Bus Testing; Phase-In of Brake Performance and Emissions Testing, and Program Updates, 51083-51092 [E9-23818]
Download as PDF
51083
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 191 / Monday, October 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
prohibits flood insurance coverage
unless an appropriate public body
adopts adequate floodplain management
measures with effective enforcement
measures. The communities listed no
longer comply with the statutory
requirements, and after the effective
date, flood insurance will no longer be
available in the communities unless
remedial action takes place.
Regulatory Classification. This final
rule is not a significant regulatory action
under the criteria of section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993, Regulatory Planning and Review,
58 FR 51735.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism.
This rule involves no policies that have
federalism implications under Executive
Order 13132.
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform. This rule meets the applicable
standards of Executive Order 12988.
Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule
does not involve any collection of
information for purposes of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.
■
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64
■
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Community
No.
State and location
Region III
Virginia:
Farmville, Town of, Prince Edward and
Cumberland Counties.
Prince Edward County, Unincorporated
Areas.
Region IV
North Carolina:
Brevard, City of, Transylvania County ..
510239
Rosman, Town of, Transylvania County
375358
Transylvania County, Unincorporated
Areas.
Region V
Wisconsin:
Delavan, City of, Walworth County .......
370230
510118
370231
550463
East Troy, Village of, Walworth County
550464
Fontana-on-Geneva Lake, Village of,
Walworth County.
Mukwonago, Village of, Walworth and
Waukesha Counties.
Walworth County, Unincorporated Areas .....
550592
550485
550462
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is
amended as follows:
PART 64—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 64
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.;
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR,
1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367,
3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376.
§ 64.6
[Amended]
2. The tables published under the
authority of § 64.6 are amended as
follows:
Date certain
Federal assistance no longer
available in
SFHAs
Effective date authorization/cancellation of
sale of flood insurance in community
Current effective
map date
November 9, 1973, Emerg; September 1,
1978, Reg; October 2, 2009, Susp.
April 11, 1974, Emerg; September 1, 1978,
Reg; October 2, 2009, Susp.
Oct. 2, 2009 ......
Oct. 2, 2009.
......do* ..............
do.
January 17, 1974, Emerg; September 29,
1978, Reg; October 2, 2009, Susp.
December 30, 1971, Emerg; June 2, 1972,
Reg; October 2, 2009, Susp.
January 21, 1974, Emerg; January 2, 1980,
Reg; October 2, 2009, Susp.
......do ...............
do.
......do ...............
do.
......do ...............
do.
October 18, 1974, Emerg; September 1,
1983, Reg; October 2, 2009, Susp.
December 12, 1975, Emerg; December 1,
1982, Reg; October 2, 2009, Susp.
NA, Emerg; March 23, 2006, Reg; October
2, 2009, Susp.
February 18, 1975, Emerg; July 5, 1982,
Reg; October 2, 2009, Susp.
June 10, 1975, Emerg; August 15, 1983,
Reg; October 2, 2009, Susp.
......do ...............
do.
......do ...............
do.
......do ...............
do.
......do ...............
do.
......do ...............
do.
*do = Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BILLING CODE 9110–12–P
cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Dated: September 22, 2009.
Edward L. Connor,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Mitigation
Directorate, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management
Agency.
[FR Doc. E9–23960 Filed 10–2–09; 8:45 am]
RIN 2132–AA95
Federal Transit Administration
49 CFR Part 665
[Docket No. FTA–2007–0011]
Bus Testing; Phase-In of Brake
Performance and Emissions Testing,
and Program Updates
AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:52 Oct 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the
Federal Transit Administration’s
(FTA’s) bus testing regulation to
incorporate brake performance and
emissions tests into FTA’s bus testing
program to comply with statutory
changes. To improve the program, this
final rule also republishes the existing
regulation to incorporate several
updates that will enhance the program’s
value and respond to changes in the bus
manufacturing industry and to bring it
into conformity with statutory language.
DATES:
This rule is effective January 1,
2010.
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
51084
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 191 / Monday, October 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical information, Marcel Belanger,
Bus Testing Program Manager, Office of
Research, Demonstration, and
Innovation (TRI), (202) 366–0725,
marcel.belanger@dot.gov. For legal
information, Richard Wong, Office of
the Chief Counsel (TCC), (202) 366–
0675, richard.wong@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 30, 2008, the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) published
a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) in the Federal Register (73 FR
56781) that discussed proposals to
incorporate brake performance and
emissions tests into FTA’s bus testing
program as required by 49 U.S.C.
Section 5318, as amended by the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Equitable
Transportation Efficiency Act: a Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA–LU) (Pub. L. 109–
59). These changes required by statute
included a brake performance test
procedure and an emissions test
procedure.
The NPRM also sought comments on
a number of other proposed ways to
update the regulation to improve the
functioning of the program, enhance its
value, and clarify possible ambiguities
in the existing regulation. These
proposed changes, which were not
required by statute, but were intended
to improve the program, addressed
issues related to: (1) The determination
of service life category; (2) testing of
buses that exceed weight limits when
fully loaded; (3) clarification of FTA’s
‘‘Family of Vehicles’’ policy; (4)
separate reporting of third-party chassis
test results; and, (5) the inclusion of an
FTA evaluation or recommendation of
bus models in bus testing reports.
cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Comments Received
FTA received a total of five
comments—one from a major industry
trade association consisting of more
than 1,500 public and private members,
one from a large public transit agency,
a third from a manufacturer trade
association representing almost 700
companies making motor vehicle
components, the fourth from a
manufacturer of large heavy-duty transit
buses, and the fifth from an engineering
consulting firm that provides consulting
and test equipment for heavy-duty
vehicles and brake systems.
Section-by-Section Analysis of Specific
Comments
1. Brake Performance Test Procedure
FTA proposed that a test bus would
be subjected to a series of brake stops
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:52 Oct 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
from 20, 30, 40, and 45 mph on a highfriction surface; from 20 mph on a lowfriction surface; and up to 45 mph on a
split-coefficient surface. The parking
brake would be evaluated facing uphill
and downhill on a ramp with a 20
percent grade. FTA also sought
comments on whether, and, if so, how,
the maintainability and noise tests
should be modified to capture useful
data related to the brake system and
whether any such changes should be
done within the regulation itself or
through non-regulatory testing protocols
and procedures.
FTA proposed to incorporate the
brake performance test within the
existing performance test category, as
specified by SAFETEA–LU. The
proposed test procedure specified that
all brake performance tests would be
performed with the bus loaded to gross
vehicle weight, for which a definition
would be provided in the revised 49
CFR Section 665.5.
A. Comments Received
FTA received comments on the
proposed braking performance test from
all respondents. Most of the comments
received pertained to details of the subregulatory test procedures that would be
used to conduct the braking
performance test; for example,
recommending that FTA measure brake
system temperatures by the installation
of thermocouples in the brake linings
rather than the proposed use of a noncontacting digital thermometer.
A few comments referred to
differences between the draft FTA test
procedures and the procedures specified
in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) 121. For example,
FTA’s proposed test procedure assumes
that the brakes would be adequately
burnished following completion of the
gross-vehicle-weight portion of the
structural durability test, while FMVSS
121 specifies a detailed brake
burnishing procedure. Another
comment noted that some buses may
not be able to climb the 20 percent slope
parking brake testing hill or may not be
able to clear the hill’s transition ramps,
and questioned what the testing options
would be in such situations. This
commenter also asked who would be
responsible if a bus is damaged on the
brake testing slope.
B. FTA Response
Since the regulation is only intended
to outline the tests that would be
performed in general terms, specific
details of the sub-regulatory test
procedures are not appropriate to
address in the regulation itself. Instead,
FTA will consider each of the comments
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
received as we work with the facility
operator to finalize the brake testing
procedures.
With regard to consistency between
FMVSS 121 certification and the bus
testing program, FTA reiterates that its
bus testing program is not a certification
test. Rather, its purpose is to provide
data that can facilitate grantees’
comparisons of various transit bus
models and provide indications of
whether the contemplated bus model is
suitable for a grantee’s intended
application. Therefore, it is not
necessary for the bus testing program to
replicate the test procedures in FMVSS
121. FTA believes that the operation on
the test track and occasional operation
on roadways between the Altoona Bus
Testing Center and the Test Track
Facility in State College should be
adequate to produce a realistic realworld level of brake burnishing prior to
conducting the brake performance tests.
However, because this aspect of the test
procedure will not be established by
regulation, FTA will work with the bus
testing facility operator to verify that its
proposed burnishing procedure is
adequate, or add additional steps to the
procedure if that is determined to be
necessary.
With regard to the concerns that buses
may have difficulty navigating the test
slope, the slope was designed to
replicate conditions that could be
encountered in a transit bus
environment, so most if not all buses
should be able to negotiate it without
difficulty. In rare cases where clearance
is inadequate, the operator can likely
devise a workaround, perhaps such as
filling in the concave transition at the
bottom of the slope with temporary
ramps or gravel. In the unlikely event
that a bus has inadequate torque at the
driving wheels to climb the 20 percent
slope, then potential customers will
likely want to know that limitation. If a
bus is unable to navigate the ascent in
order to complete the brake test, a bus
could be assisted into position using a
tow truck.
The operator has existing procedures
in place to address damages that may
occur to buses at the testing facility.
These procedures will apply to any
damages that may occur on the brake
testing slope.
2. Emissions Test Procedure
FTA proposed a draft emissions test
procedure based on 40 CFR part 86—
‘‘Emissions Regulations for New OttoCycle and Diesel Heavy-Duty Engines;
Gaseous and Particulate Exhaust Test
Procedures’’ and 40 CFR part 1065—
‘‘Engine Testing Procedures,’’ as well as
the Society of Automotive Engineers
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 191 / Monday, October 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
(SAE) Recommended Practice, SAE
J2711.
FTA proposed using an emissions
testing laboratory equipped with a
chassis dynamometer capable of both
absorbing and applying power. FTA
proposed measuring the emissions of
exhaust constituents regulated by the
United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) for transit buses, plus
carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane
(CH4), as the bus is operated over
industry-standard driving cycles
specified in the test procedure. FTA
proposed that mileage accumulated by a
bus while operating on the
dynamometer during emissions testing
would be counted toward the ‘‘other’’
miles that must be accumulated during
durability testing. Under the proposed
test procedure, the dynamometer would
be set to simulate curb weight plus onehalf of the fully seated load for the
particular bus being tested. This
approach would be consistent with the
above-cited industry standard emissions
measurement protocols and will
facilitate direct comparisons with
emissions measurements collected
outside the bus testing program. FTA
also sought comments on the merits of
performing the emissions tests with the
chassis dynamometer set to simulate
gross vehicle weight, which would
generally be expected to represent the
‘‘worst case’’ for emissions, seated load
weight, which may result in emissions
measurements closer to a typical case
(and which would be consistent with
the Performance and Fuel Economy
tests, which are currently performed at
seated load weight), or a different
weight. FTA also sought comments on
whether, and if so, how, the
maintainability test should be modified
to capture useful data related to the
emissions control system and whether
any such changes should be made
within the regulation itself or in nonregulatory testing policies and
procedures administered by the testing
facility. FTA proposed to add the
emissions test as a separate, eighth, test
category.
comparisons with other sources of
emissions data.
A. Comments Received
The transit operator and the transit
industry association both suggested that
FTA test emissions at gross vehicle
weight in order to shed light on the
‘‘worst case’’ emissions that might be
produced by a bus model. These
commenters also recommended that
FTA measure emissions at a bus’s
tailpipe rather than at its engine. The
bus manufacturer suggested that FTA’s
emissions testing procedure should be
consistent with other accepted
methodologies in order to facilitate
A. Comments Received
The large transit operator agreed with
FTA’s proposal that emissions testing
should begin on the effective date of the
final rule, and any new buses should be
required to meet the regulations in effect
at the time of manufacture. The bus
manufacturer stated that a single-stage
bus manufacturer certifying to FMVSS
121 should not be required to undergo
additional testing, and adding
additional performance tests not
consistent with FMVSS 121 could raise
suspicions of non-compliance without
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:52 Oct 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
B. FTA Response
FTA considered testing emissions at
gross vehicle weight, but decided to test
buses at curb weight plus one-half of the
seated load weight in order to achieve
greater consistency with industrystandard methods for emissions testing.
