81_FR_50514 81 FR 50367 - Bus Testing: Establishment of Performance Standards, a Bus Model Scoring System, a Pass/Fail Standard and Other Program Updates

81 FR 50367 - Bus Testing: Establishment of Performance Standards, a Bus Model Scoring System, a Pass/Fail Standard and Other Program Updates

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 147 (August 1, 2016)

Page Range50367-50394
FR Document2016-17889

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is issuing a new pass/fail standard and new aggregated scoring system for buses and modified vans (hereafter referred to as ``bus'' or ``buses'') that are subject to FTA's bus testing program, as mandated by Section 20014 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). The pass/fail standard and scoring system address the following categories as required by MAP-21: Structural integrity, safety, maintainability, reliability, fuel economy, emissions, noise, and performance. Recipients of FTA grants are prohibited from using FTA financial assistance to procure new buses that have not met the minimum performance standards established by today's final rule. Finally, FTA is requiring bus manufacturers to provide country-of-origin information for test unit bus components, in lieu of applying Buy America U.S. content requirements to all buses submitted for testing.

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 147 (Monday, August 1, 2016)
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 147 (Monday, August 1, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50367-50394]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17889]



[[Page 50367]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration

49 CFR Part 665

[Docket No. FTA-2015-0019]
RIN 2132-AB11


Bus Testing: Establishment of Performance Standards, a Bus Model 
Scoring System, a Pass/Fail Standard and Other Program Updates

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is issuing a new 
pass/fail standard and new aggregated scoring system for buses and 
modified vans (hereafter referred to as ``bus'' or ``buses'') that are 
subject to FTA's bus testing program, as mandated by Section 20014 of 
the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). The 
pass/fail standard and scoring system address the following categories 
as required by MAP-21: Structural integrity, safety, maintainability, 
reliability, fuel economy, emissions, noise, and performance. 
Recipients of FTA grants are prohibited from using FTA financial 
assistance to procure new buses that have not met the minimum 
performance standards established by today's final rule. Finally, FTA 
is requiring bus manufacturers to provide country-of-origin information 
for test unit bus components, in lieu of applying Buy America U.S. 
content requirements to all buses submitted for testing.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is October 31, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information, Michael 
Baltes, Director, Office of Infrastructure and Asset Innovation, Office 
of Research, Demonstration and Innovation (TRI), (202) 366-2182, 
[email protected]. For legal information, Richard Wong, Office of 
the Chief Counsel (TCC), (202) 366-4011, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

A. Executive Summary
B. Rulemaking Background
C. Summary of Comments and Section-by-Section Analysis
D. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Summary

Purpose

    The purpose of this final rule is to implement minimum performance 
standards, a scoring system, and a pass/fail threshold for new model 
transit buses procured with FTA financial assistance authorized under 
49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. Consistent with 49 U.S.C. 5318(e), FTA recipients 
are prohibited from using FTA financial assistance to procure new buses 
that have not met the minimum performance standards established by this 
rule. The standards and scoring system address the following 
categories: Structural integrity, safety, maintainability, reliability, 
fuel economy, emissions, noise, and performance. Buses must meet a 
minimum performance standard in each of these categories in order to 
receive an overall passing score and be eligible for purchase using FTA 
financial assistance. Buses can achieve higher scores with higher 
performance in each category, and today's rule establishes a numerical 
scoring system based on a 100-point scale so that buyers can more 
effectively compare vehicles.
    To minimize disruption to transit vehicle manufacturers, consistent 
with the proposal, today's rule adopts many of the existing testing 
procedures and standards used under the current bus testing program. 
The rule, however, imposes some changes including: (1) New inspections 
at bus check-in to verify the bus configuration is within its weight 
capacity rating at its rated passenger load and an inspection to 
determine if the major components of the test bus match those 
identified in the Buy America pre-audit report; (2) elimination of the 
on-road fuel economy testing and substituting the fuel economy results 
obtained during the emissions test; and (3) revision to the payloading 
procedure to recognize the manufacturer's ``standee'' passenger rating. 
The final rule does not add any new tests to the existing bus testing 
program--in fact, FTA is eliminating two tests, the on-road fuel 
economy test, as equivalent data could be derived from the more 
accurate dynamometer testing, and the shakedown test, which is 
considered redundant to the structural durability test and no bus 
models have historically failed this test.
    Because FTA provides financial assistance to State and local 
agencies operating public transportation systems, covering up to 
eighty-five percent (85%) of a vehicle's capital cost, while the State 
or local government provides at least fifteen percent (15%) matching 
share, there is a strong incentive by FTA and local agencies to ensure 
that those funds are used effectively and efficiently. As part of its 
stewardship of those funds, Congress directed FTA in 1987 to establish 
a bus testing program whereby new model buses would first be tested to 
ensure their ability to withstand the rigors of regular transit service 
before FTA funds would be spent on those vehicles. In the following 
years, FTA accumulated comprehensive test data on the scores of buses 
that had undergone testing, but the program did not assign a 
comparative ranking to the vehicles. Further, because the program was 
intended to provide information on a vehicle's performance and Congress 
did not authorize FTA to use the test data to disqualify a vehicle from 
participating in FTA-assisted procurements, FTA did not establish a 
pass/fail performance baseline. Since that time, several tested buses 
did not meet their expected service lives at the cost of millions of 
dollars to transit agencies and significant inconvenience to transit 
riders. In MAP-21, Congress directed FTA to establish a new pass/fail 
standard for tested buses, including a weighted scoring system that 
would assist transit bus buyers in selecting an appropriate vehicle. 
FTA issued the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for this action on 
June 23, 2015. Today's final rule establishes a new scoring system and 
a pass/fail standard for buses tested under FTA's existing bus testing 
program, as well as making other administrative changes.

Legal Authority

    Although Section 20014 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 
Century Act (MAP-21) (Pub. L. 121-141) retained the existing bus 
testing categories of maintainability, reliability, safety, 
performance, structural integrity, fuel economy, emissions, and noise 
in the existing 49 U.S.C. 5318(a), Section 20014 also expanded 49 
U.S.C. 5318(e) by adding three new requirements on the use of Chapter 
53 funding to acquire new bus models. The first is that new bus models 
must meet performance standards for maintainability, reliability, 
performance (including braking performance), structural integrity, fuel 
economy, emissions, and noise. The second is that new bus models 
acquired with Chapter 53 funds must meet the minimum safety performance 
standards established pursuant to section 5329(b). The third is that 
the new bus model must satisfy an overall pass/fail standard based on 
the weighted aggregate score derived from each of the existing test 
categories (maintainability, reliability, safety, performance 
(including braking performance), structural integrity, fuel economy, 
emissions, and noise).
    Today's rule does not address the minimum safety performance 
standards for public transportation vehicles required under 49 U.S.C.

[[Page 50368]]

5318(e)(1)(B)(ii). FTA proposed a National Public Transportation Safety 
Plan (81 FR 6372, February 5, 2016), pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(b), 
which stated that the minimum safety performance standards may 
eventually be the subject of rulemaking, proposed voluntary vehicle 
performance standards in the interim, and sought comment on four 
questions posed in the proposed Plan.

Summary of Key Provisions

    Today's rule is taking the following actions, the first of which is 
required by MAP-21 as part of the new ``pass/fail'' requirement, and 
the remainder of which are discretionary actions to strengthen the 
program:
     Establish testing procedures and establish minimum 
performance standards, which are generally based upon the pre-MAP-21 
tests, and a pass/fail scoring system for new bus models, with a 
minimum passing score of 60 points. A bus model could receive up to an 
additional 40 points based on its performance above the proposed 
minimum performance standard in particular test categories. Buses would 
need to achieve at least a minimum score in each category in order to 
pass the overall test and be eligible for procurement using FTA 
financial assistances.
     Establish check-in procedures, including FTA approval, for 
new bus models proposed for testing.
     Require transit vehicle manufacturers to submit 
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goals to FTA prior to 
scheduling a test.
     Determine a new bus model's total passenger load based on 
the manufacturer's maximum passenger rating, including accommodations 
for standees.
     Establish a simulated passenger weight of 150 lbs. for 
seated and standing (standee) passengers, and a weight of 600 lbs. for 
passengers who use wheelchairs.
     Require test model buses to identify the country-of-origin 
for the components of the test vehicle to facilitate a transit agency's 
ability to compare it with the actual production model.
     The replacement of the on-road fuel economy test with the 
fuel economy testing already conducted during the emissions test on the 
chassis dynamometer.
    Generally, FTA is adopting the test procedures that were proposed 
in the NPRM, although FTA, is making a small number of changes to some 
test procedures as a result of comments received in response to the 
NPRM. FTA is adding a set of brake stops at gross passenger load as 
part of the Braking Test; measuring noise levels while traversing road 
irregularities as part of the Noise Test; and eliminating the Shakedown 
Test and moving its single point score value into the Structural 
Durability Test. Further, FTA is not adopting the proposal that the 
test unit bus must be Buy America-compliant. Instead, FTA only is 
requiring that the manufacturer provide the country of origin for the 
test vehicle's major components, which FTA believes will help transit 
agencies ensure that the tested bus is similar to the bus the will be 
completed in production. In addition, FTA is making a few non-
substantive amendments, replacing the term ``grantee'' with 
``recipient'' to bring it into conformity with standard FTA usage, and 
cross-referencing FTA Circular 5010's categorization of a vehicle's 
useful service life instead of repeating it in the regulatory text.
    The NPRM sought comment on establishing testing procedures, 
performance standards, and a scoring system for remanufactured vehicles 
sold by third-party vendors and procured using FTA financial 
assistance. Based on the comments received, FTA has concluded that 
further consideration is warranted, and therefore, is not extending the 
bus testing requirement to remanufactured buses through today's final 
rule. Given the growing investment in Federal and local dollars in 
remanufactured buses, however, and the emphasis on public transit 
safety in MAP-21, FTA believes that it is responsible Federal 
stewardship to ensure that remanufactured buses meet expectations for 
reliability and durability and will address remanufactured buses in a 
subsequent rulemaking action.

Summary of Benefits and Costs

    Table 1 below summarizes the potential benefits and costs of this 
rule that FTA was able to quantify over 10 years and using a 3 and 7 
percent discount rate. Quantified costs stem from shipping buses to the 
testing facility, manufacturer testing fees, having repair personnel 
for bus manufacturers available at the testing site, new paperwork 
requirements, and increases to the resources needed to operate the bus 
testing program (which represents most of the quantified costs). 
Unquantified costs include remedial actions to buses that do not pass 
the proposed test (which may extend to all the buses in a model 
represented by the tested bus) and potential improvements to buses to 
obtain a higher testing score. However, given that 41 of 49 buses 
tested between January 2010 and February 2013 would have satisfied the 
proposed performance standards without any design changes, FTA believes 
that the proposed requirements would not drive systemic changes to all 
transit bus models. Quantified benefits are from a reduction in 
unscheduled maintenance costs. The total annual program cost impact of 
this rule is estimated to be $159,369. The total annual program benefit 
is estimated to be $531,990. The resulting cost and benefits are 
presented in Table 1.

