 26 | 36 | 65 | 101 |
Side | 1 | 9 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 16 | 17 |
Total | 31 | 182 | 15 | 56 | 46 | 238 | 284 |
Table 5—OTRB & Large Bus Occupant Fatalities by Ejection Status
[FARS 2006-2019]
Crash type | OTRB | Large Bus GVWR > 11,793 kg | Total | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Eject | No Eject | Eject | No Eject | Eject | No Eject | |
Rollover | 70 | 71 | 9 | 16 | 79 | 87 |
Front | 21 | 41 | 6 | 33 | 27 | 74 |
Side | 5 | 5 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 11 |
Total | 96 | 117 | 16 | 55 | 112 | 172 |
Table 6—Fatal Crashes and Ejected Fatalities for Large Buses and Medium-Sized Buses
[FARS 2006-2019]
Medium-Size Bus Roadway Departure, Return, and Rollover Bryce Canyon City, Utah September 20, 2019. Accident Report NTSB/HAR-21/01 PB2021-100917.
Table 7—Data From Bus Glazing Guided Impactor Testing Single Panel Window Glazing
Duffy, S., & Prasad, A., National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Motorcoach Side Glazing Retention Research, pg 18, (Report No. DOT HS 811 862) (Nov. 2013).
Glazing configuration (bonding method) | Actual impact velocity (km/h) | Peak force (N) | Peak impactor face excursion (mm) | Interior glass pane broken |
---|---|---|---|---|
Laminated glass (Rubber) | 21.5 | 4,780 | 116 | Yes. |
Laminated Glass (Rubber) | 21.2 | 5,879 | 106 | Yes. |
Tempered Glass (Rubber) | 21.3 | 8,030 | 49 | No. |
Acrylic (Rubber) | 21.4 | 6,211 | 66 | No. |
Tempered Glass (Glued) | 20.8 | 8,518 | 41 | No. |
Laminated Glass (Glued) | 20.9 | 7,592 | 57 | Yes. |
Polycarbonate (Glued) | 21.2 | 6,822 | 69 | No. |
Duffy, S., & Prasad, A., National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Motorcoach Side Glazing Retention Research, pg 18, (Report No. DOT HS 811 862) (Nov. 2013).
Table 8—Occupant Fatalities by Ejection Status FARS 2006-2019
[Large buses (GVWR greater than 26,000 lb) and all OTRBs]
Bus type | Not ejected | Ejected | Total |
---|---|---|---|
Van-based | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Large Van | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Intercity Bus | 117 | 96 | 213 |
Other Bus | 46 | 13 | 59 |
Unknown Bus | 8 | 3 | 11 |
Table 9—Advanced Glazing Annual Costs and Benefits From PRE
Table 10—Summary of Annualized Costs and Benefits due to the Anti-Ejection Glazing NPRM
[Costs are in millions of 2013 dollars]
Table 11—Incremental Costs From Replacing Tempered/Tempered Glazing With Laminated/Tempered Glazing and Upgraded Window Latches
Glazing type | Cost per window | Cost for improved latch per window | Number of side glass positions | Cost per vehicle | Number of applicable vehicles | Total cost to upgrade all applicable vehicles | Total cost assuming 47.7% compliance rate |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Double-glazed tempered/tempered | $430.62 | $0.00 | 12 | $5,167.48 | 2,200 | $11,368,457 | NA |
Double-glazed laminated/tempered | 500.28 | 0.06 | 12 | 6,003.40 | 2,200 | 13,209,144 | NA |
Incremental cost | 69.66 | 0.06 | 12 | 835.92 | 2,200 | 1,840,687 | 963,477 |
Table 12—Summary of Annualized Costs and Benefits Due to Advanced Glazing
[Costs are in millions of 2022 dollars]