FTA initially proposed to, and still
intends to, measure bus emissions at the
tailpipe exit rather than at the engine
exhaust ports. Any confusion regarding
the measurement site probably arose
from the NPRM’s proposed new
definition of ‘‘Engine-Out Emissions,’’
which will not be used in the final rule,
and, therefore, has been removed.
3. Applicability and Phase-In
FTA proposed that the date on which
a bus testing contract was signed would
determine the applicability of the brake
performance and emissions tests.
Models whose testing contracts were
signed before the effective date of this
regulation and that continue to be
produced without major changes in any
structure or systems would not be
required to return to the Bus Testing
Center to undergo brake performance
and emissions testing. Buses for which
full or partial testing contracts are
signed on or after the effective date of
this regulation would be subject to brake
performance and emissions testing (in
addition to the other testing
requirements).
FTA also sought comments on
whether the emissions test should apply
to all vehicles subject to FTA’s bus
testing regulation or whether any classes
of buses should be exempted. In
addition, we asked for comments on
whether the emissions testing program
should begin on the effective date of this
rule for all bus types subject to testing
or whether the emissions test
requirement should be gradually
phased-in for various classes of bus
(e.g., small or large buses), similar to the
phase-in process used in the initial
start-up of FTA’s bus testing program.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
51085
adding to safety or reliability. The bus
manufacturer also expressed concerns
that partial testing evaluations could
subject a bus model to an undue number
of additional tests, particularly when it
may impact bus delivery schedules.
B. FTA Response
Because none of the commenters
directly responded to FTA’s inquiries
whether a categorical exemption for
certain classes of vehicles and whether
a gradual phase-in period was
necessary, FTA will proceed with the
plan outlined in the NPRM: Every bus
model for which a full or partial bus
testing contract is signed after the
effective date of this final rule will be
subject to brake performance and
emissions testing, without a phase-in
period or exemptions for specific
categories of vehicles.
With regard to the suggestion that
certification with FMVSS 121 exempt a
vehicle from additional brake testing,
FTA believes that a simple certification
of compliance with FMVSS 121 does
not exempt a vehicle from the braking
test. Although aware that every vehicle
operating on public roads must certify
compliance with FMVSS, Congress
nevertheless mandated that FTA
establish the bus testing program,
specifically adding a braking
performance test, while giving FTA no
statutory authority to exempt vehicles
that certified compliance with FMVSS
121 or any other FMVSS requirement.
Moreover, FTA’s bus testing program
consists of actual tests, while FMVSS
compliance is met by the signing of a
certificate of compliance.
FTA does not believe that the
addition of braking performance and
emissions testing will unduly delay
delivery schedules. Under the existing
regulation a bus subject to testing as a
new model bus or as a modified model
bus must be physically delivered to
Altoona and must spend a predictable
number of days at the testing facility.
The addition of braking and emissions
testing would add a maximum of 24
working hours to the time presently
required at the test facility. When
contrasted to the 60 or more days a
heavy-duty model bus would spend at
the test facility for a full test, an
additional three business days would
not significantly delay delivery
schedules and perhaps could even be
accounted for in a manufacturer’s
proposed delivery schedule.
4. Partial Testing
Under the current rule, partial testing
is permitted when a previously-tested
bus model undergoes changes in
configuration or components that are
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
51086
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 191 / Monday, October 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
expected to produce significantly
different data from that previously
obtained at the Bus Testing Facility.
These partial testing determinations are
made on a case-by-case basis, using
criteria set forth in the June 28, 1992,
final rule that established partial testing
(57 FR 33394). FTA sought comment on
changes that could trigger partial testing
for the brake performance and emissions
tests.
A. Comments Received
The only commenter, a large bus
manufacturer, did not address FTA’s
request for substantive comments. This
commenter only stated that FTA needed
to implement a policy that would
provide faster responses to partial
testing determinations.
B. FTA Response
Without substantive input from
commenters, FTA will continue to make
requests for partial testing
determinations on a case-by-case basis.
To provide additional guidance to
purchasers, manufacturers, and vendors,
FTA has posted its partial testing
guidelines on its bus testing Web site.
Manufacturers seeking formal letters of
determination must wait for FTA to
conduct its case-by-case analysis.
5. Reporting Procedures
FTA sought comment on how to
better present data collected from the
brake performance and emissions tests
in the bus testing reports as well as in
the bus testing database. FTA also
welcomed comments on how to present
more effectively the data from any of the
eight test categories.
A. Comments Received
None of the commenters provided
comment on this request.
B. FTA Response
FTA will continue using the standard
test report procedure, adding braking
performance and emissions as
additional categories to the test reports.
FTA may make changes to the test
report format and/or emphasis in the
future in order to present bus testing
data more clearly and effectively.
cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Other Changes
6. Service Life Category
FTA sought comments on whether it
should maintain its current requirement
of allowing manufacturers to determine
the useful life category in which their
buses would be tested. In addition, FTA
asked for comment on whether it should
continue to expect grantees to evaluate
the bus testing reports carefully to
assess whether the bus will in fact
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:52 Oct 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
adequately meet its service life
requirements.
FTA also sought comments on
alternative policies for determining the
service life category in which a
particular bus model would be tested,
such as (1) redefining the characteristics
of buses in each service life category,
and if that approach is taken, what those
characteristics should be; (2) requiring
manufacturers to request an official
determination from FTA of a vehicle’s
service life category; or (3) providing
guidance on the standard useful life
based on type of construction but
allowing manufacturers to test and sell
in higher service life categories if they
post a ‘‘durability assurance’’ bond or
similar instrument.
A. Comments Received
All three commenters on this subject
supported the retention of the current
FTA requirement. The manufacturer of
large buses stated that it is the
purchaser’s responsibility to review the
test report and determine whether the
vehicle is adequate to meet their needs.
The trade association and transit
operator also supported this approach
and added that manufacturers should
provide proof to the operator that the
bus will meet the standards of the
higher service life category. The transit
operator proposed additional language
that would provide the customer a
‘‘durability assurance bond’’ or similar
instrument that would cover the
vehicle’s advertised useful standard life.
B. FTA Response
Based on the response from
commenters, FTA does not believe that
altering the current procedures is
warranted. Although manufacturers may
continue to select the appropriate
service life category for testing, FTA
believes that well-informed purchasers
are the best safeguard—to that point,
bus purchasers are advised to seek
adequate assurances from the vendor in
the form of extended warranties or
contractual assurances that the vehicle
will meet its advertised service life.
7. Buses That Exceed Weight Limits
When Fully Loaded
In the NPRM, FTA made note of the
fact that a number of buses tested at the
Bus Testing Center have not been tested
in their fully loaded condition (i.e., with
all seats and standee positions
occupied), since doing so would have
caused their actual weight to exceed
either their gross vehicle weight ratings
(GVWR) or a front or rear gross axle
weight rating (GAWR).
FTA noted that the test data might not
reflect the actual performance of these
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
buses in real-life service, where
operators frequently allow all seats and
aisles to be filled without regard to the
GVWR or GAWR to avoid leaving
passengers behind at a stop. FTA sought
comments on the following three
approaches for addressing these
situations:
1. Require that any tests specified in
the test procedures be performed at
gross vehicle weight (GVW) on the test
track (which is not a public roadway)
with all seats and standee positions
ballasted, and require any tests specified
in the test procedures be performed at
seated load weight (SLW) on the test
track with all seats ballasted. Although
the bus would be overloaded, the test
data may be more representative of the
conditions the bus will face in actual
service. This approach would help to
‘‘flag’’ buses that are not adequately able
to withstand the rigors of transit service.
2. Continue the current practice of
deleting ballast until the bus is within
its GVWR/GAWR, but place a more
prominent notice in the bus testing
report stating that the bus will exceed
its maximum GVWR/GAWR with all
passenger positions occupied, and alert
readers that the test data may not be
representative of the vehicle’s actual inservice durability.
3. Decline to test a bus that exceeds
its GAWR or GVWR when loaded to full
capacity.
A. Comments Received
Three commenters—the large industry
trade association, the large transit
agency, and the large bus
manufacturer—supported continuing
with the current practice outlined under
Option 2, noting its practicability. The
transit operator suggested testing a
vehicle at its GVW on the test track,
regardless of the vehicle’s GVWR. The
manufacturers’ association supported
Option 3, proposing that FTA decline to
test any vehicle that exceeded its
GVWR.
FTA also received unsolicited
suggestions from two commenters,
recommending that FTA increase the
simulated ballast weight from the
currently-used 150 pounds per
passenger cited in the new definitions of
‘‘gross vehicle weight’’ and ‘‘seated load
weight’’ proposed in the NPRM, to 170
pounds per passenger to reflect the
increasing average weight of Americans
over the last several decades.
B. FTA Response
FTA finds that declining to test a
vehicle whose GVW exceeds its GVWR
is impractical, noting that the entire
purposes of the bus testing program is
to carry out the legislative mission of
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 191 / Monday, October 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
verifying that the bus can withstand the
rigors of regular transit service.
Similarly, testing a bus up to its GVWR
but no higher, despite the inability to
embark the equivalent of a full
complement of passengers, is unrealistic
and contrary to the intent of Congress in
establishing the program. Buses
frequently fill every available seat
during rush-hour, and commonly allow
‘‘crush loads’’ of standees in the aisle.
Therefore, the final rule will require
buses to be ballasted with a fully loaded
passenger complement of seated and
standee passengers during the gross
vehicle weight portion and with all
seats filled during the seated load
weight portion of the testing. If the
vehicle exceeds its GVWR, the bus will
be tested in that condition only on the
operator’s non-public testing facilities
unless and until the operator receives an
exemption to operate the vehicle on
public roads. Data on how a bus
performs under full load conditions is
essential to the purchaser, to support
acquisition decisions, development of
preventive maintenance schedules, and
budgeting for unscheduled
maintenance.
The suggestion to increase the average
passenger weight is well taken, and
currently, the U.S. Department of
Transportation is considering this
subject in the context of all modes of
transportation: air, surface, and water. It
is quite possible the Department will
seek to establish higher value for
average passenger weight. If so, FTA
would initiate a new rulemaking to
amend Part 665 accordingly. FTA will
consult with the Department on this
subject in the very near future.
8. Family of Vehicles
FTA sought comments on whether it
would be appropriate to expand its
existing ‘‘Family of Vehicles’’ policy to
the 7-year or higher service life
categories. The existing Family of
Vehicles policy is limited to buses in
the 4-year and 5-year service life
categories only, and allows
manufacturers that have tested a
complete bus built on one third-party
chassis to offer closely-related variants
(such as different lengths) of that bus
body on the same or different (but
similar) mass-produced chassis that has
been tested at the Bus Testing Center on
any similar bus by any bus
manufacturer. FTA sought comments on
the desirability and ramifications of
extending the Family of Vehicles policy
to all buses built on third-party chassis
A. Comments Received
The large industry trade association
opposed the proposal, stating that the 4-
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:52 Oct 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
and 5-year buses are used differently
than the larger vehicles, and that such
a proposal would increase prices
without increasing the quality of the
vehicles. The large transit agency also
recommended that FTA keep its current
requirement, noting that the 4- and 5year buses are not used in standard
transit service.
B. FTA Response
Given the lack of support among
commenters for the proposed expansion
of the concept, FTA is retaining its
Family of Vehicles policy for 4- and 5year buses and will not expand it to
include buses used in higher service life
categories.
9. Separate Reporting of Third-Part
Chassis Test Results
Although Section 5318 directs that
buses are to be tested as an integrated
system, FTA’s Family of Vehicles policy
described in the previous paragraphs
would be easier to implement and
understand if the Bus Testing Center
were able to produce separate testing
reports for third-party chassis. These
reports could be prepared by
identifying, separating out, and
summarizing only the chassis-related
data during tests of buses built on thirdparty chassis. The Bus Testing Center
operator expressed concern that in past
experience, a significant number of
buses are tested on modified third-party
chassis, and these modifications, even if
performed in strict compliance with the
manufacturer’s guidelines, would
frustrate comparisons of data on thirdparty chassis. Therefore, FTA sought
comments on the feasibility of preparing
separate test reports for third-party
chassis that are tested in the course of
testing complete buses built on those
chassis. FTA also sought comments on
any practical considerations that may
need to be addressed or difficulties that
may be presented, as well as the best
ways to separate and report data on
third-party chassis. Finally, FTA sought
comments on how the costs of this
additional reporting would be borne.