                                Table 1--Summary of Quantified Costs and Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Discounted net benefits @
              Year                     Costs         Benefits      Net cash flow -------------------------------
                                                                                        3%              7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................        $159,369        $531,990        $372,621        $361,768        $348,244
2...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         351,231         325,462
3...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         341,001         304,170
4...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         331,069         284,271
5...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         321,426         265,674
6...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         312,064         248,293
7...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         302,975         232,050
8...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         294,150         216,869
9...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         285,583         202,681
10..............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         277,265         189,422
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 50369]]

 
    Net Present Value...........  ..............  ..............  ..............       3,178,533       2,617,134
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Background

    FTA's grant programs, including those at 49 U.S.C. 5307, 5310, 5311 
and 5339, assist transit agencies with procuring buses. The Federal 
transit program allows FTA to provide up to 85% funding for each bus. 
In 2013, for example, FTA funds assisted in the procurement of 8,934 
new vehicles, of which approximately 5,600 buses and modified vans were 
covered under the existing testing program. The testing program has its 
origins in Section 317 of the Surface Transportation and Uniform 
Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (STURAA, Pub. L. 100-17), which 
provided that no funds appropriated or made available under the Urban 
Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, were to be obligated or 
expended for the acquisition of a new model bus after September 30, 
1989, unless a bus of such model had been tested to ensure that the 
vehicle ``will be able to withstand the rigors of transit service'' (H. 
Rept. 100-27, p. 230). In subsection 317(b), Congress mandated seven 
specific test categories--maintainability, reliability, safety, 
performance, structural integrity, fuel economy, and noise--augmenting 
those tests with the addition of braking performance and emissions 
testing through section 6021 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-240). These requirements were 
subsequently codified at 49 U.S.C. 5318.
    FTA issued its initial NPRM in May 1989 (54 FR 22716, May 25, 1989) 
and an interim Final Rule three months later (54 FR 35158, August 23, 
1989), establishing a bus testing program that submitted vehicles to 
seven statutorily-mandated tests resulting in a test report and 
requiring transit bus manufacturers to submit that completed test 
report to transit agencies before FTA funds could be expended to 
purchase those vehicles. Although Congress did not authorize FTA to 
withhold financial assistance for a vehicle based on the data contained 
in a test report, FTA expected that the test report would provide 
accurate and reliable bus performance information to transit 
authorities that could be used in their purchasing and operational 
decisions.
    This system remained in place for over twenty years. During the 
intervening period, however, a handful of bus models that had 
documented problems in their test reports were able to enter transit 
service, most notably, a fleet of 226 articulated buses that one of the 
Nation's largest transit agencies ordered in 2001. After paying $87.7M 
of the $102.1M contract, the transit agency stopped payments in 2005 
due to unresolved problems concerning the suspension systems and 
structural cracks around the articulation joint, near the axles, and in 
the rear door header, triggering years of litigation. In addition, in 
2009, the transit agency abruptly pulled all of these models from 
service for safety concerns following a structural failure related to 
the articulation joint, resulting in lengthier and more crowded 
commutes for thousands of transit riders. In May 2012, a local court 
ruled that the transit agency could sell the buses for scrap metal, a 
move that generated only $1.2M for vehicles that had served barely half 
of their FTA-funded service lives.
    In 2012, MAP-21 amended 49 U.S.C. 5318 by adding new requirements 
to subsection 5318(e), Acquiring New Bus Models. Importantly, it 
shifted the program to one where recipients could only use FTA funding 
to procure buses that passed FTA's testing program, which now included 
a bus model scoring system and a pass/fail standard based on the 
weighted aggregate score for each of the existing performance standards 
(maintainability, reliability, performance (including braking 
performance), structural integrity, fuel economy, emissions, and 
noise).
    MAP-21 also amended section 5318(e) to require that new bus models 
meet the minimum safety performance standards to be established by the 
Secretary of Transportation pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(b). In the 
recently-proposed National Public Transportation Safety Plan (81 FR 
6372, February 5, 2016), FTA proposed to establish voluntary vehicle 
performance standards as an interim measure, acknowledging that minimum 
safety performance standards eventually may be the subject of 
rulemaking, and sought comment on four questions posed in the proposed 
Plan.
    The primary purpose of today's rule is to establish minimum 
performance standards, a new bus model scoring system, and a pass/fail 
standard. In developing the proposals contained in the NPRM, FTA 
engaged in extensive discussions with transit industry stakeholders 
through the use of public webinars, teleconferences, and presentations 
at industry conferences. Participants in these public outreach efforts 
included transit vehicle manufacturers, component suppliers, public 
transit agencies, State departments of transportation, and Bus Testing 
Facility personnel, and their contributions were reflected in the 
aggregate scoring system and pass/fail criteria contained in the NPRM.
    In addition to implementing the statutory mandates, FTA proposed 
other administrative changes that would adjust the passenger payloading 
process to better reflect industry practice and ensure that buses 
tested at the facility comply with FTA Civil Rights and Buy America 
requirements regarding disadvantaged business enterprises and domestic 
content, respectively.
    Finally, FTA sought comment on establishing a bus testing 
requirement and scoring system for remanufactured buses sold by third 
parties and procured using FTA funds.

C. Summary of Comments and Section-by-Section Analysis

    FTA received a total of 22 comments in response to the NPRM, 
including comments from transit bus manufacturers, remanufacturers of 
transit buses, national and state transit associations, and transit 
agencies procuring transit buses. FTA also received several comments 
from fire safety advocates and component manufacturers, who urged FTA 
to adopt fire safety standards for materials used in bus interiors, 
including bus seats, which exceed Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) 302. As noted above, although Congress directed FTA to 
establish minimum safety performance standards for vehicles used in 
public transportation in 49 U.S.C. 5329(b), FTA has not yet initiated 
such a rulemaking and those comments, however well-intentioned, are 
beyond the scope of today's regulatory action.

[[Page 50370]]

    Although today's final rule contains much of what was proposed in 
the NPRM, FTA is making some changes to the test procedures as a result 
of comments received in response to the NPRM. FTA is adding a set of 
brake stops at gross passenger load as part of the Braking Test; 
measuring noise levels while traversing road irregularities as part of 
the Noise Test; and eliminating the Shakedown Test and moving its 
single point score value into the Structural Durability Test. Further, 
FTA is removing the proposal that the test unit bus be Buy America-
compliant, and instead, is only requiring the manufacturer to provide 
the country of origin for the test vehicle's major components, which 
FTA believes will help transit agencies ensure that the tested bus is 
similar to the bus that will be produced and delivered. In addition, 
FTA is making a few non-substantive technical amendments, replacing the 
term ``grantee'' with ``recipient'' to bring it into conformity with 
standard FTA usage, and cross-referencing FTA Circular 5010's 
categorization of a vehicle's useful service life instead of repeating 
it in the regulatory text.

Section 665.1 Purpose

    FTA proposed to amend the purpose of the regulation to reflect a 
new pass/fail test and scoring system.
    Comments Received: FTA did not receive any comments on this 
section.
    Agency Response: FTA is including this section in the final rule 
without change.

Section 665.3 Scope

    FTA proposed no changes, as the requirements of this part continue 
to apply to recipients of Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. 
Chapter 53.
    Comments Received: FTA did not receive any comments on this 
section.
    Agency Response: FTA is including this section in the final rule 
without change.

Section 665.5 Definitions

    FTA proposed changing the definition of Curb Weight from ``Curb 
weight means the weight of the empty, ready-to-operate bus plus driver 
and fuel.'' to ``Curb weight means the weight of the bus including 
maximum fuel, oil, and coolant; but without passengers or driver.''
    FTA proposed changing the definition of Gross Weight from ``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).'' to ``the seated load 
weight of the bus plus 150 pounds of ballast for each rated standee 
passenger, up to and including, the maximum rated standee passenger 
capacity identified on the bus interior bulkhead''.
    FTA proposed changing the definition of Seated Load Weight from 
``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.'' to ``the curb weight of the bus plus seated 
passengers simulated by adding 150 pounds of ballast to each seating 
position and 600 pounds per wheelchair position.'' This 600 pound 
figure is based on the minimum load-bearing capacity for wheelchair 
lifts and ramps in the USDOT's accessible bus specifications at 49 CFR 
38.23(b)(1) and (c)(1).
    Comments Received: FTA received two comments on this section. One 
commenter suggested that buses be tested at their maximum Gross Vehicle 
Weight Rating (GVWR) and Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR), and that 
loading a bus based on the number of seated and standing passengers 
(using a simulated weight of 150 pounds for each passenger and 600 
pounds for each wheelchair location) would not accurately reflect a 
fully loaded bus or actual operating conditions. The other commenter 
sought clarification about the simulated passenger payload of 150 
pounds per person, believing that FTA had raised it to 175 pounds in a 
previous regulatory action.
    Agency Response: FTA does not support testing a bus at its maximum 
GVWR and GAWR for several reasons. First, unlike trucks that transport 
cargo and axle loads that must be monitored, buses transport people and 
are loaded based on the number of available seat/wheelchair positions 
and the amount of open floor space where standees are allowed by the 
bus operator, regardless of the vehicle's weight ratings. Second, in 
actual transit use, the capacity of a transit bus is not based on the 
vehicle's GVWR or GAWR limit, but rather, on the vehicle's actual 
passenger capacity. FTA will allow bus manufacturers to request that 
the bus be loaded up to its maximum weight rating when the resulting 
gross vehicle weight at the manufacturer's rated passenger load is less 
than the GVWR to allow the manufacturer the flexibility to adjust the 
seating layouts up to the full weight capacity of the bus model. If a 
bus's advertised passenger capacity is well below its weight ratings, a 
manufacturer may not increase the length of the vehicle to accommodate 
additional passengers because an increase in the length of a tested bus 
model is considered a major change in configuration and could result in 
additional testing.
    With regard to the commenter who sought clarification on the 
simulated passenger weight, FTA had proposed raising the weight from 
150 pounds to 175 pounds in a 2011 Federal Register Notice (76 FR 
13580, March 14, 2011), but that proposal was subsequently withdrawn 
(77 FR 76597, December 14, 2012).
    Therefore, FTA is adopting this section in the final rule without 
change.

Remanufactured Buses

    FTA also posed a series of questions seeking comment on whether 
remanufactured buses (i.e., previously owned buses that have undergone 
substantial structural, mechanical, electrical, and/or cosmetic 
rebuilding and are sold to a transit agency other than the vehicle's 
original owner) should be subject to the bus testing requirement. As 
FTA explained in the NPRM, FTA had not previously extended the testing 
requirements to these types of buses because, until recently, transit 
agencies were only rebuilding their existing buses as part of their 
fleet maintenance. However, FTA is aware that remanufactured buses are 
now being offered by third-parties to transit agencies as a less 
expensive alternative to acquiring new buses. FTA therefore is 
concerned that these models could be introduced as de facto new buses 
or purchased in lieu of new buses, without having to go through the 
same testing requirements as a new bus model. However, because FTA had 
various questions about how to apply the bus testing program to this 
category of vehicles, FTA sought comment through the NPRM.
    One manufacturer of new transit buses, one transit agency, one 
trade association, and two bus remanufacturers submitted comments, all 
of whom agreed that remanufactured buses need to meet safety and 
durability requirements, but disagreeing on the preferred method. The 
manufacturer of new buses supported the standardized testing of 
remanufactured buses, believing that ``remanufactured buses should 
undergo the same rigorous testing that new buses and coaches must meet 
in order to ensure their safety and reliability,'' recommending that 
the final rule include provisions that ensure that the original bus 
manufacturer is not referenced in a test report to limit confusion and 
to prevent a company from selling remanufactured vehicles using the 
original bus manufacturer's name for marketing purposes. In

[[Page 50371]]

contrast, the remanufacturers said their vehicles already undergo 
extensive testing and analysis before, during, and after the 
remanufacturing process to ensure the vehicles' safety and durability, 
and that additional testing at Altoona would be ineffective and 
redundant.
    FTA is also aware that procuring remanufactured buses is being 
advertised in trade magazines and at trade shows as a less expensive 
alternative to procuring a newly built bus, and submitting both new and 
remanufactured vehicles to the same testing program could place both on 
an equal footing and ensure the safety and reliability of each. 
Furthermore, the national trade association's comments noted some 
issues within the trucking industry related to remanufactured equipment 
that could compromise safety and reliability of vehicles. Given 
Congressional direction in MAP-21 to augment FTA's safety 
responsibilities and to strengthen the bus testing program through 
today's regulatory changes, FTA believes the subject of remanufactured 
buses should undergo further review and consideration and will address 
the subject in a later rulemaking.

Section 665.7 Certification of Compliance

    FTA proposed to amend this section to reflect that the recipient 
must certify that a bus has received a passing test score, but 
acknowledging that parties may seek assistance from FTA, consistent 
with FTA's role in reviewing partial testing requests as described in 
section 665.11(d). FTA is also removing the term ``Grantee'' from the 
section heading and throughout this part, as FTA now uses the term 
``recipient.''
    Comments Received: FTA did not receive any comments on this 
section.
    Agency Response: FTA is including this section in the final rule 
without change.

Section 665.11 Testing Requirements

    FTA proposed new entrance requirements for a bus to enter the bus 
testing program. Before submitting a new bus model for testing, the 
transit vehicle manufacturer (TVM) would have to submit its 
disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) goals to FTA consistent with 
the Department's DBE regulations in 49 CFR part 26. Test model buses 
would also need to comply with applicable FMVSS requirements in 49 CFR 
part 566, Manufacturer Identification; 49 CFR part 567, Certification; 
and 49 CFR part 568, Vehicle Manufactured in Two or More Stages--All 
Incomplete, Intermediate and Final-Stage Manufacturers of Vehicle 
Manufactured in Two or More Stages. Bus models would also need to 
identify the maximum rated quantity of standee passengers identified on 
the interior bulkhead in 2 inch tall or greater characters; be capable 
of negotiating the Durability Test course at the requisite test speed 
under all conditions of loading (curb weight, SLW, and GVW); and be 
capable of following the test duty cycles used for Fuel Economy and 
Emissions Tests within the test procedure for allowable speed 
deviation. Lastly, FTA proposed that bus models submitted would need to 
satisfy the domestic content requirements for rolling stock in 49 CFR 
part 661, Buy America Requirements.
    FTA also proposed a technical amendment to section 665.11(g) 
reflecting the addition of Appendix B to this part, resulting in the 
relabeling of the former appendix as the new ``Appendix A.''
    Comments Received: FTA received multiple comments on this section. 
One commenter supported applying the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise 
(DBE) and Buy America requirement to bus models submitted for testing, 
stating that an inspection of a vehicle's domestic content prior to 
introducing a new foreign bus model is vital to preserve the integrity 
and reliability of the testing program and provides a level playing 
field among competitors, noting the importance of the test unit 
matching the composition of subsequent production units. Another 
commenter indicated that documentation of the vehicle's domestic 
content will assist future purchasers to assess the impact that changes 
in components could have on a vehicle's Buy America compliance. In 
contrast, several commenters opposed the Buy America content proposal--
two noted that the buses submitted for testing are typically the 
private property of the bus manufacturer and are not being procured 
with FTA funds, with FTA funding serving as a determinant of Buy 
America applicability. Another commenter indicated that the requirement 
will discourage innovation by locking buses into a particular 
configuration and leaving no leeway for the introduction of new 
technologies. Another commenter requested that FTA consider alternative 
bus service life categories that account for the risk to grantees that 
procure new technology vehicles.
    Agency Response: FTA is eliminating the proposed Buy America 
content requirement from section 665.11(a)(5) in the final rule. 
Instead, FTA will require that the manufacturing country of origin for 
the test vehicle's major components be documented by the TVM during the 
test scheduling process--these would include the vehicle shell, axles, 
brakes, propulsion power system and auxiliary power systems (engine, 
transmission, traction batteries, electric motor(s), fuel cell(s)), and 
the primary energy storage and delivery systems (fuel tanks, fuel 
injectors & manifolds, and the fuel injection electronic control unit).
    This is a modification from the NPRM, which proposed that all buses 
submitted for testing meet the domestic content requirements of the FTA 
Buy America regulation. The primary focus of the proposal was to ensure 
that the design configuration of the test unit bus matched subsequent 
production units. However, commenters made FTA aware that the test unit 
bus may not be fully representative of all production units, and that 
grantees have the ability to specify changes in a production unit's 
components and configuration. These changes may subject the bus to 
additional testing, but that is a decision that the purchaser must 
knowingly make. In addition, bus models delivered for testing do not 
always include all of the ancillary systems (seats, wheelchair tie-
downs, passenger information systems, etc.) that may well be part of 
the domestic content calculation of a particular bus procurement but 
these systems are not evaluated by the bus testing program, nor are 
they required in order for the vehicle to under testing. Finally, 
changes in, or the inclusion of, components may also alter a production 
vehicle's domestic content, and documenting the test unit vehicle's 
domestic content in a permanent test report may give a false indication 
of a vehicle's Buy America content. FTA acknowledges that the pre-award 
and post-delivery audits required by 49 U.S.C. 5323(m) and 49 CFR part 
663 are the only acceptable confirmation of a vehicle's Buy America 
compliance and for that reason, TVMs will not be required to document a 
vehicle's compliance with Buy America during the check-in process.
    However, because the primary objective of the proposed requirement 
was to ensure that the design configuration of the test unit bus 
(structure design and materials, axles and brakes, and propulsion 
system and fuel systems) was representative of the production unit 
buses that would be delivered to FTA grantees, FTA is requiring TVMs to 
provide information concerning the source of essential vehicle 
components so that purchasers will have an effective means of comparing 
the test unit bus against the specific vehicle they intend to procure.

[[Page 50372]]

    Lastly, to acknowledge the broader applicability of FTA's service 
life categories other than simply as a means of determining a vehicle's 
testing procedure, FTA is removing the list of vehicle service life 
categories in section 665.11(e) and will instead incorporate the 
service life categories contained in FTA's Circular 5010.1.

Section 665.13 Test Report and Manufacturer Certification

    FTA proposed adding language to this section that would require the 
Bus Testing Facility operator to score the test results using the 
performance standards and scoring system outlined in Appendix A of this 
part. FTA also proposed that the Bus Testing Facility operator obtain 
approval of the Bus Testing Report by the bus manufacturer and by FTA 
prior to its release and publication. Finally, FTA proposed that the 
Bus Testing Facility operator make the test results available 
electronically to supplement the printed copies.
    Comments Received: FTA did not receive any comments on this 
section.
    Agency Response: FTA is including this section in the final rule 
without change.

Section 665.21 Scheduling

    FTA proposed that all requests for testing, including requests for 
full or partial testing, be submitted to the FTA Bus Testing Program 
Manager prior to scheduling with the Bus Testing Facility operator. All 
test requests would provide: a detailed description of the new bus 
model to be tested, the service life category of the bus, engineering 
level documentation characterizing all major changes to the bus model, 
and documentation that demonstrates satisfaction of each one of the 
testing requirements outlined in section 665.11(a). FTA would review 
the test request and determine if the bus model is eligible for testing 
and which tests need to be performed. FTA would prepare a written 
response to the requester for use in scheduling the required testing 
with the Bus Testing Facility operator.
    Comments Received: FTA received two comments on this section. Both 
comments asked FTA to commit to a maximum amount of time to review the 
test requests and provide a response to the requester.
    Agency Response: FTA will commit to reviewing the test request and 
providing an initial response within five business days. Some requests, 
particularly requests for partial testing of a bus model that has 
undergone the testing process but is subsequently produced with a 
change in configuration or component, may require additional time to 
review the specific design and engineering changes proposed and provide 
a final response.

Section 665.23 Fees

    FTA proposed that the manufacturer's share of the test fee would be 
expended first during the testing procedure and that the Bus Testing 
Facility operator would obtain approval from FTA prior to committing 
FTA program funds.
    Comments Received: FTA did not receive any comments on this 
section.
    Agency Response: FTA is including this section in the final rule 
without change.

Section 665.25 Transportation of Vehicle

    FTA did not propose any changes.
    Comments Received: FTA did not receive any comments on this 
section.
    Agency Response: FTA is including this section in the final rule 
without change.

Section 665.27 Procedures During Testing

    FTA proposed additional language for this section to require the 
Bus Testing Facility operator to inspect the bus model configuration 
upon arrival to compare it to that submitted in the test request; to 
compare the gross vehicle weight and gross axle weights to the ratings 
on the bus; to determine if the bus model can negotiate the test track 
and maintain proper test speed over the durability, fuel economy and 
emission drive cycles; and to provide these results to the bus 
manufacturer and FTA prior to conducting testing using FTA program 
funds.
    FTA also proposed additional language to require the Bus Testing 
Facility operator to investigate each occurrence of unsupervised 
maintenance and assess the impact on the validity of the test results 
and to repeat any impacted test results at the manufacturer's expense. 
FTA also proposed language to address modifications to bus models 
undergoing testing. Specifically, FTA proposed that the Bus Testing 
Facility operator perform or supervise and document the performance of 
bus modifications only after the modifications have been reviewed and 
approved by FTA. The language also stated that testing would be halted 
after the occurrence of unsupervised bus modifications and the Bus 
Testing Facility operator would not resume testing until FTA has issued 
a determination regarding the modifications.
    In addition, FTA proposed moving the listing of test categories 
from Appendix A into section 665.27 and assigning performance standards 
to each of the test categories as MAP-21 requires. FTA proposed 
amending the Performance Test category by removing the language 
regarding the Braking Performance Test and moving it into the Safety 
Test category. FTA also proposed adding the requirement for a review of 
the Class 1 failures documented in the Reliability Test category to the 
Safety Test category.
    Comments Received and Agency Response: FTA received numerous 
comments on this section. One commenter asked how many days FTA would 
need to perform the test readiness review and issue a decision 
regarding the start of testing. The other comments on this section were 
pertaining to the specific tests and the proposed performance 
standards, which are summarized as follows:
Structural Integrity
    There were nine comments on the Structural Integrity test category 
and the associated performance standards. In response to comments, 
several refinements were applied to the final rule.
    FTA received two comments concerning the Shakedown test and 
performance standard, with one recommending a maximum deflection of 
0.100 inch to account for the floor load of a passenger on a wheeled 
mobility device, the second challenging the relevance of the test and 
considering it to be redundant with the test track durability test. The 
Shakedown test in section 665.27(h)(5)(i)(1) has been eliminated as FTA 
believes that this test is a legacy test procedure that pre-dates the 
bus testing program and provided a means to verify a level of 
structural integrity at a transit agency facility in lieu of performing 
a test track durability test. Any incremental value provided by the 
Shakedown test in light of the Structural Durability test performed on 
the test track is not apparent.
    One commenter inquired whether the Dynamic Towing test would 
capture any structural or other types of failures throughout the bus 
and if the test was performed in a stop-and-go manner including the 
negotiation of turns. FTA is not making any changes to section 
665.27(h)(5)(i)(4) regarding the Dynamic Towing test and performance 
standard. The Dynamic Towing test is a demonstration that the bus can 
be safely and effectively towed by a common heavy duty vehicle tow 
truck, without regard to operational usage or negotiation of turns. The 
test, however, does induce unique loads into the bus structure and on 
the rear axle of the bus,

[[Page 50373]]