A. Comments Received
FTA received two comments on this
proposal—one from the large trade
association, another from the large
transit agency. The transit agency
recommended preparation of separate
third-party test reports, with costs to be
negotiated between the chassis maker
and purchasers. The trade association
similarly commented that the costs
should be negotiated, but did not
address whether separate chassis reports
are desirable.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
51087
B. FTA Response
Because the design, engineering, and
manufacturing, and quality control of
third-party chassis are the same
regardless of the final customer, there
may be little differentiation in test data
when a particular third-party chassis is
used on similar buses built by multiple
bus manufacturers. FTA believes that
some of the test data obtained from
testing a vehicle using a third-party
chassis already can be extrapolated to
similar buses built on the same chassis
through the partial testing process.
The regulation’s existing partial
testing provisions permit partial testing
of previously tested bus models that are
subsequently produced with changes in
configuration or components, requiring
additional testing only where significant
changes in data are expected, including
changes in chassis components, such as
engines, axles, suspensions, and
powertrains. Under these partial testing
procedures, if a manufacturer of a fullytested vehicle wants to offer that same
vehicle using a different but alreadytested third-party chassis, FTA will
require only those tests where
significant changes in data are
expected—expecting that data intrinsic
to the chassis can be extrapolated from
the previous bus testing report using
that chassis. The current process
reduces the costs and testing
requirements; however, to increase
convenience and clarity for bus
purchasers, FTA will continue to
explore the feasibility of issuing
separate test reports for third-party
chassis.
10. FTA Evaluation/Recommendation of
Bus Models
In response to a number of informal
suggestions received in the past that
FTA issue ‘‘pass/fail’’ determinations
for buses in the bus testing reports, FTA
sought comments in the NPRM on
whether the bus testing reports should
include a ‘‘pass/fail’’ criterion or a
‘‘recommended/not-recommended’’
determination, and if so, how thresholds
for such determinations should be
established. Alternatively, FTA sought
comments on improved ways to
enhance the presentation of data in the
reports (e.g., by presenting data
graphically) so that information for
decision-making is more readily
apparent and better informs local
decision-making.
A. Comments Received
FTA received two comments on this
subject—one from a bus manufacturer,
and one from an equipment
manufacturers association. The bus
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
51088
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 191 / Monday, October 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
manufacturer stated that FTA should
not make pass/fail determinations,
noting that it should be the customer’s
prerogative and responsibility. The
equipment manufacturer association
stated that FTA should establish pass/
fail criteria, at least for braking criteria.
B. FTA Response
FTA found the dearth of comments
regarding the establishment of pass/fail
criteria disappointing, based on prerulemaking comments from the
presumed beneficiaries of pass/fail
criteria, namely, the transit agencies that
purchase the vehicles. FTA sought
substantive comments on possible
criteria and thresholds. In the absence of
comments supporting such an approach,
FTA will not proceed with establishing
pass/fail criteria at this time. FMVSS
121 already includes pass/fail criteria
for braking performance, so a separate
criterion in the bus testing reports is not
necessary and could be confusing.
11. Scope
Paragraph 665.3 is being amended to
bring it into statutory conformity.
Section 317 of the Surface
Transportation and Uniform Relocation
Assistance Act of 1987 initially limited
applicability of the bus testing program
to recipients of FTA funding under the
former sections 3, 9, 16(b)(2), and 18
programs. Paragraph 3023(c) of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users amended 49 USC 5318, paragraph
(e), to extend the bus testing
requirement to all new bus models
acquired with funds under 49 USC
Chapter 53. The statutory change is not
significant, as practically all buses
subject to the testing requirements are
acquired with funds authorized under
one of those four programs.
cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
All comments received are available
for examination in the docket at http:
//www.regulations.gov. All comments
have been fully considered in this final
rule.
A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This
Rulemaking
This rulemaking is issued under the
authority of 49 U.S.C. 5318, as amended
by section 3020 of SAFETEA–LU (Pub.
L. 109–59).
B. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 requires
agencies to assure meaningful and
timely input by State and local officials
in the development of regulatory
policies that may have a substantial,
direct effect on the States, on the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:52 Oct 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. This final action
has been analyzed in accordance with
the principles and criteria contained in
Executive Order 13132, and FTA has
determined that this final action will
not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant additional
consultation. FTA has also determined
that this final action will not preempt
any State law or State regulation or
affect the States’ ability to discharge
traditional governmental functions.
C. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175 requires
agencies to assure meaningful and
timely input from Indian tribal
government representatives in the
development of rules that ‘‘significantly
or uniquely affect’’ Indian communities
and that impose ‘‘substantial and direct
compliance costs’’ on such
communities. FTA has analyzed this
final rule under Executive Order 13175
and believes that this final action will
not have substantial, direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes; will not
impose substantial direct compliance
costs on Indian tribal governments; and
will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore,
a tribal impact statement is not required.
FTA received no comments on the
NPRM from Indian tribal governments.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act and
Executive Order 13272: Proper
Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and
Executive Order 13272, FTA must
consider whether a proposed rule would
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
‘‘Small entities’’ include small
businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and
operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions
with populations under 50,000. FTA
certifies that this final rule will not have
a significant economic impact on
substantial number of small entities.
E. Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
FTA has determined that this action
is not considered a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866 and the Regulatory Policies and
Procedures of the Department of
Transportation (44 FR 11032). Executive
Order 12866 requires agencies to
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
regulate in the ‘‘most cost-effective
manner,’’ to make a ‘‘reasoned
determination that the benefits of the
intended regulation justify its costs,’’
and to develop regulations that ‘‘impose
the least burden on society.’’ Although
some of the changes made by this rule
are statutorily mandated, FTA
anticipates that the direct economic
impact of this rulemaking will be
minimal and has actively sought to
minimize the bus testing burden,
including the continued availability of
partial testing procedures.
This final rule also clarifies existing
regulatory requirements that will not
adversely affect, in any material way,
any sector of the economy. In addition,
these changes will not interfere with
any action taken or planned by another
agency and will not materially alter the
budgetary impact of any entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
This final rule will not impose
unfunded mandates as defined by the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–4, 109 Stat. 48). This final
rule will not result in the expenditure
by State, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or by the private sector,
of $128.1 million or more in any one
year (2 U.S.C. 1532).
G. Executive Order 13211: Energy
Effects
FTA has analyzed this action under
Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use dated May 18, 2001,
and determined that this is not a
significant energy action under that
order, because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Therefore,
a Statement of Energy Effects is not
required.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, no person is required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a valid OMB control
number. This final rule does not
propose any new information collection
burdens.
I. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The U.S. DOT 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. The RIN
number contained in the heading of this
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 191 / Monday, October 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
document may be used to crossreference this action with the Unified
Agenda.
J. Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the
electronic form for all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comments (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
view the U.S. DOT Privacy Act
Statement by visiting https://
docketsinfo.dot.gov/ or at 65 FR 19477
(April 11, 2000).
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 665
Buses, Grant programs—
transportation, Motor vehicle safety,
Public transportation, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
■ For the reasons stated in the preamble,
the Federal Transit Administration
revises 49 CFR part 665 to read as
follows:
PART 665—BUS TESTING
Subpart A—General
665.1 Purpose.
665.3 Scope.
665.5 Definitions.
665.7 Grantee certification of compliance.
Subpart B—Bus Testing Procedures
665.11 Testing requirements.
665.13 Test report and manufacturer
certification.
Subpart C—Operations
665.21 Scheduling.
665.23 Fees.
665.25 Transportation of vehicle.
665.27 Procedures during testing.
Appendix A to Part 665—Tests To Be
Performed at the Bus Testing Facility
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5318 and 49 CFR 1.51.
Subpart A—General
§ 665.1
Purpose.
cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
An applicant for Federal financial
assistance under the Federal Transit Act
for the purchase or lease of buses with
funds obligated by the FTA shall certify
to the FTA that any new bus model
acquired with such assistance has been
tested in accordance with this part. This
part contains the information necessary
for a recipient to ensure compliance
with this provision.
§ 665.3
Scope.
This part shall apply to an entity
receiving Federal financial assistance
under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.
§ 665.5
Definitions.
As used in this part—
Administrator means the
Administrator of the Federal Transit
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:52 Oct 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
Administration or the Administrator’s
designee.
Automotive means that the bus is not
continuously dependent on external
power or guidance for normal operation.
Intermittent use of external power or
guidance shall not automatically relieve
a bus of its automotive character or
requirement for bus testing.
Bus means a rubber-tired automotive
vehicle used for the provision of public
transportation service by or for a
recipient.
Bus model means a bus design or
variation of a bus design usually
designated by the manufacturer by a
specific name and/or model number.
Bus testing facility means the bus
testing facility established by the
Secretary of Transportation, and
includes test track facilities operated in
connection with the facility.
Bus testing report, also full bus testing
report, means a complete test report for
a bus model, documenting the results of
performing the complete set of bus tests
on that bus model.
Curb weight means the weight of the
empty, ready-to-operate bus plus driver
and fuel.
Emissions means the components of
the engine tailpipe exhaust that are
regulated by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), plus carbon dioxide (CO2) and
methane (CH4).
Emissions control system means the
components on a bus whose primary
purpose is to minimize regulated
emissions before they reach the tailpipe
exit. This definition does not include
components that contribute to low
emissions as a side effect of the manner
in which they perform their primary
function (e.g., fuel injectors or
combustion chambers).
Final acceptance means that a
recipient has released the FTA-provided
funds to a bus manufacturer or dealer in
connection with bus procurement.
Gross weight, also gross vehicle
weight, means the curb weight of the
bus plus passengers simulated by
adding 150 pounds of ballast to each
seating position and 150 pounds for
each standing position (assumed to be
each 1.5 square feet of free floor space).
Hybrid means a propulsion system
that combines two power sources, at
least one of which is capable of
capturing, storing, and re-using energy.
Major change in chassis design
means, for vehicles manufactured on a
third-party chassis, a change in frame
structure, material or configuration, or a
change in chassis suspension type.
Major change in components means:
(1) For those vehicles that are not
manufactured on a third-party chassis, a
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
51089
change in a vehicle’s engine, axle,
transmission, suspension, or steering
components;
(2) For those that are manufactured on
a third-party chassis, a change in the
vehicle’s chassis from one major design
to another.
Major change in configuration means
a change that is expected to have a
significant impact on vehicle handling
and stability or structural integrity.
Modified third-party chassis or van
means a vehicle that is manufactured
from an incomplete, partially assembled
third-party chassis or van as provided
by an OEM to a small bus manufacturer.
This includes vehicles whose chassis
structure has been modified to include:
a tandem or tag axle; a drop or lowered
floor; changes to the GVWR from the
OEM rating; or other modifications that
are not made in strict conformance with
the OEM’s modifications guidelines.
New bus model means a bus model
that—
(1) Has not been used in public
transportation service in the United
States before October 1, 1988; or
(2) Has been used in such service but
which after September 30, 1988, is being
produced with a major change in
configuration or a major change in
components.
Operator means the operator of the
bus testing facility.
Original equipment manufacturer
(OEM) means the original manufacturer
of a chassis or van supplied as a
complete or incomplete vehicle to a bus
manufacturer.
Parking brake means a system that
prevents the bus from moving when
parked by preventing the wheels from
rotating.
Partial testing means the performance
of only that subset of the complete set
of bus tests in which significantly
different data would reasonably be
expected compared to the data obtained
in previous full testing of the baseline
bus model at the bus testing facility.
Partial testing report, also partial test
report, means a report documenting, for
a previously-tested bus model that is
produced with major changes, the
results of performing only that subset of
the complete set of bus tests in which
significantly different data would
reasonably be expected as a result of the
changes made to the bus from the
configuration documented in the
original full bus testing report. A partial
testing report is not valid unless
accompanied by the full bus testing
report for the corresponding baseline
bus configuration.
Public transportation service means
the operation of a vehicle that provides
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
51090
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 191 / Monday, October 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
general or special service to the public
on a regular and continuing basis.