as the five-mile towing distance performed during the test is 
continuous around the paved test loop.
    One commenter questioned the relevance of the Jacking test and 
recommend that FTA seek the input of transit operators. FTA is not 
revising section 665.27(h)(5)(i)(5), the Jacking test. FTA believes 
that this test remains relevant, that a bus model that fails to meet 
the performance standard could be a significant operational problem for 
transit operators, and that the time and cost burdens of conducting the 
test are minimal.
    Another commenter suggested that FTA consider evaluating the 
corrosion resistance of bus models during the structural durability 
test. One commenter offered a proposal to evaluate the corrosion 
resistance of new bus models. FTA considered this proposal and believes 
that this non-testing based evaluation does not provide sufficient 
technical analysis on which to base a score, in addition to being 
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    One commenter proposed that FTA to make bus models available to 
component suppliers to use for partial testing programs to enable the 
development of robust aftermarket components and new technology 
subsystems. While this is an interesting proposal, this is also outside 
the scope of today's rulemaking and FTA would need a significant 
increase in funding in order to acquire and maintain a fleet of buses 
to serve as platforms for the testing of new components and 
technologies.
Structural Integrity--Durability
    There were several comments requesting clarification on the 
implications of the proposed durability performance standards and 
suggestions for alternatives methods for evaluating both structural and 
powertrain durability of new bus models, components, and subsystems.
    First, FTA was asked to clarify the types of failures that invoke a 
failure to meet the durability performance standard and the process for 
resolving those failures. The commenter wanted to know if there were 
certain types of failures that would automatically trigger a test 
restart, if FTA could commit to a response time to provide feedback 
about the proposed design remedy to resolve a durability failure. The 
commenter proposed that FTA consider not requiring a mile-for-mile 
validation of structural durability failures that are not Class 1 or 
Class 2 level reliability failures through the use of stress and strain 
measurements and common structure modeling techniques, and suggested 
that FTA allow the durability test to continue after a durability 
performance standard failure so that testing can progress while the bus 
manufacturer prepares the design remedy.
    To clarify, then, for the structural durability performance 
standard, any discontinuity (e.g., cracking, deformation, or 
separation) that develops during the test in any of the bus material 
elements that are permanently affixed, through welding or other bonding 
methods including non-serviceable fasteners such as rivets, whose 
function is to bear the weight of the vehicle or the weight of the 
passengers, or maintain the physical geometry of other load bearing 
elements and openings in the bus body, or that secure and retain other 
non-bonded bus body components will be considered a failure to meet 
this performance standard. Material discontinuities that develop during 
the test in the main frame rails and the frame cross-members on body-
on-frame bus models will also be considered a failure of the structural 
durability performance standard. For the powertrain durability 
performance standard, all malfunctions of bus powertrain system will be 
classified as a failure of the powertrain durability performance 
standard until remedied and validated. Structural failures of the 
powertrain components, including any associated bracketry, mounts, 
cradles, and fasteners used to physically attach the components to the 
bus body or frame are also considered a failure of the powertrain 
durability performance standard.
    If the Durability test reveals a durability performance standard 
failure, the structural durability test will be paused awaiting a 
proposed design remedy from the bus manufacturer. FTA will review the 
proposed remedy and provide a response to the proposed design remedy 
within five business days. The intent of the FTA review is to evaluate 
that the proposed design modification is relevant to the failure mode 
and that it is suitable for production.
    FTA will employ the existing partial testing policy for powertrain 
changes or updates to new bus models that are subject to the Pass/Fail 
rule. Currently, FTA focuses on the engine, transmission fuel system, 
and drive axle to assess if partial testing is needed. Once each of 
these new components has been tested in a bus, FTA allows their use in 
subsequent bus models without additional testing based on FTA's 
experience that the replacement of these components is not likely to 
significantly alter existing test data in the Bus Testing Report. While 
the scope of the powertrain durability performance standard casts a 
wider net than the partial testing policy for powertrain changes, bus 
manufacturers will be allowed to substitute minor powertrain components 
not currently tracked by the current partial testing policy if a 
credible analysis is provided that demonstrates the component 
substitution is durable in a transit service environment and that 
secondary failures of the primary powertrain components are not induced 
if the substituted component fails. FTA does not believe that the 
supply of aftermarket parts available to transit operator for 
maintaining their buses will be negatively affected by the powertrain 
durability performance standard. FTA only requires that the buses 
remain in service for at least their designated service life. Grantees 
do not have to maintain the original design configuration throughout a 
vehicle's service life and may replace components and major subsystems 
over the vehicle's lifespan.
    Commenters also sought clarification regarding the inclusion of 
electric bus model off-board charging equipment in the powertrain 
durability performance standard. Currently, all battery bus chargers 
are unique to the bus models. If the charging system fails to perform, 
the bus can only operate on the remaining charge. For bus fleets that 
employ bus models designed for overnight charging, FTA assumes that 
more than one battery charger will be available at the bus depot, 
providing a charging system redundancy that can be leveraged to 
maintain bus operations. These battery chargers would not be considered 
as part of the vehicle's powertrain. For bus models designed 
specifically for on-route charging, the off-board charging system and 
the on-board charging system interfaces are considered part of the bus 
powertrain. Additionally, since all bus charging systems are unique, 
all electric bus models are subject to the testing requirement. The Bus 
Testing Facility operator provides access to a high voltage source for 
the battery charger, while the TVM or component vendor is expected to 
provide the battery charger with the bus model to be tested. Once 
battery charging systems for buses become standardized, FTA will pursue 
their installation at the test site.
    Various commenters also proposed alternative durability tests. 
First, one commenter proposed the use of a risk assessment and field 
monitoring process for the introduction of new bus technologies on an 
existing bus model

[[Page 50374]]

as a substitute for performing partial testing. While this concept has 
some merit, it would not satisfy the current legislative mandate to 
conduct actual testing and additional program resources would need to 
be made available in order to execute this type of program. Another 
commenter requested that FTA reduce the amount of additional test 
mileage required to validate a design modification in the event of a 
failure to meet the durability performance standard. This commenter 
suggested a combination of stress and strain measurements and 
analytical models to be used to validate that the probability of the 
stress induced structural discontinuities in the bus have been reduced 
or eliminated with the new design. FTA considered the merits of this 
proposal and has decided that in cases where there is not enough 
remaining mileage in a test procedure to validate the design change on 
an actual mileage basis, FTA will consider the manufacturer's efforts 
to characterize the material stresses through measurements, analyses, 
and other engineering work to determine an adequate test distance to 
validate the analysis and the proposed design remedy.
Safety
    There were multiple comments related to the Safety test category. 
Seven commenters recommended that FTA consider heightened standards 
with respect to the flammability of interior materials to address the 
inadequacies of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 302. 
Although establishing fire safety standards for bus testing program is 
outside the scope of the NPRM, FTA reviewed the large number of vehicle 
interior fire safety information submitted by various commenters. FTA 
notes that updating FMVSS 302 is not within FTA's regulatory authority 
and suggests that commenters direct their comments to the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the U.S. DOT mode responsible 
for maintaining the FMVSS.
    Another commenter suggested that FTA establish a requirement for 
the use of collision avoidance systems in transit buses, while another 
recommended that FTA establish crashworthiness test standards for 
buses. The commenter's recommendation to establish safety performance 
standards to require collision avoidance systems and crumple zone or 
other crashworthiness standards on transit buses are not within the 
scope of the NPRM, as is the proposal to establish braking standards 
for emergency stops on a grade and the recommendation to adopt 
performance standards for wheeled mobility device securement devices.
    One recommended that the acceleration test be inserted into the 
Safety test category and that FTA adopt performance standards for 
mobility aid securement devices. The suggestion to move the 
acceleration test into the Safety test category is not being adopted 
because FTA believes this test is more pertinent to the vehicle's 
performance, rather than affecting the vehicle's safety.
    Additional commenters sought clarification on the definition of 
Class 1 failures. With regard to the commenter who sought clarification 
on whether structural failures should be addressed as hazards, FTA 
considers the following types of test incidents as Class 1 reliability 
failures resulting in a failure to satisfy the hazards performance 
standard: (1) the loss or degradation of the obstacle avoidance 
capability (braking, steering, & acceleration/speed control) of the bus 
due to a component malfunction. For example, a loss of power steering 
is considered a Class 1 reliability failure due to the expected 
increase in the force required to turn the steering wheel, reducing the 
rate of directional change a driver can effect into the bus and 
compromising its ability to avoid an obstacle; (2) the occurrence of a 
fire or the potential for a fire (e.g. fuel leak in the presence of an 
ignition source, electrical short circuit, leaks of other flammable 
fluids near an ignition or heat source); (3) major structural failures 
that can induce conditions (1) or (2) above, or lead to a physical 
compromise of the passenger compartment (an unintended exposure to the 
outside environment or physical trauma to a passenger) or degrades the 
ability of a passenger to exit the bus.
    Regarding the proposed testing and performance standards for 
Braking, one commenter recommended the elimination of the brake 
stopping distance test and the use of FMVSS certification testing 
results. Another commenter recommended that the buses be weighted to 
the maximum gross passenger load for the braking test, and another 
asked FTA to establish additional brake performance requirements for 
stopping on a grade. The commenter's suggestion to eliminate the 
stopping distance test was not accommodated, as a braking performance 
test is required by statute, and FMVSS compliance is based on self-
certification, whereas FTA's is based on actual test data. FTA is 
adopting the suggestion to conduct the stopping distance test at a full 
passenger load by conducting an additional set of brake stops at gross 
passenger load. However, the stopping distance performance standard 
will be assessed using the test results with the bus loaded to seated 
load weight as was proposed in the NPRM.
Reliability
    One comment to the Reliability test category and proposed 
performance standard recommended that flat tire incidents not be 
counted as a test failure, as flat tires are commonly caused by road 
debris and not by bus design.
    FTA does not agree with the commenter's suggestion to ignore the 
occurrence of flat tires during the test and not count them against the 
Reliability performance standard. Flat tires that are the result of a 
physical interference or structural problem will need to be addressed 
and resolved prior to test completion, but flat tires due to the 
presence of debris on the test track will not be documented in the test 
report.
Noise
    Two comments to the Noise test category and proposed performance 
standards were offered. The first requested clarification as to how the 
performance applied to electric bus charging systems. The second 
suggested that the noise levels, while traversing a fixed object, such 
as a speed bump, be measured during the noise test.
    FTA will accommodate the request to measure noise levels while the 
bus traverses road irregularities, as the current audible vibration 
test is conducted over the road while travelling from the test track to 
the main maintenance shop area in Altoona. In addition to the over the 
road segment this general interior noise test will be conducted on the 
test track. However, there is no minimum performance standard or 
scoring associated with this test, and noise testing of an electric bus 
will not be conducted while it is being charged, as it is not directly 
related to the vehicle's durability or performance.
Performance
    Two similar comments on the Performance test category and 
performance standard suggested that FTA conduct the tests in this test 
category at a fully-weighted or gross passenger load.
    With regard to the suggestion to conduct acceleration and 
gradeability tests at the maximum gross passenger load, current tests 
are conducted at a seated passenger load and there is no technical 
basis to conduct additional test runs. However, expected performance 
standards for acceleration and gradeability can be extrapolated

[[Page 50375]]

using the results from the seated passenger load test runs.
    For the check-in procedures outlined in section 665.27(b), FTA has 
revised the language to provide FTA five business days to review the 
results from the procedure outlined in 665.27(a) and provide a decision 
to either start the test or to request clarification about the results 
of that review. To prevent administrative test delays, the Bus Testing 
Facility operator has the authority to commence specific tests where 
FTA does not provide a response within five business days and the 
performance of those tests is not dependent on FTA's determination.

Appendix A to Part 665--Bus Model Scoring System and the Pass/Fail 
Standard

    FTA proposed adding tables as Appendix A to graphically illustrate 
the new Bus Model Scoring System and the Pass/Fail Standard.

Comments Received

    Four commenters expressed a concern that the aggregate score will 
encourage grantees to use the score blindly and not read the actual 
content of the test reports. They also expressed a concern that a 
procurement protest could be filed if they selected a bus model that 
did not have the highest score of those submitted for bid. In addition, 
one commenter wanted to know if they would be allowed to apply a 
different weighting to the scoring system than the weights assigned by 
FTA.
    FTA also received several comments regarding the fuel economy test 
and the fuel economy scoring system. Two commenters were concerned that 
the new dynamometer based fuel economy test method will not 
differentiate the efficiency differences between heating, ventilation, 
and air conditioning (HVAC) systems installed on the test buses and 
that the new test methodology does not fully reveal the potential of 
the new hybrid bus technologies. Two commenters strongly recommended 
that FTA employ a universal fuel economy scoring system for use with 
all fuel types, to illustrate the higher fuel economy of electric and 
hybrid-electric vehicles. Another commenter recommended that the fuel 
economy scores for 60-foot bus models be adjusted higher by 150 percent 
to reflect the additional weight of the vehicle.
    Agency Response: In regards to the concerns about the use of the 
scoring system as a primary determinant in procurement decisions, FTA 
will insert a disclaimer in test reports explaining that the using the 
test scores as the determinative factor in a competitive procurement is 
not required. Grantees may use their own specified selection criteria, 
so long as the selected bus model received a passing test score. 
Grantees are allowed to establish evaluation criteria more stringent 
than those used in FTA's testing program or to use an alternative 
weighting for the scoring of the test results, provided that those 
criteria do not violate FTA's requirement for full and open competition 
(See 49 U.S.C. 5323(a)).
    Based on comments that the Shakedown test is redundant in light of 
the broader Structural Durability test, FTA is eliminating the 
Shakedown test and moving the base points (1.0) associated with the 
test into the Structural Durability test category, increasing the value 
of the later test from 12.0 to 13.0 points. Regarding the comments 
requesting modification of the Fuel Economy test procedure to reflect 
the effect of HVAC operation on fuel consumption, neither the existing 
test track test procedure nor the dynamometer procedures are capable to 
testing the effects of various HVAC systems on the measured fuel 
economy. While the testing is conducted with the ventilation fan 
engaged, the air conditioning and the heating system controls are set 
to the equivalent of an ``off'' state. Although evaluating the effect 
of HVAC systems on fuel economy is technically possible, it would 
require that the dynamometer facility be capable of maintaining extreme 
temperatures to accurately stress the HVAC systems and the overall 
thermal performance of the bus body. Performing this type of testing 
would require a significant capital investment in the test facility and 
also would require a significant increase in testing fees.
    Both the test track and dynamometer-based fuel economy tests do not 
expressly inhibit engine-off hybrid buses from turning their engines 
off during the test procedure. Two of the three dynamometer-based test 
cycles are actual transit duty cycles. Because buses are designed to 
operate in an efficient manner, a bus should end with the battery state 
of charge (SOC) at the same level or higher than at the start of the 
test cycle. This may require the vehicle to idle for an additional time 
period to restore the battery's SOC.
    Several commenters on the proposed fuel economy scoring scale 
recommended using a single scoring for all fuel types instead of the 
individual fuel-specific scales proposed in the NPRM. A scale such as 
Miles per Gallon diesel equivalent (MPGde), conceptually based on the 
current Miles Per Gallon equivalent (MPGe) scale developed by the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for light duty vehicles \1\ and 
adjusted to the diesel fuel energy equivalent, was considered. The MPGe 
scale expresses the fuel economy of all other vehicle fuel types in 
terms of the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline. This 
methodology examines the efficiency of each vehicle's energy to power 
conversion from the fuel tank to the wheels but does not account for 
the efficiency of producing and delivering the fuel to the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/carlabel/electriclabelreadmore.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FTA strongly believes that given the wide range of fuel types 
available in the transit bus marketplace, the best and most commonly 
cited scoring metric for fuel economy is fuel cost per operating mile. 
However, due to the volatility of fuel prices, regional fuel price 
variances, and the variance in the availability of various fuels, 
establishing a standardized baseline for fuel economy test results 
based on fuel cost per operating mile is inherently problematic for 
inclusion in the rule.
    FTA examined the use of MPGde for the scoring of the fuel economy 
test results but declines to adopt such an approach for several 
reasons. First, MPGde does not factor the energy cost efficiency of 
each fuel type into the calculation. High values of MPGde do not always 
indicate low overall fuel operating costs which is a top bus 
performance priority for most agencies. For example, hydrogen fuel cell 
buses would be expected to have an MPGde rating more than twice as high 
as a diesel bus but the fuel currently costs more than three times that 
of diesel fuel on a gallon equivalent basis resulting in higher overall 
fuel operating costs. Similarly, CNG buses would be expected to have an 
MPGde rating about 20% lower than that of a diesel bus but the fuel 
itself costs less than half that of diesel making it a popular choice 
in many locales even when the capital and operating costs of the 
fueling stations are considered.
    Second, MPGde does not account for the significant fueling 
infrastructure costs of most alternative fuels introduced into transit 
fleets, nor does MPGde account for the significant differences in 
maintenance facilities, maintenance practices and tools, and maintainer 
skill sets required for each fuel type. While the choice between 
gasoline and diesel is not an issue for private owners of passenger 
vehicles, who can take the vehicle to any number of car dealers or 
maintenance garages, switching or adding a new bus fuel type