Recipient means an entity that
receives funds under 49 U.S.C. Chapter
53, either directly from FTA or through
a State administering agency.
Regenerative braking system means a
system that decelerates a bus by
recovering its kinetic energy for onboard storage and subsequent use.
Retarder means a system other than
the service brakes that slows a bus by
dissipating kinetic energy.
Seated load weight means the weight
of the bus plus driver, fuel, and seated
passengers simulated by adding 150
pounds of ballast to each seating
position.
Service brake(s) means the primary
system used by the driver during normal
operation to reduce the speed of a
moving bus and to allow the driver to
bring the bus to a controlled stop and
hold it there. Service brakes may be
supplemented by retarders or by
regenerative braking systems.
Small bus manufacturer means a
secondary market assembler that
acquires a chassis or van from an
original equipment manufacturer for
subsequent modification or assembly
and sale as 5-year/150,000-mile or 4year/100,000-mile minimum service life
vehicle.
Tailpipe emissions means the exhaust
constituents actually emitted to the
atmosphere at the exit of the vehicle
tailpipe or corresponding system.
Third party chassis means a
commercially available chassis whose
design, manufacturing, and quality
control are performed by an entity
independent of the bus manufacturer.
Unmodified mass-produced van
means a van that is mass-produced,
complete and fully assembled as
provided by an OEM. This shall include
vans with raised roofs, and/or
wheelchair lifts, or ramps that are
installed by the OEM, or by a party
other than the OEM provided that the
installation of these components is
completed in strict conformance with
the OEM modification guidelines.
Unmodified third-party chassis means
a third-party chassis that either has not
been modified, or has been modified in
strict conformance with the OEM’s
modification guidelines.
§ 665.7 Grantee certification of
compliance.
(a) In each application to FTA for the
purchase or lease of any new bus model,
or any bus model with a major change
in configuration or components to be
acquired or leased with funds obligated
by the FTA, the recipient shall certify
that the bus was tested at the bus testing
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:52 Oct 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
facility. The recipient shall receive the
appropriate full bus testing report and
any applicable partial testing report(s)
before final acceptance of the first
vehicle by the recipient.
(b) In dealing with a bus manufacturer
or dealer, the recipient shall be
responsible for determining whether a
vehicle to be acquired requires full
testing or partial testing or has already
satisfied the requirements of this part.
Subpart B—Bus Testing Procedures
§ 665.11
Testing requirements.
(a) A new bus model to be tested at
the bus testing facility shall—
(1) Be a single model;
(2) Meet all applicable Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards, as defined by
the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration in Part 571 of this title;
and
(3) Be substantially fabricated and
assembled using the techniques, tooling,
and materials that will be used in
production of subsequent buses of that
model.
(b) If the new bus model has not
previously been tested at the bus testing
facility, then the new bus model shall
undergo the full tests requirements for
Maintainability, Reliability, Safety,
Performance including braking
performance, Structural Integrity, Fuel
Economy, Noise, and Emissions;
(c) If the new bus model has not
previously been tested at the bus testing
facility and is being produced on a
third-party chassis that has been
previously tested on another bus model
at the bus testing facility, then the new
bus model may undergo partial testing
requirements;
(d) If the new bus model has
previously been tested at the bus testing
facility, but is subsequently
manufactured with a major change in
chassis or components, then the new
bus model may undergo partial testing.
(e) The following vehicle types shall
be tested:
(1) Large-size, heavy-duty transit
buses (approximately 35′–40′ in length,
as well as articulated buses) with a
minimum service life of 12 years or
500,000 miles;
(2) Medium-size, heavy-duty transit
buses (approximately 30′ in length) with
a minimum service life of ten years or
350,000 miles;
(3) Medium-size, medium duty transit
buses (approximately 30′ in length) with
a minimum service life of seven years or
200,000 miles;
(4) Medium-size, light duty transit
buses (approximately 25′–35′ in length)
with a minimum service life of five
years or 150,000 miles; and
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(5) Other light duty vehicles such as
small buses and regular and specialized
vans with a minimum service life of
four years or 100,000 miles.
(f) Tests performed in a higher service
life category (i.e., longer service life)
need not be repeated when the same bus
model is used in lesser service life
applications.
(g) The operator of the bus testing
facility shall develop a test plan for the
testing of vehicles at the facility. The
test plan shall follow the guidelines set
forth in the appendix to this part.
§ 665.13 Test report and manufacturer
certification.
(a) Upon completion of testing, the
operator of the facility shall provide the
resulting test report to the entity that
submitted the bus for testing.
(b)(1) A manufacturer or dealer of a
new bus model or a bus produced with
a major change in component or
configuration shall provide a copy of the
corresponding full bus testing report
and any applicable partial testing
report(s) to a recipient during the point
in the procurement process specified by
the recipient, but in all cases before
final acceptance of the first bus by the
recipient.
(2) A manufacturer who releases a
report under paragraph (b)(1) of this
section also shall provide notice to the
operator of the facility that the report is
available to the public.
(c) If a bus model subject to a bus
testing report has a change that is not a
major change under this Part, the
manufacturer or dealer shall advise the
recipient during the procurement
process and shall include a description
of the change and the manufacturer’s
basis for concluding that it is not a
major change.
(d) A bus testing report shall be
available publicly once the bus
manufacturer makes it available during
a recipient’s procurement process. The
operator of the facility shall have copies
of all the publicly available reports
available for distribution.
(e) The bus testing report is the only
information or documentation that shall
be made publicly available in
connection with any bus model tested at
the bus testing facility.
Subpart C—Operations
§ 665.21
Scheduling.
(a) To schedule a bus for testing, a
manufacturer shall contact the operator
of FTA’s bus testing program. Contact
information and procedures are
available on the operator’s bus testing
Web site, https://
www.altoonabustest.com.
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 191 / Monday, October 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
(b) Upon contacting the operator, the
operator shall provide the manufacturer
with the following:
(1) A draft contract for the testing;
(2) A fee schedule; and
(3) The draft test procedures that will
be conducted on the vehicle.
(c) The operator shall provide final
test procedures to be conducted on the
vehicle at the time of contract
execution.
(d) The operator shall process
vehicles for testing in the order in
which the contracts are signed.
§ 665.23
Fees.
(a) The operator shall charge fees in
accordance with a schedule approved
by FTA, which shall include prorated
fees for partial testing.
(b) Fees shall be prorated for a vehicle
withdrawn from the bus testing facility
before the completion of testing.
§ 665.25
Transportation of vehicle.
A manufacturer shall be responsible
for transporting its vehicle to and from
the bus testing facility at the beginning
and completion of the testing at the
manufacturer’s own risk and expense.
§ 665.27
Procedures during testing.
(a) The operator shall perform all
maintenance and repairs on the test
vehicle, consistent with the
manufacturer’s specifications, unless
the operator determines that the nature
of the maintenance or repair is best
performed by the manufacturer under
the operator’s supervision.
(b) The manufacturer shall be
permitted to observe all tests. The
manufacturer shall not provide
maintenance or service unless requested
to do so by the operator.
Appendix A to Part 665—Tests To Be
Performed at the Bus Testing Facility
cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
The eight tests to be performed on each
vehicle are required by SAFETEA–LU and
are based in part on tests described in the
FTA report ‘‘First Article Transit Bus Test
Plan,’’ which is mentioned in the legislative
history of section 317 of STURAA. When
appropriate, Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE) test procedures and other procedures
accepted by the transit industry will be used.
The eight tests are described in general terms
in the following paragraphs.
1. Maintainability
The maintainability test should include
bus servicing, preventive maintenance,
inspection, and repair. It also should include
the removal and reinstallation of the engine
and drive train components that would be
expected to require replacement during the
bus’s normal life cycle. Much of the
maintainability data should be obtained
during the bus durability test at the test track.
Up to twenty-five percent of the bus life
should be simulated and servicing,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:52 Oct 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
preventive maintenance, and repair actions
should be recorded and reported. These
actions should be performed by test facility
staff, although manufacturers should be
allowed to maintain a representative on site
during the testing. Test facility staff may
require a manufacturer to provide vehicle
servicing or repair, under the supervision of
the facility staff. Because the operator will
not become familiar with the detailed design
of all new bus models that are tested, tests
to determine the time and skill required to
remove and reinstall an engine, a
transmission, or other major propulsion
system components may require advice from
the bus manufacturer. All routine and
corrective maintenance should be carried out
by the test operator in accordance with the
manufacturer’s specifications.
The maintainability test report should
include the frequency, personnel hours, and
replacement parts or supplies required for
each action during the test. The accessibility
of selected components and other
observations that could be important to a bus
user should be included in the report.
2. Reliability
Reliability should not be a separate test,
but should be addressed by recording all bus
failures and breakdowns during testing. It is
recognized that with one test bus it is not
feasible to conduct statistical reliability tests.
The detected bus failures, repair time, and
the actions required to return the bus to
operation should be recorded in the report.
3. Safety
The safety test should consist of a handling
and stability test. The handling and stability
test should be an obstacle avoidance or
double-lane change test performed at the test
track. Bus speed should be held constant
throughout a given test run. Individual test
runs should be made at increasing speeds up
to a specified maximum or until the bus can
no longer be operated safely over the course,
whichever speed is lower. Both left- and
right-hand lane changes should be tested.
4. Performance
The performance test should be performed
on the test track and should measure
acceleration, maximum speed attained,
gradeability, and braking. The bus should be
accelerated at full throttle from a full stop to
maximum safe speed on the track. The
gradeability capabilities should be measured
when starting from a full stop on a steep
grade, and supplemented by calculating
gradeability based on the acceleration data.
The functionality and performance of the
service, regenerative (if applicable), and
parking brake systems should be evaluated at
the test track. The test bus should be
subjected to a series of brake stops from
specified speeds on high, low, and splitfriction surfaces. The parking brake should
be evaluated with the bus parked facing both
up and down a steep grade.
5. Structural Integrity
Two complementary structural integrity
tests should be performed. Structural
strength and distortion tests should be
performed at the Bus Testing Center, and the
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
51091
structural durability test should be performed
at the test track.
a. Structural Strength and Distortion Tests
(1) A shakedown of the bus structure
should be conducted by loading and
unloading the bus with a distributed load
equal to 2.5 times the load applied for the
gross weight portions of testing. The bus
should then be unloaded and inspected for
any permanent deformation on the floor or
coach structure. This test should be repeated
a second time, and should be repeated up to
one more time if the permanent deflections
vary significantly between the first and
second tests.
(2) The bus should be loaded to gross
vehicle weight, with one wheel on top of a
curb and then in a pothole. This test should
be repeated for all four wheels. The test
verifies: normal operation of the steering
mechanism; and operability of all passenger
doors, passenger escape mechanisms,
windows, and service doors. A water leak
test should be conducted in each suspension
travel condition.
(3) Using a load-equalizing towing sling, a
static tension load equal to 1.2 times the curb
weight should be applied to the bus towing
fixtures (front and rear). The load should be
removed and the two eyes and adjoining
structure inspected for damages or
permanent deformations.
(4) The bus should be towed at curb weight
with a heavy wrecker truck for several miles
and then inspected for structural damage or
permanent deformation.
(5) With the bus at curb weight probable
damages and clearance issues due to tire
deflating and jacking should be assessed.
(6) With the bus at curb weight possible
damages or deformation associated with
lifting the bus on a two post hoist system or
supporting it on jack stands should be
assessed.
b. Structural Durability
The structural durability test should be
performed on the durability course at the test
track, simulating twenty-five percent of the
vehicle’s normal service life. The bus
structure should be inspected regularly
during the test, and the mileage and
identification of any structural anomalies and
failures should be reported in the reliability
test.
6. Fuel Economy
The fuel economy test should be
conducted using duty cycles that simulate
transit service. This test should measure the
fuel economy of the bus in miles per gallon
or other energy-equivalent units.
The fuel economy test should be designed
only to enable FTA recipients to compare the
relative fuel economy of buses operating at a
consistent loading condition on the same set
of typical transit driving cycles. The results
of this test are not directly comparable to fuel
economy estimates by other agencies, such as
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) or for other purposes.
7. Noise
The noise test should measure interior
noise and vibration while the bus is idling (or
in a comparable operating mode) and driving,
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
51092
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 191 / Monday, October 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
and also should measure the transmission of
exterior noise to the interior while the bus is
not running. The exterior noise should be
measured as the bus is operated past a
stationary measurement instrument.