[[Page 50376]]

can be a significant undertaking for most agencies with respect to bus 
maintenance. Although MPGde could be considered relevant to an 
overarching Federal interest in minimizing transportation energy 
consumption, FTA believes that MPGde is not used by transit agencies as 
it is not a clear indicator of fuel operating costs.
    Third, MPGde only assesses the fuel efficiency of the vehicle from 
the vehicle's fuel tank to the wheels and not the true ``well-to-
wheels'' efficiency of the complete fuel chain. This methodology 
generates an artificially high MPGde value for electric vehicles as 
most of the costs of generating and delivering electric ``fuel'' take 
place off-board the vehicle at the electric powerplant and along the 
power transmission lines. For instance, a bus can consume compressed 
natural gas (CNG) and achieve one MPGde value, versus burning CNG to 
fuel an electric powerplant and delivering the electricity over wires 
to charge an electric bus, with a resultant MPGde rating approximately 
five to six times greater than that of the CNG bus due primarily to the 
efficiency accounting methodology and not the actual well-to-wheels 
fuel efficiency. Therefore, FTA believes that adopting MPGde is not a 
suitable scoring mechanism to indicate the Federal priorities for 
energy sustainability to the transit industry.
    Lastly, if FTA scored the fuel economy results using MPGde, the 
resulting inflated electric vehicle MPGde values will require expanding 
the range of the scoring scale significantly. Due to the current scale 
having a fixed number of points, the resolution of the scale will be 
reduced, making all bus models of the same size class and fuel type 
look identical with respect to the score. This defeats the primary 
purpose of the program which is to provide agencies objective 
information for the selection of bus models during the bus procurement 
process.
    By maintaining the separate proposed fuel economy scoring scales, 
the well-to-wheels efficiency differences of different fuel types are 
neutralized as each fuel type has its own scale. This approach 
highlights the efficiency differences between bus models of the same 
fuel type which is very useful for transit agencies while still 
supporting the Federal interest in reducing transportation fuel 
consumption.

D. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures

    This rulemaking is a significant regulatory action within the 
meaning of Executive Orders 13563 and 12866, and FTA has determined 
that it is also significant under DOT regulatory policies and 
procedures because of substantial State, local government, 
congressional, and public interest. However, this rule is not 
``economically significant,'' as defined in Executive Order 12866.
    This section explains the purpose of the bus testing program, why 
FTA is establishing a pass/fail requirement with a point-based system 
and how that fits within FTA's mission, the alternative scoring systems 
FTA considered, the logic that FTA employed in determining the weights 
assigned to the different test categories, FTA's rationale for 
prioritizing use of the manufacturer's portion of the testing fee, and 
FTA's analysis of the costs and benefits.

Alternative Scoring Systems Considered

    While reviewing and developing scoring systems to meet the MAP-21 
requirements, FTA considered a number of alternatives. To begin, FTA 
considered the importance of the entirety of the safety tests within 
the existing Bus Testing Program. Noting how integral to the bus 
testing program each of the testing categories were, FTA wanted to 
ensure that the buses that were tested, at the very least, met all of 
the minimum performance standards, regardless of the scoring system 
that FTA adopted. Stated differently, FTA resolved that the scoring 
system would have to preclude a bus model from passing the test solely 
by attaining additional points in other categories (while failing in 
one or more key categories), resulting in points greater than the 
threshold that FTA set for the pass/fail standard. FTA also wanted to 
ensure that whatever system FTA adopted would be relatively simple, 
straightforward, and easy to understand, and provide meaningful 
information to both transit agencies and manufacturers. Using these 
principles, FTA assessed various systems that FTA could adopt or 
implement to meet the requirements of MAP-21.
    FTA first considered various qualitative systems. FTA reviewed a 
``five-tier'' based system, as used by other organizations. FTA liked 
the simplicity of the five-star system for grading buses that met the 
minimum requirement of passing all of the tests. While FTA's review of 
various systems indicated that such qualitative systems are simple to 
implement, they can be very subjective. Moreover, the five-tier system 
did not capture the level of detail and differential information that 
FTA desired to convey to the transit industry and manufacturers. FTA 
also reviewed and considered an ``A to D'' based grading system. Again, 
while this would have resulted in a fairly simple and straightforward 
system, it did not convey the level of information or the level of 
detail to inform transit agencies who are purchasing the vehicles. 
Thus, FTA rejected these two qualitative systems. While they were 
simple, straightforward, and easy to understand, they did not meet 
FTA's goal of providing meaningful information to transit agencies and 
manufacturers.
    Next, FTA considered quantitative point-based systems with the 
minimum threshold requirement of passing all of the tests. FTA 
considered various scales. FTA rejected a 50-point based scale for lack 
of simplicity. FTA considered an 80-point scale (10 points for each 
test category) and rejected it because it did not capture the relative 
importance or weighting of the categories. FTA also considered various 
levels for the pass/fail threshold for each of the scales. Finally, FTA 
settled on a 100-point scale due to its universality. FTA initially 
considered a minimum passing score of 40 points, believing the 60 
discretionary points would provide purchasers with a greater range with 
which to evaluate different vehicles, but given the grading systems 
used in academia and other applications, FTA established a minimum 
passing threshold of 60 points with 40 discretionary points. This 
quantitative scale with the minimum threshold of passing all of the 
tests met all of FTA's goals that the scoring system is relatively 
simple, straightforward, and easy to understand, and will provide 
meaningful information to transit agencies and manufacturers.

Logic Used To Determine Weighting for Tests and Sub-Tests

    After deciding to propose a 100-point scale for the Bus testing 
program, FTA had to weigh the importance of each of the test categories 
within the Bus testing program. FTA determined that the Structural 
Integrity and Safety Tests were the most important components of the 
bus testing program, as both were critical to the operation of the 
vehicle while on the road. Therefore, FTA allotted 50 of the total 100 
points to these two tests. Between the two tests, FTA determined that 
while both were

[[Page 50377]]

important, the Structural Integrity Test was more important than the 
Safety Test, based on its greater importance in evaluating a vehicle's 
construction, design, and ability to meet service life requirements. 
Hence, FTA assigned 60 percent of the points for these tests to the 
Structural Integrity Test and the remaining 40 percent to the Safety 
Test.
    Within the Structural Integrity Test are six sub-test categories, 
of which five are pass/fail tests. Thus, FTA allotted one point each 
for the Distortion, Static Towing, Dynamic Towing, Hydraulic Jacking, 
and Hoisting Tests. The Durability Test, as the most important 
component of the Structural Integrity Test, received the remaining 25 
points. Within these Durability Tests, FTA allocated 13 points to 
structural durability and 12 points to powertrain durability due to 
importance to meeting service life requirements.
    For the Safety sub-tests, FTA determined that the Hazards Test was 
as important as the other two sub-tests within this category and 
allotted it one-half of the total 20 points. The Stability and Braking 
Tests have three component tests that require a pass/fail grading and 
one that is a performance based allocation. FTA valued each of these 
tests equally, based on their relative importance when evaluating a 
vehicle. Hence, FTA apportioned 25 percent of the remaining points to 
each test.
    For the Maintainability and Reliability Tests, FTA assessed the 
Maintainability Test to be twice as important as the Reliability Test, 
but both tests to be as important as the remaining tests, as both 
directly affect a transit agency's operating costs. Maintainability 
reflects how much time and resources the transit agency should expect 
to budget over the course of a vehicle's service life to perform 
routine maintenance, and reliability reflects a vehicle's ability to 
meet its service life requirements without significant service 
disruptions caused by unscheduled maintenance. For ease of assigning 
points within the weightings, FTA allocated 24 points (or just less 
than one-half of the 50 points for the remaining tests) to these two 
tests. Hence, within FTA's weighting scheme, the Maintainability Test 
received 16 percent of the total points and the Reliability Test 
received eight percent of the total points.
    Assessing the remaining four tests, Fuel Economy, Emissions, Noise, 
and Performance Tests, FTA determined that each was about the same 
level of importance based on comments from transit agencies, but that 
two, Fuel Economy and Emissions Tests, were slightly more important in 
terms of helping a transit agency to budget for a vehicle's fuel 
consumption over its lifetime and in calculating the vehicle's 
incremental benefit towards meeting Clean Air Act requirements. 
Therefore, as opposed to assigning equal weighting to each of the 
remaining tests, FTA allocated slightly more weight to the Fuel Economy 
and Emissions Tests than the Noise and Performance Tests. This resulted 
in a point allocation of seven points or 27 percent of the remaining 
points for to the Fuel Economy and Emissions Tests and an average of 
six points or 23 percent of the remaining points for the Noise and 
Performance Tests.
    The Fuel Economy Test allocates points on a performance basis 
determined by the output of the type of fuel. For the Emissions Tests, 
FTA apportioned one-half point for each of the five Emissions Tests 
that are already regulated by other Federal agencies and the remaining 
points for the Carbon Dioxide Test. This weighting for carbon dioxide 
captures the importance of alternative fuels with respect to greenhouse 
gases.
    The Noise Test allocates points on a performance basis determined 
by the level of decibels produced. FTA weighted the Interior Noise and 
Exterior Noise Test equally (3.5 points each). As for the Performance 
Test, FTA weighted the bus model performance on a 2.5 percent grade and 
the performance during the acceleration test as being equally important 
and together being worth 60 percent of the five points available. The 
performance on a 10 percent grade was valued at 40 percent of the 
Performance test category.