8. Emissions
The emissions test should measure tailpipe
emissions of those exhaust constituents
regulated by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for transit bus
emissions, plus carbon dioxide (CO2) and
methane (CH4), as the bus is operated over
specified driving cycles. The emissions test
should be conducted using an emissions
testing laboratory equipped with a chassis
dynamometer capable of both absorbing and
applying power.
The emissions test is not a certification
test, and is designed only to enable FTA
recipients to compare the relative emissions
of buses operating on the same set of typical
transit driving cycles. The results of this test
are not directly comparable to emissions
measurements obtained by other agencies,
such as the EPA, which are used for other
purposes.
Peter M. Rogoff,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9–23818 Filed 10–2–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–57–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 0909101271–91272–01]
RIN 0648–AY23
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Black Sea Bass Recreational
Fishery; Emergency Rule
cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Emergency rule; emergency
action; request for comments.
SUMMARY: NMFS is implementing,
through this emergency rule, a closure
of the recreational black sea bass fishery
in the Federal waters of the Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) from 3 to 200
nautical miles offshore, north of Cape
Hatteras, NC. This action is necessary
because the best available information
for black sea bass recreational landings
indicates that the 2009 recreational
harvest limit established for the black
sea bass fishery is projected to have
been exceeded. NMFS is effecting this
closure to mitigate the magnitude of the
recreational overage because the
established mortality objective for 2009
has been exceeded.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:52 Oct 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
Effective October 5, 2009.
You may submit comments,
identified by RIN 0648–AY23, by any
one of the following methods:
• Electronic submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal https://
www.regulations.gov.
• Mail and hand delivery: Patricia A.
Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS,
Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great
Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
Mark the outside of the envelope:
‘‘Comments on 2009 Black Sea Bass
Recreational EEZ Closure.’’
• Fax: (978) 281–9135. Send the fax
to the attention of the Sustainable
Fisheries Division. Include ‘‘Comments
on 2009 Black Sea Bass Recreational
EEZ Closure’’ prominently on the fax.
Instructions: All comments received
are a part of the public record and will
generally be posted to https://
www.regulations.gov without change.
All Personal Identifying Information (for
example, name, address, etc.)
voluntarily submitted by the commenter
may be publicly accessible. Do not
submit Confidential Business
Information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
NMFS will accept anonymous
comments. Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft
Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe
PDF file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Ruccio, Fishery Policy Analyst,
(978) 281–9104.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A final
rule to establish the recreational harvest
limits for 2009 for the summer flounder,
scup, and black sea bass fisheries was
published in the Federal Register on
January 2, 2009 (74 FR 29). The black
sea bass recreational harvest limit for
2009 is 1.14 million lb (517 mt). The
2009 recreational management measures
for Federal waters are a 12.5-inch
(31.75-cm) minimum size, a 25-fish
possession limit, and an open season of
January 1 through December 31. Marine
Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey
(MRFSS) data through Wave 3 (JanuaryJune) indicate that 1,018,878 lb (462 mt)
have been landed. Due to time
constraints, this amount has not been
stratified to exclude southern stock
landings that occur south of Cape
Hatteras, NC. The total North Carolina
landings through Wave 3 are 71,059 lb
(32 mt). Therefore, the landings through
Wave 3 are at least 947,819 lb (430 mt).
This means that between 83 and 89
percent of the 2009 recreational harvest
limit had been taken by the end of June.
Data for Wave 4 (July-August) are not
yet available; however, an average of 27
DATES:
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
percent of the annual landings has
occurred during Wave 4 in the years
2005–2008. On average, an additional
24 percent of landings have occurred
during Wave 5 (September-October) and
4 percent during Wave 6 (NovemberDecember) for the same time period.
Using these proportions of landings by
wave (i.e., Waves 1–3 = 45 percent of
annual landings) and applying the
information to the actual landings data
available through Wave 3 for 2009
would result in approximately 611,000
lb (277 mt) being landed through the
end of August (end of Wave 4), with an
additional 634,000 lb (288 mt) expected
to be landed before the end of the year
if the fishery remains open.
Using MRFSS data in a variety of
projection scenarios, NMFS, along with
independent MRFSS queries made by
staff of the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission (Commission)
and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council (Council) have concluded that
the 2009 recreational harvest limit for
black sea bass has been exceeded.
Multiple projections utilizing the actual
2009 MRFSS data through Wave 3 and
projected landings for the remaining
Waves 4–6 have indicated that the
potential range of total 2009 landings is
from 2.1 to 3.7 million lb (953 to 1,678
mt). This would exceed the 2009
recreational harvest limit by 84 to 225
percent, respectively, if landings are left
unchecked until the regulatory closure
date of December 31, 2009.
Regardless of the variability in the
projection methods utilized, wherein
average fish weight and multiple ranges
of prior years are included to inform
average landings in Waves 4–6 were
modified in the different treatments, a
substantial portion of the black sea bass
recreational fishery clearly occurs
during the months of July-October
(MRFSS Waves 4 and 5). On average,
Waves 4–6 have produced 55 percent of
the total coastwide black sea bass
landings in the years 2005–2008. Wave
4 MRFSS information for 2009 will not
be available until mid-October.
However, the best information currently
available indicates that the 2009
recreational harvest level has been
exceeded and that continued operation
of the fishery will result in additional
landings above the established harvest
level. Even after a closure of the EEZ
occurs, additional landings above the
established recreational harvest level
will occur in state waters, unless all
states implement closures of their statewater recreational black sea bass
fisheries.
The Commission’s Black Sea Bass
Management Board (Board) convened
on September 8, 2009, to discuss
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 191 (Monday, October 5, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51083-51092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23818]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
49 CFR Part 665
[Docket No. FTA-2007-0011]
RIN 2132-AA95
Bus Testing; Phase-In of Brake Performance and Emissions Testing,
and Program Updates
AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Federal Transit Administration's
(FTA's) bus testing regulation to incorporate brake performance and
emissions tests into FTA's bus testing program to comply with statutory
changes. To improve the program, this final rule also republishes the
existing regulation to incorporate several updates that will enhance
the program's value and respond to changes in the bus manufacturing
industry and to bring it into conformity with statutory language.
DATES: This rule is effective January 1, 2010.
[[Page 51084]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information, Marcel
Belanger, Bus Testing Program Manager, Office of Research,
Demonstration, and Innovation (TRI), (202) 366-0725,
marcel.belanger@dot.gov. For legal information, Richard Wong, Office of
the Chief Counsel (TCC), (202) 366-0675, richard.wong@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 30, 2008, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal
Register (73 FR 56781) that discussed proposals to incorporate brake
performance and emissions tests into FTA's bus testing program as
required by 49 U.S.C. Section 5318, as amended by the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Equitable Transportation Efficiency Act: a
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59). These changes required
by statute included a brake performance test procedure and an emissions
test procedure.
The NPRM also sought comments on a number of other proposed ways to
update the regulation to improve the functioning of the program,
enhance its value, and clarify possible ambiguities in the existing
regulation. These proposed changes, which were not required by statute,
but were intended to improve the program, addressed issues related to:
(1) The determination of service life category; (2) testing of buses
that exceed weight limits when fully loaded; (3) clarification of FTA's
``Family of Vehicles'' policy; (4) separate reporting of third-party
chassis test results; and, (5) the inclusion of an FTA evaluation or
recommendation of bus models in bus testing reports.
Comments Received
FTA received a total of five comments--one from a major industry
trade association consisting of more than 1,500 public and private
members, one from a large public transit agency, a third from a
manufacturer trade association representing almost 700 companies making
motor vehicle components, the fourth from a manufacturer of large
heavy-duty transit buses, and the fifth from an engineering consulting
firm that provides consulting and test equipment for heavy-duty
vehicles and brake systems.
Section-by-Section Analysis of Specific Comments
1. Brake Performance Test Procedure
FTA proposed that a test bus would be subjected to a series of
brake stops from 20, 30, 40, and 45 mph on a high-friction surface;
from 20 mph on a low-friction surface; and up to 45 mph on a split-
coefficient surface. The parking brake would be evaluated facing uphill
and downhill on a ramp with a 20 percent grade. FTA also sought
comments on whether, and, if so, how, the maintainability and noise
tests should be modified to capture useful data related to the brake
system and whether any such changes should be done within the
regulation itself or through non-regulatory testing protocols and
procedures.
FTA proposed to incorporate the brake performance test within the
existing performance test category, as specified by SAFETEA-LU. The
proposed test procedure specified that all brake performance tests
would be performed with the bus loaded to gross vehicle weight, for
which a definition would be provided in the revised 49 CFR Section
665.5.
A. Comments Received
FTA received comments on the proposed braking performance test from
all respondents. Most of the comments received pertained to details of
the sub-regulatory test procedures that would be used to conduct the
braking performance test; for example, recommending that FTA measure
brake system temperatures by the installation of thermocouples in the
brake linings rather than the proposed use of a non-contacting digital
thermometer.
A few comments referred to differences between the draft FTA test
procedures and the procedures specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) 121. For example, FTA's proposed test procedure
assumes that the brakes would be adequately burnished following
completion of the gross-vehicle-weight portion of the structural
durability test, while FMVSS 121 specifies a detailed brake burnishing
procedure. Another comment noted that some buses may not be able to
climb the 20 percent slope parking brake testing hill or may not be
able to clear the hill's transition ramps, and questioned what the
testing options would be in such situations. This commenter also asked
who would be responsible if a bus is damaged on the brake testing
slope.
B. FTA Response
Since the regulation is only intended to outline the tests that
would be performed in general terms, specific details of the sub-
regulatory test procedures are not appropriate to address in the
regulation itself. Instead, FTA will consider each of the comments
received as we work with the facility operator to finalize the brake
testing procedures.
With regard to consistency between FMVSS 121 certification and the
bus testing program, FTA reiterates that its bus testing program is not
a certification test. Rather, its purpose is to provide data that can
facilitate grantees' comparisons of various transit bus models and
provide indications of whether the contemplated bus model is suitable
for a grantee's intended application. Therefore, it is not necessary
for the bus testing program to replicate the test procedures in FMVSS
121. FTA believes that the operation on the test track and occasional
operation on roadways between the Altoona Bus Testing Center and the
Test Track Facility in State College should be adequate to produce a
realistic real-world level of brake burnishing prior to conducting the
brake performance tests. However, because this aspect of the test
procedure will not be established by regulation, FTA will work with the
bus testing facility operator to verify that its proposed burnishing
procedure is adequate, or add additional steps to the procedure if that
is determined to be necessary.
With regard to the concerns that buses may have difficulty
navigating the test slope, the slope was designed to replicate
conditions that could be encountered in a transit bus environment, so
most if not all buses should be able to negotiate it without
difficulty. In rare cases where clearance is inadequate, the operator
can likely devise a workaround, perhaps such as filling in the concave
transition at the bottom of the slope with temporary ramps or gravel.
In the unlikely event that a bus has inadequate torque at the driving
wheels to climb the 20 percent slope, then potential customers will
likely want to know that limitation. If a bus is unable to navigate the
ascent in order to complete the brake test, a bus could be assisted
into position using a tow truck.
The operator has existing procedures in place to address damages
that may occur to buses at the testing facility. These procedures will
apply to any damages that may occur on the brake testing slope.
2. Emissions Test Procedure
FTA proposed a draft emissions test procedure based on 40 CFR part
86--``Emissions Regulations for New Otto-Cycle and Diesel Heavy-Duty
Engines; Gaseous and Particulate Exhaust Test Procedures'' and 40 CFR
part 1065--``Engine Testing Procedures,'' as well as the Society of
Automotive Engineers
[[Page 51085]]
(SAE) Recommended Practice, SAE J2711.
FTA proposed using an emissions testing laboratory equipped with a
chassis dynamometer capable of both absorbing and applying power. FTA
proposed measuring the emissions of exhaust constituents regulated by
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for transit
buses, plus carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane
(CH4), as the bus is operated over industry-standard driving
cycles specified in the test procedure. FTA proposed that mileage
accumulated by a bus while operating on the dynamometer during
emissions testing would be counted toward the ``other'' miles that must
be accumulated during durability testing. Under the proposed test
procedure, the dynamometer would be set to simulate curb weight plus
one-half of the fully seated load for the particular bus being tested.
This approach would be consistent with the above-cited industry
standard emissions measurement protocols and will facilitate direct
comparisons with emissions measurements collected outside the bus
testing program. FTA also sought comments on the merits of performing
the emissions tests with the chassis dynamometer set to simulate gross
vehicle weight, which would generally be expected to represent the
``worst case'' for emissions, seated load weight, which may result in
emissions measurements closer to a typical case (and which would be
consistent with the Performance and Fuel Economy tests, which are
currently performed at seated load weight), or a different weight. FTA
also sought comments on whether, and if so, how, the maintainability
test should be modified to capture useful data related to the emissions
control system and whether any such changes should be made within the
regulation itself or in non-regulatory testing policies and procedures
administered by the testing facility. FTA proposed to add the emissions
test as a separate, eighth, test category.
A. Comments Received
The transit operator and the transit industry association both
suggested that FTA test emissions at gross vehicle weight in order to
shed light on the ``worst case'' emissions that might be produced by a
bus model. These commenters also recommended that FTA measure emissions
at a bus's tailpipe rather than at its engine. The bus manufacturer
suggested that FTA's emissions testing procedure should be consistent
with other accepted methodologies in order to facilitate comparisons
with other sources of emissions data.
B. FTA Response
FTA considered testing emissions at gross vehicle weight, but
decided to test buses at curb weight plus one-half of the seated load
weight in order to achieve greater consistency with industry-standard
methods for emissions testing. FTA initially proposed to, and still
intends to, measure bus emissions at the tailpipe exit rather than at
the engine exhaust ports. Any confusion regarding the measurement site
probably arose from the NPRM's proposed new definition of ``Engine-Out
Emissions,'' which will not be used in the final rule, and, therefore,
has been removed.
3. Applicability and Phase-In
FTA proposed that the date on which a bus testing contract was
signed would determine the applicability of the brake performance and
emissions tests. Models whose testing contracts were signed before the
effective date of this regulation and that continue to be produced
without major changes in any structure or systems would not be required
to return to the Bus Testing Center to undergo brake performance and
emissions testing. Buses for which full or partial testing contracts
are signed on or after the effective date of this regulation would be
subject to brake performance and emissions testing (in addition to the
other testing requirements).
FTA also sought comments on whether the emissions test should apply
to all vehicles subject to FTA's bus testing regulation or whether any
classes of buses should be exempted. In addition, we asked for comments
on whether the emissions testing program should begin on the effective
date of this rule for all bus types subject to testing or whether the
emissions test requirement should be gradually phased-in for various
classes of bus (e.g., small or large buses), similar to the phase-in
process used in the initial start-up of FTA's bus testing program.
A. Comments Received
The large transit operator agreed with FTA's proposal that
emissions testing should begin on the effective date of the final rule,
and any new buses should be required to meet the regulations in effect
at the time of manufacture. The bus manufacturer stated that a single-
stage bus manufacturer certifying to FMVSS 121 should not be required
to undergo additional testing, and adding additional performance tests
not consistent with FMVSS 121 could raise suspicions of non-compliance
without adding to safety or reliability. The bus manufacturer also
expressed concerns that partial testing evaluations could subject a bus
model to an undue number of additional tests, particularly when it may
impact bus delivery schedules.
B. FTA Response
Because none of the commenters directly responded to FTA's
inquiries whether a categorical exemption for certain classes of
vehicles and whether a gradual phase-in period was necessary, FTA will
proceed with the plan outlined in the NPRM: Every bus model for which a
full or partial bus testing contract is signed after the effective date
of this final rule will be subject to brake performance and emissions
testing, without a phase-in period or exemptions for specific
categories of vehicles.
With regard to the suggestion that certification with FMVSS 121
exempt a vehicle from additional brake testing, FTA believes that a
simple certification of compliance with FMVSS 121 does not exempt a
vehicle from the braking test. Although aware that every vehicle
operating on public roads must certify compliance with FMVSS, Congress
nevertheless mandated that FTA establish the bus testing program,
specifically adding a braking performance test, while giving FTA no
statutory authority to exempt vehicles that certified compliance with
FMVSS 121 or any other FMVSS requirement. Moreover, FTA's bus testing
program consists of actual tests, while FMVSS compliance is met by the
signing of a certificate of compliance.
FTA does not believe that the addition of braking performance and
emissions testing will unduly delay delivery schedules. Under the
existing regulation a bus subject to testing as a new model bus or as a
modified model bus must be physically delivered to Altoona and must
spend a predictable number of days at the testing facility. The
addition of braking and emissions testing would add a maximum of 24
working hours to the time presently required at the test facility. When
contrasted to the 60 or more days a heavy-duty model bus would spend at
the test facility for a full test, an additional three business days
would not significantly delay delivery schedules and perhaps could even
be accounted for in a manufacturer's proposed delivery schedule.
4. Partial Testing
Under the current rule, partial testing is permitted when a
previously-tested bus model undergoes changes in configuration or
components that are
[[Page 51086]]
expected to produce significantly different data from that previously
obtained at the Bus Testing Facility. These partial testing
determinations are made on a case-by-case basis, using criteria set
forth in the June 28, 1992, final rule that established partial testing
(57 FR 33394). FTA sought comment on changes that could trigger partial
testing for the brake performance and emissions tests.
A. Comments Received
The only commenter, a large bus manufacturer, did not address FTA's
request for substantive comments. This commenter only stated that FTA
needed to implement a policy that would provide faster responses to
partial testing determinations.
B. FTA Response
Without substantive input from commenters, FTA will continue to
make requests for partial testing determinations on a case-by-case
basis. To provide additional guidance to purchasers, manufacturers, and
vendors, FTA has posted its partial testing guidelines on its bus
testing Web site. Manufacturers seeking formal letters of determination
must wait for FTA to conduct its case-by-case analysis.
5. Reporting Procedures
FTA sought comment on how to better present data collected from the
brake performance and emissions tests in the bus testing reports as
well as in the bus testing database. FTA also welcomed comments on how
to present more effectively the data from any of the eight test
categories.
A. Comments Received
None of the commenters provided comment on this request.
B. FTA Response
FTA will continue using the standard test report procedure, adding
braking performance and emissions as additional categories to the test
reports. FTA may make changes to the test report format and/or emphasis
in the future in order to present bus testing data more clearly and
effectively.
Other Changes
6. Service Life Category
FTA sought comments on whether it should maintain its current
requirement of allowing manufacturers to determine the useful life
category in which their buses would be tested. In addition, FTA asked
for comment on whether it should continue to expect grantees to
evaluate the bus testing reports carefully to assess whether the bus
will in fact adequately meet its service life requirements.
FTA also sought comments on alternative policies for determining
the service life category in which a particular bus model would be
tested, such as (1) redefining the characteristics of buses in each
service life category, and if that approach is taken, what those
characteristics should be; (2) requiring manufacturers to request an
official determination from FTA of a vehicle's service life category;
or (3) providing guidance on the standard useful life based on type of
construction but allowing manufacturers to test and sell in higher
service life categories if they post a ``durability assurance'' bond or
similar instrument.
A. Comments Received
All three commenters on this subject supported the retention of the
current FTA requirement. The manufacturer of large buses stated that it
is the purchaser's responsibility to review the test report and
determine whether the vehicle is adequate to meet their needs. The
trade association and transit operator also supported this approach and
added that manufacturers should provide proof to the operator that the
bus will meet the standards of the higher service life category. The
transit operator proposed additional language that would provide the
customer a ``durability assurance bond'' or similar instrument that
would cover the vehicle's advertised useful standard life.
B. FTA Response
Based on the response from commenters, FTA does not believe that
altering the current procedures is warranted. Although manufacturers
may continue to select the appropriate service life category for
testing, FTA believes that well-informed purchasers are the best
safeguard--to that point, bus purchasers are advised to seek adequate
assurances from the vendor in the form of extended warranties or
contractual assurances that the vehicle will meet its advertised
service life.
7. Buses That Exceed Weight Limits When Fully Loaded
In the NPRM, FTA made note of the fact that a number of buses
tested at the Bus Testing Center have not been tested in their fully
loaded condition (i.e., with all seats and standee positions occupied),
since doing so would have caused their actual weight to exceed either
their gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) or a front or rear gross axle
weight rating (GAWR).
FTA noted that the test data might not reflect the actual
performance of these buses in real-life service, where operators
frequently allow all seats and aisles to be filled without regard to
the GVWR or GAWR to avoid leaving passengers behind at a stop. FTA
sought comments on the following three approaches for addressing these
situations:
1. Require that any tests specified in the test procedures be
performed at gross vehicle weight (GVW) on the test track (which is not
a public roadway) with all seats and standee positions ballasted, and
require any tests specified in the test procedures be performed at
seated load weight (SLW) on the test track with all seats ballasted.
Although the bus would be overloaded, the test data may be more
representative of the conditions the bus will face in actual service.
This approach would help to ``flag'' buses that are not adequately able
to withstand the rigors of transit service.
2. Continue the current practice of deleting ballast until the bus
is within its GVWR/GAWR, but place a more prominent notice in the bus
testing report stating that the bus will exceed its maximum GVWR/GAWR
with all passenger positions occupied, and alert readers that the test
data may not be representative of the vehicle's actual in-service
durability.
3. Decline to test a bus that exceeds its GAWR or GVWR when loaded
to full capacity.
A. Comments Received
Three commenters--the large industry trade association, the large
transit agency, and the large bus manufacturer--supported continuing
with the current practice outlined under Option 2, noting its
practicability. The transit operator suggested testing a vehicle at its
GVW on the test track, regardless of the vehicle's GVWR. The
manufacturers' association supported Option 3, proposing that FTA
decline to test any vehicle that exceeded its GVWR.
FTA also received unsolicited suggestions from two commenters,
recommending that FTA increase the simulated ballast weight from the
currently-used 150 pounds per passenger cited in the new definitions of
``gross vehicle weight'' and ``seated load weight'' proposed in the
NPRM, to 170 pounds per passenger to reflect the increasing average
weight of Americans over the last several decades.
B. FTA Response
FTA finds that declining to test a vehicle whose GVW exceeds its
GVWR is impractical, noting that the entire purposes of the bus testing
program is to carry out the legislative mission of
[[Page 51087]]
verifying that the bus can withstand the rigors of regular transit
service. Similarly, testing a bus up to its GVWR but no higher, despite
the inability to embark the equivalent of a full complement of
passengers, is unrealistic and contrary to the intent of Congress in
establishing the program. Buses frequently fill every available seat
during rush-hour, and commonly allow ``crush loads'' of standees in the
aisle.
Therefore, the final rule will require buses to be ballasted with a
fully loaded passenger complement of seated and standee passengers
during the gross vehicle weight portion and with all seats filled
during the seated load weight portion of the testing. If the vehicle
exceeds its GVWR, the bus will be tested in that condition only on the
operator's non-public testing facilities unless and until the operator
receives an exemption to operate the vehicle on public roads. Data on
how a bus performs under full load conditions is essential to the
purchaser, to support acquisition decisions, development of preventive
maintenance schedules, and budgeting for unscheduled maintenance.
The suggestion to increase the average passenger weight is well
taken, and currently, the U.S. Department of Transportation is
considering this subject in the context of all modes of transportation:
air, surface, and water. It is quite possible the Department will seek
to establish higher value for average passenger weight. If so, FTA
would initiate a new rulemaking to amend Part 665 accordingly. FTA will
consult with the Department on this subject in the very near future.
8. Family of Vehicles
FTA sought comments on whether it would be appropriate to expand
its existing ``Family of Vehicles'' policy to the 7-year or higher
service life categories. The existing Family of Vehicles policy is
limited to buses in the 4-year and 5-year service life categories only,
and allows manufacturers that have tested a complete bus built on one
third-party chassis to offer closely-related variants (such as
different lengths) of that bus body on the same or different (but
similar) mass-produced chassis that has been tested at the Bus Testing
Center on any similar bus by any bus manufacturer. FTA sought comments
on the desirability and ramifications of extending the Family of
Vehicles policy to all buses built on third-party chassis
A. Comments Received
The large industry trade association opposed the proposal, stating
that the 4- and 5-year buses are used differently than the larger
vehicles, and that such a proposal would increase prices without
increasing the quality of the vehicles. The large transit agency also
recommended that FTA keep its current requirement, noting that the 4-
and 5-year buses are not used in standard transit service.