Testing Fee Prioritization

    In order to preclude buses that are not ready to complete the bus 
testing program, the NPRM proposed to exhaust the manufacturer's 20 
percent contribution for the total testing fee prior to employing funds 
from FTA's 80 percent contribution. This prioritizing of the 
manufacturers' portion of the test fee will incentivize transit vehicle 
manufacturers to ensure that the bus model submitted will, at a 
minimum, clear the initial check-in inspections, passenger loading, and 
initial testing operations. FTA estimates that, depending on the bus 
model, the first 20 percent of the testing fee should encompass the 
check-in process and threshold tests.
    Based on previous testing experience, FTA determined that bus 
models that fail these preliminary activities will not perform well 
during subsequent tests. This policy minimizes the cost to FTA from bus 
models submitted before they are ready for testing, thereby conserving 
Federal resources and ensuring that the proper incentive structures are 
in place. This will encourage manufacturers to ensure their product can 
withstand the rigors of bus testing. FTA would continue to pay the 80 
percent Federal match for one retest and would contribute no Federal 
funds for a third test or subsequent tests required to achieve a 
passing test score.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

    This section contains FTA's analysis of the benefits and costs of 
the rule. FTA estimated the rule's benefits and costs through two 
steps: First, FTA identified and analyzed the costs of the existing Bus 
testing program (baseline). Second, FTA identified and analyzed the 
expected costs of the rule relative to the baseline. To determine the 
benefits and costs of the rule, FTA reviewed the test data for all bus 
models that had been tested at the Bus Testing Facility between January 
2010, when the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) current Diesel 
Engine Emission Standards took effect (40 CFR part 86, as amended, 66 
FR 5002, January 18, 2001), and February 2013, when this rulemaking 
commenced. The resulting diesel engine exhaust after-treatment systems 
used to satisfy the 2010 requirements potentially impacted the 
reliability, maintainability, fuel economy, emissions, and noise test 
results for a portion of the 49 buses. Additionally, there were OEM 
product updates to many of the medium-duty chassis used by the five, 
seven, and ten year service life buses that would affect test results 
in several test categories.
    A total of 49 buses had been tested over this period. FTA believes 
that the test results for these 49 bus models tested since 2010 provide 
the best available source of information for determining the cost of 
the rule on future buses that would be tested (and the models they 
represent). All bus types and sizes are included in the group of 49, 
from accessible vans to 60-foot articulated bus models. Buses fueled by 
compressed natural gas (CNG), electricity, diesel, gasoline, and 
liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) are included within this group. To 
determine qualitative benefits, FTA also examined the test results and 
the transit experience with two bus models tested (prior to 2010) that 
failed to meet their service life requirements in transit service. FTA 
has placed the test results of the buses that it analyzed in the docket 
for this rulemaking.

[[Page 50378]]

Costs
    A summary of the results of FTA's cost analysis is presented in 
Table H-1. Eight categories of costs were identified, analyzed, and 
annualized:
    1. Cost of Required Bus Design Changes: This category is the 
estimated annual cost of applying the design changes and components 
necessary to comply with all of the proposed performance standards to 
all affected bus models produced in one year.
    2. Lost Value of Test Buses: This category estimates the 
depreciation cost of a bus subjected to the testing process. For each 
of the 49 buses models tested from 2010 through 2012, the full retail 
value was estimated by identifying a recent purchase value from the 
2013 APTA Fleet Report and applying a depreciation factor of 50% to bus 
models that underwent a durability test and a factor of 20% for bus 
models that only underwent performance and other non-durability related 
tests.
    3. Shipping of Test Buses: This category estimates the cost of 
shipping the test buses to the Bus Testing and Research Center and back 
to the manufacturer. The actual/estimated distance that each of the 49 
bus models traveled was determined and was used for FTA's calculations. 
Table H-0 presents this data. For 10-, 7-, 5-, and 4-year buses, a cost 
of $2.00 per mile was used to estimate the shipping cost. This cost is 
based on a recent shipment of a mid-sized bus on a truck. For heavy-
duty 12-year diesel fueled buses, a cost of $1.61 per mile was used to 
cover the costs of driving the bus to the test center and back. The 
estimated fuel costs were calculated using the bus model's measured 
highway fuel economy and a fuel price of $3.00 per gallon was added. 
For heavy-duty buses powered by natural gas or electricity, a shipping 
cost of $4.00 per mile was applied. This cost represents the cost to 
ship these bus models on a truck.

                              Table H-0--Distance Traveled To and From Test Center
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Actual/Estimated
                                                                                 shipping      Shipped via truck
                        Report No.                           Service life     distance to and   to and from test
                                                                             from test center        center
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1001.....................................................                 7               490
1002.....................................................                 7               490
1003.....................................................                12               549
1004.....................................................                 7               490
1005.....................................................                 7              1014
1006.....................................................                10               490
1007.....................................................                12               310
1008.....................................................                 7               490
1009.....................................................                 7               490
1010.....................................................                10               975
1011.....................................................                12               780
1012.....................................................                 7               490
1014.....................................................                 7               490
1015.....................................................                12              1400
1016.....................................................                12              1400                 X
1017.....................................................                 4               490
1101.....................................................                12              1400
1102.....................................................                 7               490
1103.....................................................                 7              1112
1104.....................................................                10               490
1105.....................................................                 7              1112
1106.....................................................                 7               490
1107.....................................................                12               574                 X
1108.....................................................                12               482
1109.....................................................                12              2676                 X
1110.....................................................                10               490
1111.....................................................                 7               490
1112.....................................................                 7               490
1113.....................................................                 7               430
1114.....................................................                 7               490
1115.....................................................                 4              1112
1116.....................................................                 7              1112
1117.....................................................                12               310
1118.....................................................                12              1400                 X
1120.....................................................                 7               490
1201.....................................................                 7               490
1202.....................................................                12               310
1203.....................................................                 7               430
1204.....................................................                 7              1112
1205.....................................................                12              1400
1206.....................................................                12              2676                 X
1207.....................................................                 7              1112
1208.....................................................                 7               430
1210.....................................................                 7              1112
1211.....................................................                12              1400
1212.....................................................                 7               955
1213.....................................................                12               482
1214.....................................................                 7              1112                 X
1215.....................................................                 4               490
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 50379]]

    4. Parts Consumed: This cost category is for the cost of parts 
consumed during the test.
    5. On-Site Personnel: This cost category is for the cost of 
maintaining manufacturer personnel on-site at the test center. For each 
test of a heavy-duty bus, the cost of a mechanic's labor ($20.35 an 
hour), lodging, and per diem at State College, PA for three full 
months. Manufacturer personnel are often on-site during the testing of 
heavy-duty bus models.
    6. Paperwork Burden: This cost category covers the costs to 
manufacturers of providing mandatory information to the bus testing 
program.
    7. Manufacturer Testing Fees: This cost category covers the 20 
percent testing fees that the manufacturers pay to have testing 
conducted.
    8. FTA Program Cost: This cost category covers the funding provided 
by FTA to cover 80 percent of the costs associated with testing a bus 
model.
    FTA estimates the costs of the existing bus testing program are as 
follows: The maximum total annual program cost is $3,750,000 with 80 
percent ($3,000,000) covered by FTA and 20 percent ($750,000) paid by 
transit vehicle manufacturers who submit a bus for testing. The current 
Paperwork Reduction Act reportable costs are $9,016. The estimated 
annual cost of on-site manufacturer personnel is estimated to be 
$76,673. The value of the parts consumed in the testing process is 
unknown. The annual estimated bus shipping costs for the current 
program is $63,743. The estimated annual test bus depreciation cost is 
$1,591,714. The annual cost of bus design improvements as a result of 
the current program is assumed zero as there are no minimum performance 
standards requirements. The estimated annual cost of the current bus 
testing program is $5,491,146.

                                                       Table H-1--Summary of Cost Analysis Results
                                                                    [All values in $]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Cost of req'd     Lost value    Shipping                       Manufacturer                                 FTA
                                       bus design       of test      of test     Parts  consumed       on-site      Paperwork     Testing      Program
                                        changes          buses        buses                           personnel       burden        fees         cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline-current program.........  0................    1,591,714       63,743  unknown..........          76,673        9,016      750,000    3,000,000
Proposed MAP-21 Minimum Proposed   unknown..........            0        2,209  unknown..........           5,103          767       33,362      133,448
 Performance Standards and
 Scoring System.
Proposed Discretionary Program     58,308...........            0            0  0................               0        2,810      -15,328      -61,310
 Changes.
Revised Bus Payloading Procedures  58,308...........            0            0  0................               0        1,488          -74         -294
Elimination of On-Road Fuel        0................            0            0  0................               0            0      -16,000      -64,000
 Economy Test.
Revised Bus Passenger Load for     0................            0            0  0................               0            0         -118         -470
 Emissions Testing.
Bus Testing Entrance Requirements  0................            0            0  0................               0            0          664        2,654
Revisions to the Test Scheduling   0................            0            0  0................               0        1,322            0            0
 Requirements.
Test Requirements Review           0................            0            0  0................               0            0            0            0
 Milestone.
Penalty for Unauthorized           0................            0            0  0................               0            0          200          800
 Maintenance & Modification.
Estimated Program Costs (Baseline  58,308...........    1,591,714       65,952  unknown..........          81,776       12,593      768,034    3,072,138
 & New Proposals).
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................  .................  ...........  ...........  .................  ..............  ...........  ...........    5,650,515
    Baseline Total...............  .................  ...........  ...........  .................  ..............  ...........  ...........    5,491,146
    Incremental Program Cost.....  .................  ...........  ...........  .................  ..............  ...........  ...........      159,369
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate the costs of the rule, FTA first identified all of the 
bus models in the study group of 49 that would fail to meet the 
standards.
    The most significant cost caused by this rule will be the cost of 
retesting to validate a vehicle that has failed one or more tests. 
Eight of the 49 buses FTA examined failed one or more tests. The below 
table identifies each test these buses would have failed, thus 
triggering the retesting requirement. FTA also estimated the costs for 
retesting, and in two cases, the cost of a potential remedy.

                                             Table H-2--Summary of the Costs for Retesting Failed Bus Models
                      [Cost of remedying and retesting bus models (2010-2013) that would fail a proposed performance standard ($)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Shipping of
                                                                       test bus back
                                                                             to
                        Failed test     Cost of required   Lost value   manufacturer    Additional      On-site     Paperwork     Testing        FTA
 Bus  (report No.)        category         bus design       of test         for            parts       personnel      burden    fees  (20%)    program
                                             changes         buses     modifications     consumed                                                cost
                                                                       and return to
                                                                           Altoona
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTI-BY-1214........  Structural         Unknown--upper              0             0   Unknown.......        4,374          215       11,152       44,608
                      durability.        body structure
                                         failing.
PTI-BT-1208........  Structural         Unknown--body               0             0   Unknown.......        4,374          215       11,152       44,608
                      durability.        structure
                                         cracks.
PTI-BT-1110........  Structural         Unknown--body to            0             0   Unknown.......        4,374          215       17,054       68,216
                      durability.        frame interface
                                         is cracking.
                                         Potentially
                                         need a new bus
                                         body mount
                                         design.

[[Page 50380]]

 
PTI-BT-1108........  Powertrain         Unknown--multipl            0         2,034   Unknown.......  ...........          710       23,578       94,312
                      durability.        e different
                                         powertrain
                                         failure modes
                                         need to be
                                         remedied.
                     Maintainability..  If powertrain               0             0   Unknown.......  ...........            0            0            0
                                         durability
                                         failures are
                                         corrected this
                                         standard would
                                         be met as well.
PTI-BT-1108........  Performance......  Unknown--the                0             0   Unknown.......  ...........            0          600        2,400
                                         maximum
                                         propulsion
                                         power delivered
                                         to the wheels
                                         needs to be
                                         increased.
PTI-BT-1009........  Powertrain         Unknown--multipl            0             0   Unknown.......        2,187          215       11,152       44,608
                      durability.        e different
                                         powertrain
                                         failure modes
                                         need to be
                                         remedied.
PTI-BT-1107........  Structural         $130--radius rod            0             0   ..............  ...........           42            0            0
                      durability.        mount was re-
                                         welded to
                                         correct
                                         manufacturing
                                         defect.
                     Powertrain         Unknown--multipl            0         4,592   Unknown.......  ...........          380       23,578       94,312
                      durability.        e different
                                         powertrain
                                         failure modes
                                         need to be
                                         remedied.
                                         Transmission
                                         cradle was the
                                         primary issue.
PTI-BT-1107........  Performance......  Unknown--the                0  .............  Unknown.......  ...........           42          600        2,400
                                         maximum
                                         propulsion
                                         power delivered
                                         to the wheels
                                         needs to be
                                         increased.
                     Safety-braking...  Additional test             0             0   0.............            0            0          620        2,480
                                         trials needed
                                         to achieve
                                         greater brake
                                         lining contact
                                         with brake
                                         rotors.
                     Maintainability..  0--if the                   0             0   Unknown.......  ...........            0            0            0
                                         powertrain
                                         durability
                                         failures are
                                         corrected this
                                         standard would
                                         be met as well.
PTI-BT-1006........  Interior Noise...  $211--this                  0             0   0.............            0          133          300         1200
                                         trolley bus
                                         exceeded the
                                         proposed
                                         interior noise
                                         standard by 4
                                         dB at the
                                         driver's
                                         seating
                                         position.
                                         Commercially
                                         available sound
                                         dampening
                                         material
                                         applied to the
                                         floor and
                                         engine cover
                                         area would
                                         reduce the
                                         average noise
                                         level by 5 dBs
                                         20 square feet
                                         of this
                                         material costs
                                         $170.00 retail
                                         and a two hours
                                         of mechanic
                                         labor (2 -
                                         20.35 = 40.70)
                                         to install.