B. FTA Response
Given the lack of support among commenters for the proposed
expansion of the concept, FTA is retaining its Family of Vehicles
policy for 4- and 5-year buses and will not expand it to include buses
used in higher service life categories.
9. Separate Reporting of Third-Part Chassis Test Results
Although Section 5318 directs that buses are to be tested as an
integrated system, FTA's Family of Vehicles policy described in the
previous paragraphs would be easier to implement and understand if the
Bus Testing Center were able to produce separate testing reports for
third-party chassis. These reports could be prepared by identifying,
separating out, and summarizing only the chassis-related data during
tests of buses built on third-party chassis. The Bus Testing Center
operator expressed concern that in past experience, a significant
number of buses are tested on modified third-party chassis, and these
modifications, even if performed in strict compliance with the
manufacturer's guidelines, would frustrate comparisons of data on
third-party chassis. Therefore, FTA sought comments on the feasibility
of preparing separate test reports for third-party chassis that are
tested in the course of testing complete buses built on those chassis.
FTA also sought comments on any practical considerations that may need
to be addressed or difficulties that may be presented, as well as the
best ways to separate and report data on third-party chassis. Finally,
FTA sought comments on how the costs of this additional reporting would
be borne.
A. Comments Received
FTA received two comments on this proposal--one from the large
trade association, another from the large transit agency. The transit
agency recommended preparation of separate third-party test reports,
with costs to be negotiated between the chassis maker and purchasers.
The trade association similarly commented that the costs should be
negotiated, but did not address whether separate chassis reports are
desirable.
B. FTA Response
Because the design, engineering, and manufacturing, and quality
control of third-party chassis are the same regardless of the final
customer, there may be little differentiation in test data when a
particular third-party chassis is used on similar buses built by
multiple bus manufacturers. FTA believes that some of the test data
obtained from testing a vehicle using a third-party chassis already can
be extrapolated to similar buses built on the same chassis through the
partial testing process.
The regulation's existing partial testing provisions permit partial
testing of previously tested bus models that are subsequently produced
with changes in configuration or components, requiring additional
testing only where significant changes in data are expected, including
changes in chassis components, such as engines, axles, suspensions, and
powertrains. Under these partial testing procedures, if a manufacturer
of a fully-tested vehicle wants to offer that same vehicle using a
different but already-tested third-party chassis, FTA will require only
those tests where significant changes in data are expected--expecting
that data intrinsic to the chassis can be extrapolated from the
previous bus testing report using that chassis. The current process
reduces the costs and testing requirements; however, to increase
convenience and clarity for bus purchasers, FTA will continue to
explore the feasibility of issuing separate test reports for third-
party chassis.
10. FTA Evaluation/Recommendation of Bus Models
In response to a number of informal suggestions received in the
past that FTA issue ``pass/fail'' determinations for buses in the bus
testing reports, FTA sought comments in the NPRM on whether the bus
testing reports should include a ``pass/fail'' criterion or a
``recommended/not-recommended'' determination, and if so, how
thresholds for such determinations should be established.
Alternatively, FTA sought comments on improved ways to enhance the
presentation of data in the reports (e.g., by presenting data
graphically) so that information for decision-making is more readily
apparent and better informs local decision-making.
A. Comments Received
FTA received two comments on this subject--one from a bus
manufacturer, and one from an equipment manufacturers association. The
bus
[[Page 51088]]
manufacturer stated that FTA should not make pass/fail determinations,
noting that it should be the customer's prerogative and responsibility.
The equipment manufacturer association stated that FTA should establish
pass/fail criteria, at least for braking criteria.
B. FTA Response
FTA found the dearth of comments regarding the establishment of
pass/fail criteria disappointing, based on pre-rulemaking comments from
the presumed beneficiaries of pass/fail criteria, namely, the transit
agencies that purchase the vehicles. FTA sought substantive comments on
possible criteria and thresholds. In the absence of comments supporting
such an approach, FTA will not proceed with establishing pass/fail
criteria at this time. FMVSS 121 already includes pass/fail criteria
for braking performance, so a separate criterion in the bus testing
reports is not necessary and could be confusing.
11. Scope
Paragraph 665.3 is being amended to bring it into statutory
conformity. Section 317 of the Surface Transportation and Uniform
Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 initially limited applicability of
the bus testing program to recipients of FTA funding under the former
sections 3, 9, 16(b)(2), and 18 programs. Paragraph 3023(c) of the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users amended 49 USC 5318, paragraph (e), to extend the bus
testing requirement to all new bus models acquired with funds under 49
USC Chapter 53. The statutory change is not significant, as practically
all buses subject to the testing requirements are acquired with funds
authorized under one of those four programs.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
All comments received are available for examination in the docket
at https://www.regulations.gov. All comments have been fully considered
in this final rule.
A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking
This rulemaking is issued under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 5318, as
amended by section 3020 of SAFETEA-LU (Pub. L. 109-59).
B. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and
timely input by State and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that may have a substantial, direct effect 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. This final action has been analyzed in
accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive
Order 13132, and FTA has determined that this final action will not
have sufficient federalism implications to warrant additional
consultation. FTA has also determined that this final action will not
preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability
to discharge traditional governmental functions.
C. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175 requires agencies to assure meaningful and
timely input from Indian tribal government representatives in the
development of rules that ``significantly or uniquely affect'' Indian
communities and that impose ``substantial and direct compliance costs''
on such communities. FTA has analyzed this final rule under Executive
Order 13175 and believes that this final action will not have
substantial, direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not
impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal
governments; and will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, a tribal
impact statement is not required. FTA received no comments on the NPRM
from Indian tribal governments.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272: Proper
Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
and Executive Order 13272, FTA must consider whether a proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. ``Small entities'' include small businesses, not-for-
profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are
not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations under 50,000. FTA certifies that this final rule will not
have a significant economic impact on substantial number of small
entities.
E. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
FTA has determined that this action is not considered a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory
Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR
11032). Executive Order 12866 requires agencies to regulate in the
``most cost-effective manner,'' to make a ``reasoned determination that
the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,'' and to
develop regulations that ``impose the least burden on society.''
Although some of the changes made by this rule are statutorily
mandated, FTA anticipates that the direct economic impact of this
rulemaking will be minimal and has actively sought to minimize the bus
testing burden, including the continued availability of partial testing
procedures.
This final rule also clarifies existing regulatory requirements
that will not adversely affect, in any material way, any sector of the
economy. In addition, these changes will not interfere with any action
taken or planned by another agency and will not materially alter the
budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This final rule will not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48).
This final rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$128.1 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532).
G. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects
FTA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use dated May 18, 2001, and determined that this is
not a significant energy action under that order, because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy
Effects is not required.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no person is required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB
control number. This final rule does not propose any new information
collection burdens.
I. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The U.S. DOT 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. The RIN number contained in the
heading of this
[[Page 51089]]
document may be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified
Agenda.
J. Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the electronic form for all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comments (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may view the U.S.
DOT Privacy Act Statement by visiting https://docketsinfo.dot.gov/ or at
65 FR 19477 (April 11, 2000).
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 665
Buses, Grant programs--transportation, Motor vehicle safety, Public
transportation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Transit
Administration revises 49 CFR part 665 to read as follows:
PART 665--BUS TESTING
Subpart A--General
665.1 Purpose.
665.3 Scope.
665.5 Definitions.
665.7 Grantee certification of compliance.
Subpart B--Bus Testing Procedures
665.11 Testing requirements.
665.13 Test report and manufacturer certification.
Subpart C--Operations
665.21 Scheduling.
665.23 Fees.
665.25 Transportation of vehicle.
665.27 Procedures during testing.
Appendix A to Part 665--Tests To Be Performed at the Bus Testing
Facility
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5318 and 49 CFR 1.51.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 665.1 Purpose.
An applicant for Federal financial assistance under the Federal
Transit Act for the purchase or lease of buses with funds obligated by
the FTA shall certify to the FTA that any new bus model acquired with
such assistance has been tested in accordance with this part. This part
contains the information necessary for a recipient to ensure compliance
with this provision.
Sec. 665.3 Scope.
This part shall apply to an entity receiving Federal financial
assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.
Sec. 665.5 Definitions.
As used in this part--
Administrator means the Administrator of the Federal Transit
Administration or the Administrator's designee.
Automotive means that the bus is not continuously dependent on
external power or guidance for normal operation. Intermittent use of
external power or guidance shall not automatically relieve a bus of its
automotive character or requirement for bus testing.
Bus means a rubber-tired automotive vehicle used for the provision
of public transportation service by or for a recipient.
Bus model means a bus design or variation of a bus design usually
designated by the manufacturer by a specific name and/or model number.
Bus testing facility means the bus testing facility established by
the Secretary of Transportation, and includes test track facilities
operated in connection with the facility.
Bus testing report, also full bus testing report, means a complete
test report for a bus model, documenting the results of performing the
complete set of bus tests on that bus model.
Curb weight means the weight of the empty, ready-to-operate bus
plus driver and fuel.
Emissions means the components of the engine tailpipe exhaust that
are regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), plus carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane
(CH4).
Emissions control system means the components on a bus whose
primary purpose is to minimize regulated emissions before they reach
the tailpipe exit. This definition does not include components that
contribute to low emissions as a side effect of the manner in which
they perform their primary function (e.g., fuel injectors or combustion
chambers).
Final acceptance means that a recipient has released the FTA-
provided funds to a bus manufacturer or dealer in connection with bus
procurement.
Gross weight, also gross vehicle weight, means the curb weight of
the bus plus passengers simulated by adding 150 pounds of ballast to
each seating position and 150 pounds for each standing position
(assumed to be each 1.5 square feet of free floor space).
Hybrid means a propulsion system that combines two power sources,
at least one of which is capable of capturing, storing, and re-using
energy.
Major change in chassis design means, for vehicles manufactured on
a third-party chassis, a change in frame structure, material or
configuration, or a change in chassis suspension type.
Major change in components means:
(1) For those vehicles that are not manufactured on a third-party
chassis, a change in a vehicle's engine, axle, transmission,
suspension, or steering components;
(2) For those that are manufactured on a third-party chassis, a
change in the vehicle's chassis from one major design to another.
Major change in configuration means a change that is expected to
have a significant impact on vehicle handling and stability or
structural integrity.
Modified third-party chassis or van means a vehicle that is
manufactured from an incomplete, partially assembled third-party
chassis or van as provided by an OEM to a small bus manufacturer. This
includes vehicles whose chassis structure has been modified to include:
a tandem or tag axle; a drop or lowered floor; changes to the GVWR from
the OEM rating; or other modifications that are not made in strict
conformance with the OEM's modifications guidelines.
New bus model means a bus model that--
(1) Has not been used in public transportation service in the
United States before October 1, 1988; or
(2) Has been used in such service but which after September 30,
1988, is being produced with a major change in configuration or a major
change in components.
Operator means the operator of the bus testing facility.
Original equipment manufacturer (OEM) means the original
manufacturer of a chassis or van supplied as a complete or incomplete
vehicle to a bus manufacturer.
Parking brake means a system that prevents the bus from moving when
parked by preventing the wheels from rotating.
Partial testing means the performance of only that subset of the
complete set of bus tests in which significantly different data would
reasonably be expected compared to the data obtained in previous full
testing of the baseline bus model at the bus testing facility.
Partial testing report, also partial test report, means a report
documenting, for a previously-tested bus model that is produced with
major changes, the results of performing only that subset of the
complete set of bus tests in which significantly different data would
reasonably be expected as a result of the changes made to the bus from
the configuration documented in the original full bus testing report. A
partial testing report is not valid unless accompanied by the full bus
testing report for the corresponding baseline bus configuration.
Public transportation service means the operation of a vehicle that
provides
[[Page 51090]]
general or special service to the public on a regular and continuing
basis.
Recipient means an entity that receives funds under 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 53, either directly from FTA or through a State administering
agency.
Regenerative braking system means a system that decelerates a bus
by recovering its kinetic energy for on-board storage and subsequent
use.
Retarder means a system other than the service brakes that slows a
bus by dissipating kinetic energy.
Seated load weight means the weight of the bus plus driver, fuel,
and seated passengers simulated by adding 150 pounds of ballast to each
seating position.
Service brake(s) means the primary system used by the driver during
normal operation to reduce the speed of a moving bus and to allow the
driver to bring the bus to a controlled stop and hold it there. Service
brakes may be supplemented by retarders or by regenerative braking
systems.
Small bus manufacturer means a secondary market assembler that
acquires a chassis or van from an original equipment manufacturer for
subsequent modification or assembly and sale as 5-year/150,000-mile or
4-year/100,000-mile minimum service life vehicle.
Tailpipe emissions means the exhaust constituents actually emitted
to the atmosphere at the exit of the vehicle tailpipe or corresponding
system.
Third party chassis means a commercially available chassis whose
design, manufacturing, and quality control are performed by an entity
independent of the bus manufacturer.
Unmodified mass-produced van means a van that is mass-produced,
complete and fully assembled as provided by an OEM. This shall include
vans with raised roofs, and/or wheelchair lifts, or ramps that are
installed by the OEM, or by a party other than the OEM provided that
the installation of these components is completed in strict conformance
with the OEM modification guidelines.
Unmodified third-party chassis means a third-party chassis that
either has not been modified, or has been modified in strict
conformance with the OEM's modification guidelines.
Sec. 665.7 Grantee certification of compliance.
(a) In each application to FTA for the purchase or lease of any new
bus model, or any bus model with a major change in configuration or
components to be acquired or leased with funds obligated by the FTA,
the recipient shall certify that the bus was tested at the bus testing
facility. The recipient shall receive the appropriate full bus testing
report and any applicable partial testing report(s) before final
acceptance of the first vehicle by the recipient.
(b) In dealing with a bus manufacturer or dealer, the recipient
shall be responsible for determining whether a vehicle to be acquired
requires full testing or partial testing or has already satisfied the
requirements of this part.
Subpart B--Bus Testing Procedures
Sec. 665.11 Testing requirements.
(a) A new bus model to be tested at the bus testing facility
shall--
(1) Be a single model;
(2) Meet all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, as
defined by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in Part
571 of this title; and
(3) Be substantially fabricated and assembled using the techniques,
tooling, and materials that will be used in production of subsequent
buses of that model.
(b) If the new bus model has not previously been tested at the bus
testing facility, then the new bus model shall undergo the full tests
requirements for Maintainability, Reliability, Safety, Performance
including braking performance, Structural Integrity, Fuel Economy,
Noise, and Emissions;
(c) If the new bus model has not previously been tested at the bus
testing facility and is being produced on a third-party chassis that
has been previously tested on another bus model at the bus testing
facility, then the new bus model may undergo partial testing
requirements;
(d) If the new bus model has previously been tested at the bus
testing facility, but is subsequently manufactured with a major change
in chassis or components, then the new bus model may undergo partial
testing.
(e) The following vehicle types shall be tested:
(1) Large-size, heavy-duty transit buses (approximately 35'-40' in
length, as well as articulated buses) with a minimum service life of 12
years or 500,000 miles;
(2) Medium-size, heavy-duty transit buses (approximately 30' in
length) with a minimum service life of ten years or 350,000 miles;
(3) Medium-size, medium duty transit buses (approximately 30' in
length) with a minimum service life of seven years or 200,000 miles;
(4) Medium-size, light duty transit buses (approximately 25'-35' in
length) with a minimum service life of five years or 150,000 miles; and
(5) Other light duty vehicles such as small buses and regular and
specialized vans with a minimum service life of four years or 100,000
miles.
(f) Tests performed in a higher service life category (i.e., longer
service life) need not be repeated when the same bus model is used in
lesser service life applications.
(g) The operator of the bus testing facility shall develop a test
plan for the testing of vehicles at the facility. The test plan shall
follow the guidelines set forth in the appendix to this part.
Sec. 665.13 Test report and manufacturer certification.
(a) Upon completion of testing, the operator of the facility shall
provide the resulting test report to the entity that submitted the bus
for testing.
(b)(1) A manufacturer or dealer of a new bus model or a bus
produced with a major change in component or configuration shall
provide a copy of the corresponding full bus testing report and any
applicable partial testing report(s) to a recipient during the point in
the procurement process specified by the recipient, but in all cases
before final acceptance of the first bus by the recipient.
(2) A manufacturer who releases a report under paragraph (b)(1) of
this section also shall provide notice to the operator of the facility
that the report is available to the public.
(c) If a bus model subject to a bus testing report has a change
that is not a major change under this Part, the manufacturer or dealer
shall advise the recipient during the procurement process and shall
include a description of the change and the manufacturer's basis for
concluding that it is not a major change.
(d) A bus testing report shall be available publicly once the bus
manufacturer makes it available during a recipient's procurement
process. The operator of the facility shall have copies of all the
publicly available reports available for distribution.
(e) The bus testing report is the only information or documentation
that shall be made publicly available in connection with any bus model
tested at the bus testing facility.
Subpart C--Operations
Sec. 665.21 Scheduling.
(a) To schedule a bus for testing, a manufacturer shall contact the
operator of FTA's bus testing program. Contact information and
procedures are available on the operator's bus testing Web site, https://www.altoonabustest.com.
[[Page 51091]]
(b) Upon contacting the operator, the operator shall provide the
manufacturer with the following:
(1) A draft contract for the testing;
(2) A fee schedule; and
(3) The draft test procedures that will be conducted on the
vehicle.
(c) The operator shall provide final test procedures to be
conducted on the vehicle at the time of contract execution.
(d) The operator shall process vehicles for testing in the order in
which the contracts are signed.
Sec. 665.23 Fees.
(a) The operator shall charge fees in accordance with a schedule
approved by FTA, which shall include prorated fees for partial testing.
(b) Fees shall be prorated for a vehicle withdrawn from the bus
testing facility before the completion of testing.
Sec. 665.25 Transportation of vehicle.
A manufacturer shall be responsible for transporting its vehicle to
and from the bus testing facility at the beginning and completion of
the testing at the manufacturer's own risk and expense.
Sec. 665.27 Procedures during testing.
(a) The operator shall perform all maintenance and repairs on the
test vehicle, consistent with the manufacturer's specifications, unless
the operator determines that the nature of the maintenance or repair is
best performed by the manufacturer under the operator's supervision.
(b) The manufacturer shall be permitted to observe all tests. The
manufacturer shall not provide maintenance or service unless requested
to do so by the operator.
Appendix A to Part 665--Tests To Be Performed at the Bus Testing
Facility
The eight tests to be performed on each vehicle are required by
SAFETEA-LU and are based in part on tests described in the FTA
report ``First Article Transit Bus Test Plan,'' which is mentioned
in the legislative history of section 317 of STURAA. When
appropriate, Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) test procedures
and other procedures accepted by the transit industry will be used.
The eight tests are described in general terms in the following
paragraphs.
1. Maintainability
The maintainability test should include bus servicing,
preventive maintenance, inspection, and repair. It also should
include the removal and reinstallation of the engine and drive train
components that would be expected to require replacement during the
bus's normal life cycle. Much of the maintainability data should be
obtained during the bus durability test at the test track. Up to
twenty-five percent of the bus life should be simulated and
servicing, preventive maintenance, and repair actions should be
recorded and reported. These actions should be performed by test
facility staff, although manufacturers should be allowed to maintain
a representative on site during the testing. Test facility staff may
require a manufacturer to provide vehicle servicing or repair, under
the supervision of the facility staff. Because the operator will not
become familiar with the detailed design of all new bus models that
are tested, tests to determine the time and skill required to remove
and reinstall an engine, a transmission, or other major propulsion
system components may require advice from the bus manufacturer. All
routine and corrective maintenance should be carried out by the test
operator in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
The maintainability test report should include the frequency,
personnel hours, and replacement parts or supplies required for each
action during the test. The accessibility of selected components and
other observations that could be important to a bus user should be
included in the report.
2. Reliability
Reliability should not be a separate test, but should be
addressed by recording all bus failures and breakdowns during
testing. It is recognized that with one test bus it is not feasible
to conduct statistical reliability tests. The detected bus failures,
repair time, and the actions required to return the bus to operation
should be recorded in the report.
3. Safety
The safety test should consist of a handling and stability test.
The handling and stability test should be an obstacle avoidance or
double-lane change test performed at the test track. Bus speed
should be held constant throughout a given test run. Individual test
runs should be made at increasing speeds up to a specified maximum
or until the bus can no longer be operated safely over the course,
whichever speed is lower. Both left- and right-hand lane changes
should be tested.
4. Performance
The performance test should be performed on the test track and
should measure acceleration, maximum speed attained, gradeability,
and braking. The bus should be accelerated at full throttle from a
full stop to maximum safe speed on the track. The gradeability
capabilities should be measured when starting from a full stop on a
steep grade, and supplemented by calculating gradeability based on
the acceleration data. The functionality and performance of the
service, regenerative (if applicable), and parking brake systems
should be evaluated at the test track. The test bus should be
subjected to a series of brake stops from specified speeds on high,
low, and split-friction surfaces. The parking brake should be
evaluated with the bus parked facing both up and down a steep grade.
5. Structural Integrity
Two complementary structural integrity tests should be
performed. Structural strength and distortion tests should be
performed at the Bus Testing Center, and the structural durability
test should be performed at the test track.
a. Structural Strength and Distortion Tests
(1) A shakedown of the bus structure should be conducted by
loading and unloading the bus with a distributed load equal to 2.5
times the load applied for the gross weight portions of testing. The
bus should then be unloaded and inspected for any permanent
deformation on the floor or coach structure. This test should be
repeated a second time, and should be repeated up to one more time
if the permanent deflections vary significantly between the first
and second tests.
(2) The bus should be loaded to gross vehicle weight, with one
wheel on top of a curb and then in a pothole. This test should be
repeated for all four wheels. The test verifies: normal operation of
the steering mechanism; and operability of all passenger doors,
passenger escape mechanisms, windows, and service doors. A water
leak test should be conducted in each suspension travel condition.
(3) Using a load-equalizing towing sling, a static tension load
equal to 1.2 times the curb weight should be applied to the bus
towing fixtures (front and rear). The load should be removed and the
two eyes and adjoining structure inspected for damages or permanent
deformations.
(4) The bus should be towed at curb weight with a heavy wrecker
truck for several miles and then inspected for structural damage or
permanent deformation.
(5) With the bus at curb weight probable damages and clearance
issues due to tire deflating and jacking should be assessed.
(6) With the bus at curb weight possible damages or deformation
associated with lifting the bus on a two post hoist system or
supporting it on jack stands should be assessed.
b. Structural Durability
The structural durability test should be performed on the
durability course at the test track, simulating twenty-five percent
of the vehicle's normal service life. The bus structure should be
inspected regularly during the test, and the mileage and
identification of any structural anomalies and failures should be
reported in the reliability test.
6. Fuel Economy
The fuel economy test should be conducted using duty cycles that
simulate transit service. This test should measure the fuel economy
of the bus in miles per gallon or other energy-equivalent units.
The fuel economy test should be designed only to enable FTA
recipients to compare the relative fuel economy of buses operating
at a consistent loading condition on the same set of typical transit
driving cycles. The results of this test are not directly comparable
to fuel economy estimates by other agencies, such as the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or for other purposes.
7. Noise
The noise test should measure interior noise and vibration while
the bus is idling (or in a comparable operating mode) and driving,
[[Page 51092]]
and also should measure the transmission of exterior noise to the
interior while the bus is not running. The exterior noise should be
measured as the bus is operated past a stationary measurement
instrument.
8. Emissions
The emissions test should measure tailpipe emissions of those
exhaust constituents regulated by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for transit bus emissions, plus carbon
dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4), as the bus is
operated over specified driving cycles. The emissions test should be
conducted using an emissions testing laboratory equipped with a
chassis dynamometer capable of both absorbing and applying power.
The emissions test is not a certification test, and is designed
only to enable FTA recipients to compare the relative emissions of
buses operating on the same set of typical transit driving cycles.
The results of this test are not directly comparable to emissions
measurements obtained by other agencies, such as the EPA, which are
used for other purposes.
Peter M. Rogoff,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-23818 Filed 10-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-P