[[Page 50381]]

 
PTI-BT-1010........  Interior Noise...  $211--this                  0             0   0.............            0          133          300         1200
                                         trolley bus
                                         exceeded the
                                         proposed
                                         interior noise
                                         standard by 4
                                         dB at the
                                         driver's
                                         seating
                                         position.
                                         Commercially
                                         available sound
                                         dampening
                                         material
                                         applied to the
                                         floor and
                                         engine cover
                                         area would
                                         reduce the
                                         average noise
                                         level by 5 dBs
                                         20 square feet
                                         of this
                                         material costs
                                         $170.00 retail
                                         and a two hours
                                         of mechanic
                                         labor (2 -
                                         20.35 = 40.70)
                                         to install.
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Total Cost ($)     Unknown.........            0         6,626   0.............       15,309        2,300      100,086      400,344
                     Annual Cost ($)    Unknown.........            0         2,209   0.............        5,103          767       33,362      133,448
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the testing fees for the program are broken down by 
test and sub-test categories, with manufacturers charged fees only for 
the tests that must be conducted. The fee schedule for the current 
program is shown in Table H-3.

                             Table H-3--Adjusted Bus Testing Program Costs and Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   500,000 mi--   350,000 mi--10   200,000 mi --   150,000 mi --   100,000 mi --
              Test                    12 year      year service   7 year service  5 year service  4 year service
                                   service life        life            life            life            life
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check-In........................           3,000           3,000           3,000           3,000           3,000
Inspect for Accessibility.......           1,500           1,500           1,500           1,500           1,500
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintainability (scheduled and
 unscheduled)...................                       Included in the durability test cost
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selected Maintainability........           4,500           4,500           4,500           4,500           4,500
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reliability.....................                       Included in the durability test cost
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety..........................           3,000           3,000           3,000           3,000           3,000
Performance.....................           6,000           6,000           6,000           6,000           6,000
Brake...........................           6,100           6,100           6,100           6,100           6,100
Distortion......................           3,000           3,000           3,000           3,000           3,000
Static Towing...................           1,500           1,500           1,500           1,500           1,500
Dynamic Towing..................           1,500           1,500           1,500           1,500           1,500
Jacking.........................           1,500           1,500           1,500           1,500           1,500
Hoisting........................           1,500           1,500           1,500           1,500           1,500
Structural Durability...........         117,890          85,270          55,760          40,060          25,970
Fuel Economy....................           6,000           6,000           6,000           6,000           6,000
Interior Noise..................           1,500           1,500           1,500           1,500           1,500
Exterior Noise..................           1,500           1,500           1,500           1,500           1,500
Emissions.......................          44,000          44,000          44,000          44,000          44,000
Total for Full Testing (100%)...         203,990         171,370         141,860          77,660          60,570
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer's Portion Fee (20%)          40,798          34,274          28,372          15,532          12,114
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results from this analysis indicate that annual costs would 
increase in several areas. The impact of the performance standards to 
the FTA program cost is estimated to be $133,448. A total of $33,362 in 
additional manufacturer's fees would be collected from the additional 
tests. An additional paperwork burden of $767

[[Page 50382]]

would be incurred from the required failure analysis and remedy 
proposal process. An additional $5,103 would be expended for on-site 
personnel expenses incurred performing test bus modifications at the 
test site. An unknown amount of additional parts and components would 
be consumed during the retesting. FTA estimates that one of the eight 
failed buses would be returned to the manufacturer for systemic 
modifications incurring additional round-trip shipping expenses of 
$2,034. FTA believes that the retesting process will not depreciate the 
test bus an additional amount beyond the first test. However, FTA 
believes there are no additional costs to the program from implementing 
the Bus Model Scoring System, as the scores will be calculated 
automatically once the test results are finalized.
    FTA also analyzed the costs of the discretionary program changes in 
the final rule. The rule will modify two test procedures (payloading 
and emissions test payload) but will not impose any completely new 
testing procedures, and will eliminate the On-Road Fuel Economy Test 
procedure, thereby reducing the aggregate costs currently associated 
with the bus testing program. For the revised bus payloading 
procedures, FTA estimates an annual decrease in the program cost of 
$294 and a decrease in testing fees of $74. These are a result of labor 
cost savings from loading the mid-sized buses with fewer or no 
simulated standee passengers. FTA estimates an increase in the annual 
paperwork burden of $1,488 from the increased manufacturer labor 
required to determine and report to FTA the total passenger capacity of 
new bus models submitted to the program. The only other cost introduced 
by the revised bus payloading procedures is the requirement to add a 
placard on the interior bulkhead of the bus identifying the maximum 
standee passenger rating in 2 inch or taller letters. FTA estimates the 
annual cost impact to new bus models is $58,038. This cost analysis is 
presented in Table H-3.

                                                 Table H-4--Cost of Standee Passenger Rating Placard ($)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           Labor amount
                  Standee Rating Placard                      Estimated cost per decal      Labor rate      to install    Estimated cost   Total annual
                                                              (using a quantity of 500)        (hr)            (hr)           per bus          cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual cost for new production transit buses (5600 units a                          8.99           13.74            0.10           10.36          58,038
 year)....................................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Source: www.edecals.com using a 2.5 inch tall lettering stating ``XX Standees Maximum'').
Labor rate assumes a category of ``assembler and fabricator'' from bls.gov.

    The annual cost savings of eliminating the on-road fuel economy 
test is $64,000 for the FTA program and $16,000 in manufacturer test 
fees. FTA estimates that 15 on-road fuel economy tests would be 
eliminated annually and the cost of the dynamometer based fuel economy 
test is already captured in the cost for the emissions test. One full 
electric bus is expected to be tested annually. Although electric bus 
models do not need to undergo emissions testing, the cost for 
conducting one electric bus fuel economy test was retained.
    FTA is also changing the bus passenger load for the emissions test 
from 2/3 seated load weight to full seated load weight. FTA estimates a 
cost reduction of $470 for the FTA program portion and $118 in reduced 
fees to the manufacturers. The cost savings is derived from eliminating 
the labor of unloading and reloading 1/3 of the seated passenger load 
as all of the other non-durability performance tests are conducted at 
full seated load.
    The program entrance requirements are expected to increase the 
annual FTA program costs by $2,654 and require $664 in additional 
manufacturer costs. The additional costs are a result of the bus 
configuration inspections conducted at bus check-in. The details of 
this cost analysis are outlined in Table H-5.

                                  Table H-5--Bus Configuration Inspection Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Labor category              Hourly rate       Source           Total hours per bus           Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diesel auto service tech..........           20.35         bls.gov                             4           81.40
Technical writer..................           31.49         bls.gov                             4          125.96
                                                                                    Cost per bus          207.36
                                                                    Total annual cost (16 buses)          $3,318
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revisions to the test scheduling process are expected to 
increase the annual paperwork burden to bus manufacturers by $1,322. 
The test entrance requirements review milestone is not expected to add 
any costs to the program as only FTA will be reviewing the results of 
the check-in process and determining the outcome of the milestone 
review.
    Lastly, the annual cost of the penalty for unauthorized maintenance 
and modification is estimated to be $800 for the FTA program cost 
portion and $200 in fees to the manufacturers. The costs
were determined by amortizing the cost of test track upgrades for 
physical security and surveillance over a 10-year period.
    The total annual cost of the Bus Test Program is estimated to be 
$5,650,515 given the changes made under this rule. The current Bus Test 
Program incurs annual costs of $5,494,146. The incremental cost of the 
rule is anticipated to be $159,369 per year for the new bus models.
Benefits
    A summary of the estimated annual benefits of the Bus testing 
program is presented in Table H-6. FTA has identified and analyzed 
seven categories of program benefits:
    1. Greater probability of meeting service life and reduced 
unscheduled maintenance: This category estimates the annual benefits 
achieved by adopting these procedures will improve the likelihood that 
new model bus models entering revenue service will satisfy their 
service life requirement and the benefits obtained through a reduction 
of unscheduled maintenance

[[Page 50383]]

in actual service. While FTA provides a potential estimate of this 
benefit, FTA does not include it in its quantitative analysis, but 
notes that this will most likely be a cost reduction (qualitative 
benefit) to the industry.
    2. Reduced safety risk: This category estimates the annual benefits 
that reduce the safety risk of new bus models entering transit service.
    3. Improved recipient awareness and accuracy of total bus passenger 
capacity: This category of benefits examines the benefits obtained from 
determining and communicating the rated standee passenger capacity of a 
bus to recipients to inform their procurement process and their bus 
operations.
    4. Improved recipient knowledge of a bus model production 
configuration: This category improves the knowledge of the tested bus 
model configuration and any deviations from the original planned 
configuration herein.
    5. Increased confidence the delivered production buses will perform 
the same as the test bus: This category examines the benefits of the 
proposals in increasing the understanding and confidence that the bus 
model a recipient procures and is delivered, and matches the bus tested 
with respect to its design configuration and major components.
    6. Faster comprehension of test results/scores and motivation for 
improved bus performance: This category examines the benefits derived 
from the proposals to increase the speed and depth of comprehension of 
the bus testing results.
    7. Simplified test scheduling process and elimination of 
unnecessary testing: This category examines the benefits of maintaining 
one point and process of program entry and the benefits of eliminating 
unnecessary testing.
    FTA was unable to provide monetized benefits for many of the 
benefit categories. For many of the categories where FTA believes there 
are benefits but was unable to quantify, the result is identified as 
``unknown''. For categories where FTA believes there is no benefit, the 
result was identified as ``0''. The benefits of a greater probability 
of bus models meeting their service life was quantified, but only to 
inform FTA's qualitative assumptions.
    Overall, FTA believes that the current program provides potential 
benefits in all of the seven categories identified when the information 
generated by the program is used in the procurement decision process. 
FTA did not receive comments to the docket challenging or questioning 
these benefits, but FTA believes that adopting these minimum 
performance standards will reduce safety risks, reduce unscheduled 
maintenance, and ensure a greater probability of a bus model meeting 
its expected service life.

                                                              Table H-6--Summary of the Estimated Annual Benefits for All Proposals
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Greater probability                                                    Improved grantee     Increased confidence  Faster comprehension     Simplified test
                                     of meeting service                          Grantee awareness and     Knowledge of Buy        the delivered       of test scores and      scheduling and
               Item                   life and reduced     Reduced safety risk   accuracy of total bus     America and bus     production buses will     motivation for           process &
                                        unscheduled                                passenger capacity     testing production    perform the same as       improved bus         elimination of
                                        maintenance                                                         configuration           the test bus           performance       unnecessary testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline--Current Program........  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  Unknown.............  Unknown.
Proposed MAP--21 Minimum           Cost reduction.......  Unknown..............  0....................  0....................  0....................  0...................  0.
 Performance Standards.
Proposed Scoring System..........  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  0....................  0....................  0....................  Unknown.............  0.
Proposed Discretionary Program     .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................  ....................  ....................
 Changes.
Revised Bus Payloading Procedures  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  0....................  0....................  0...................  0.
Elimination of On-Road Fuel        0....................  0....................  0....................  0....................  Unknown..............  0...................  Cost reduction.
 Economy Test.
Revised Bus Passenger Load for     0....................  0....................  0....................  0....................  0....................  0...................  Cost reduction.
 Emissions Testing.
Bus Testing Entrance Requirement.  0....................  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  0...................  Unknown.
Revisions to the Scheduling of     0....................  0....................  0....................  0....................  0....................  0...................  Unknown.
 Testing Requirements.
Test Requirements Review           0....................  0....................  0....................  0....................  0....................  0...................  Unknown.
 Milestone.
Penalty for Unauthorized           Unknown..............  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  Unknown.............  0.
 Maintenance and Modification.
Estimated Program Benefit          Cost Reduction.......  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  Unknown.............  Cost reduction.
 (Baseline and all Proposals).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                               Table H-7--Benefits Achieved From the Minimum Performance Standards
                                          [Projected benefit from the service life loss prevention resulting from the proposed durability requirements]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                  Estimated quantity
                                                                                              # of tested models   of buses sold in                        Estimated annual
                                                                                                  that failed       2013 that have                        service life value   Total cost of new
            Bus Size                 Service life     # of units sold in  # of models tested      durability          failed the        Average new bus    loss (assumes bus     transit buses
                                    category (yrs)         2013 \1\            2010-2012        (structural or         proposed          value \2\ ($)     retirement at 50%   procured in 2013
                                                                                                  powertrain)         durability                               life) ($)
                                                                                                                       standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 55 foot articulated...........  12................  172...............  2.................  0.................  0.................  760,766...........  0.................  130,851,752
45 foot.........................  12................  18................  2.................  0.................  0.................  449,712...........  0.................  8,094,816
40 foot.........................  12................  1906..............  10................  1.................  38................  439,954...........  8,385,523.........  838,552,324
35 foot.........................  12................  373...............  2.................  1.................  37................  286,972...........  5,352,028.........  107,040,556
30 foot.........................  10................  283...............  4.................  1.................  14................  207,528...........  1,468,261.........  58,730,424
< 27 foot.......................  4, 5, 7...........  2892..............  29................  3.................  60................  62,410............  1,867,135.........  180,489,720
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..................  5644..............  49................  6.................  149...............  ..................  17,072,947........  1,323,759,592
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Table 9A, FY2013: http://www.fta.dot.gov/about_FTA_16073.html.
\2\ See APTA Public Transportation Vehicle Database. http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/OtherAPTAStatistics.aspx.


[[Page 50384]]

    FTA is not able to provide a monetized value for the safety risk 
reduction. Further, FTA estimated benefits of bus models meeting their 
service life requirements, but FTA used this to inform FTA's 
qualitative assumption that there would be aggregate benefits to the 
industry. FTA did not include this in FTA's quantitative calculations 
because FTA was uncertain of the potential aggregate savings on a year-
to-year basis into the future as the industry adapts to today's 
rulemaking. The results of this analysis are presented in Table H-7.
    The analysis presented in Table H-7 used the 2013 transit bus 
procurement data outlined in Table 9A in the FY 2013 FTA statistical 
summaries by bus size category and quantity. This analysis also 
estimated the average cost of a bus model in each size category using 
the cost information in Table 9A. FTA then determined the quantity of 
bus models tested in each of the size categories from 2010-2012 (49 
buses total) and the number of those that failed the proposed 
durability performance standard (6). FTA estimated the quantity of bus 
models sold in 2013 that would have been restricted from FTA recipients 
in each bus size category. This estimate assumes that 20 percent of the 
bus models sold in 2013 were bus models tested between 2010 and 2012. 
The other 80 percent of the sales were assumed to consist of existing 
bus models tested prior to 2010. FTA then estimated the projected 
quantity of failing buses by applying a ratio of the number of tested 
buses that would fail the proposed durability standard by the number of 
bus models tested in that size category to 20 percent of the 2013 bus 
sales figures. This resulting quantity of buses was multiplied by the 
average monetary value of that bus size category and divided by two to 
obtain the average amount of service life value lost assuming that each 
of the failed buses only satisfied 50 percent of their service life 
requirement. FTA notes that this analysis assumes that all six models 
were not modified by the manufacturer prior to procurement, as the 
agency has no information concerning whether or not any modifications 
did in fact occur. If modifications did occur, then the potential 
benefits discussed here may be overstated.
    FTA notes here that although FTA conducted this analysis, FTA did 
not include these values in its quantitative calculation of benefits. 
FTA conducted this analysis to inform FTA's qualitative assumption of 
potential benefits. FTA found, as shown above in Table H-6, that the 
potential for a major cost reduction for the industry is great, but FTA 
is uncertain of the potential aggregate savings on a year-to-year basis 
into the future as the industry adapts to the new requirements.
    As another baseline, the lost service life value of two tested bus 
models known to have failed in service but outside the study window 
from 2010-2012 was also estimated. The results of this analysis are 
presented in Table H-8. Again, while FTA performed this analysis, FTA 
did not include these values in FTA's quantitative calculation of 
benefits. FTA used this analysis to inform FTA's qualitative assumption 
of potential benefits. FTA found again, as shown in Table H-8, that the 
potential for a major cost reduction for the industry is great, but FTA 
is uncertain of the potential aggregate savings on a year-to-year basis 
into the future as the industry adapts to the new requirements.

                      Table H-8--Estimated Service Life Value Loss of Two Failed Bus Models
 [Estimated benefits from service life loss prevention of proposed durability requirements with known bus models
                                    that failed in service from 2003 to 2013]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Estimated annual
                                                                                              service life value
                          Bus size                               Quantity       Initial bus    loss (assumes bus
                                                                                 value ($)     retirement at 50%
                                                                                                   life) ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 foot articulated.........................................             226         451,328          51,000,064
23 foot hybrid electric.....................................              70         150,000           5,250,000
Total Service Value Loss....................................  ..............  ..............          56,250,064
Estimated Annual Loss over 2003-2013........................  ..............  ..............           5,625,006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FTA, though, was able to quantify benefits provided by the 
durability performance standards in the form of reduced unscheduled 
maintenance, which FTA estimates to be $531,990 per year. FTA was only 
able to estimate the reduction in labor costs and not the associated 
reduction in the costs of replacement components. The basis for the 
reduction in labor costs was the estimated reduction in unscheduled 
maintenance hours after the design remedies for structural and 
powertrain durability were applied to the failing bus models identified 
in the study group. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 
H-9.

                                                Table H-9--Benefits From Reduced Unscheduled Maintenance
                        [Benefit derived from reduced bus maintenance requirements as a result of proposed durability standards]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Average
                                                                      unscheduled       Average        Estimated     Benefit from
                                                      # of tested     maintenance     unscheduled     quantity of    the reduction
                                                      models that    hours per bus    maintenance    buses sold in  in maintenance    Benefit from the
                                     Service Life       failed       eliminated by   hours per bus  2013 that have   hours @20.35/    reduction in the
             Bus size               Category (yrs)    durability      durability     avoided over     failed the      hr (diesel    amount of components
                                                    (structural or     standard       50% service      proposed         service           replaced
                                                      powertrain)     during test     life (until     durability      technician)
                                                                     (25% service        early         standard           ($)
                                                                         life)        retirement)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>55 foot articulated..............              12               0               0               0               0               0  unknown.

[[Page 50385]]

 
45 foot...........................              12               0               0               0               0               0  unknown.
40 foot...........................              12               1             103             206              38         159,300  unknown.
35 ft.............................              12               1             113             226              37         170,167  unknown.
30 ft.............................              10               1               4               8              14           2,279  unknown.
<27 foot..........................         4, 5, 7               3              82             164              60         200,244  unknown.
                                   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................  ..............               6  ..............  ..............             149         531,990  ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FTA believes the scoring system will provide benefits in the areas 
of reduced unscheduled maintenance, reduced safety risk, with the 
faster comprehension of test results, and provide industry motivation 
to seek bus models with higher test scores.
    FTA is confident the revisions to the bus pay loading procedures 
that require the posting of the maximum rated standee passenger load on 
the interior bus bulkhead will provide benefits in the areas of greater 
probability of a bus meeting its service life requirements, reduced 
amounts of unscheduled maintenance, reduced safety risk, and greater 
understanding of the total rated bus passenger capacity.
    FTA believes that eliminating the current on-road fuel economy test 
and only publishing the fuel economy test results from the dynamometer 
based test will provide recipients more realistic and reliable test 
results than the current on-road fuel economy test. Having only one set 
of fuel economy test results will also eliminate the potential 
confusion to recipients and manufacturers with respect to the scoring 
of the test results. FTA was unable to quantify the benefits, beyond 
the program cost reduction, of eliminating the on-road fuel economy 
test.
    Regarding the revision to the bus passenger load for the emissions 
testing to seated load weight instead of the 2/3 seated load weight 
that was unique in the emission test, the benefit of this change is a 
minor cost reduction from the reduced labor of unloading and loading 1/
3 of the seated load weight just for this test. FTA does not expect any 
other benefits from this approach.
    The entrance requirements are expected to provide benefits with 
reduced safety risk, greater awareness and accuracy of the bus 
passenger capacity, greater understanding of Buy America implications 
on bus configurations with respect to major components, and prevention 
of unnecessary retesting due to bus production configuration anomalies 
discovered during or after the test is completed.
    The primary benefit of the revisions to the scheduling of testing 
requirements is that the process will be the same whether it is a 
request for full testing or partial testing. By establishing a single 
point of entry for the program there will be less confusion about the 
program requirements and the process and consistency in the resulting 
determinations.
    The benefit of the test requirements review milestone is a program 
event that will deliver the benefits of the bus entrance requirements. 
This milestone will provide all testing stakeholders (manufacturer, Bus 
Testing Facility operator, FTA, and potential purchasers) a clear 
understanding of a new bus model's program eligibility and readiness 
for testing.
    The penalty for unauthorized maintenance and modification is the 
repeat of all potentially affected tests. This rule provides benefits 
in all the categories identified except with the ``simplified test 
scheduling and elimination of unnecessary testing'' category.
Summary of Costs and Benefits for Bus Model Testing
    The annual incremental cost of the rule is $159,369 and the 
quantified annual benefit of future bus tests is expected to be 
$531,990, giving an annual net benefit of $372,621. The costs and 
benefits of the rule are expected to be the same each year into the 
future.
Summary of Overall Costs and Benefits
    Using a 3 and 7 percent discount rate over a ten-year analysis 
period for the annual costs and benefits developed above, the Net 
Present Value of the changes encompassed within this rule would yield a 
net benefit of $3,178,533 at 3 percent discount rate and $2,617,134 at 
7 percent discount rate, as shown in Table H-14.

                              Table H-10--Summary of Quantified Costs and Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Discounted Net Benefits @
              Year                     Costs         Benefits      Net Cash Flow -------------------------------
                                                                                        3%              7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................        $159,369        $531,990        $372,621        $361,768        $348,244
2...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         351,231         325,462
3...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         341,001         304,170
4...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         331,069         284,271
5...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         321,426         265,674
6...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         312,064         248,293
7...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         302,975         232,050
8...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         294,150         216,869

[[Page 50386]]

 
9...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         285,583         202,681
10..............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         277,265         189,422
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Net Present Value...........  ..............  ..............  ..............       3,178,533       2,617,134
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism'''). This 
rule does not include any regulation that has substantial direct 
effects on the States, the relationship between the national government 
and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
the various levels of government. Therefore, the consultation and 
funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments)

    This rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 and because this rule does 
not have tribal implications and does not impose direct compliance 
costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 
13175 do not apply.

Executive Order 13272 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding 
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do 
not apply to this rulemaking.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-611) requires each 
agency to analyze regulations and proposals to assess their impact on 
small businesses and other small entities to determine whether the rule 
or proposal will have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Although the testing requirement imposes 
compliance costs on the regulated industry, including bus manufacturers 
who meet the definition of ``small businesses,'' Congress has 
authorized FTA to pay 80% of the bus manufacturer's testing fee, 
defraying the direct financial impact on these entities. FTA has 
estimated the additional costs and the projected benefits of this rule 
and certifies that this rule would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532, et seq.) 
requires agencies to evaluate whether an agency action would result in 
the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $155 million or more (as 
adjusted for inflation) in any one year, and if so, to take steps to 
minimize these unfunded mandates. FTA does not believe the rulemaking 
would result in expenditures exceeding this level.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520), a Federal agency must obtain approval from OMB before conducting 
or sponsoring a collection of information as defined by the PRA. 
Because today's regulation contains a new provision that would require 
manufacturers to provide technical specifications regarding their 
vehicles to FTA in order to receive approval to proceed with testing, 
FTA submitted a revised information collection estimate to OMB and 
invited comment on the information collection burden estimate published 
in the NPRM.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned 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 document may be used to cross-reference this action with the 
Unified Agenda.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended 
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), requires Federal agencies to consider the 
consequences of major federal actions and prepare a detailed statement 
on actions significantly affecting the quality of the human 
environment. FTA has determined that this rulemaking is categorically 
excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4).

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form for all comments 
received into any of FTA's 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 review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
www.regulations.gov.

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

    Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,'' and DOT 
Order 5610.2(a), ``Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 
Populations and Low-Income Populations (see, www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmental_justice/ej_at_dot/order_56102a/index.cfm), 
require DOT agencies to achieve environmental justice (EJ) as part of 
their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, of their 
programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-
income populations in the United States. The DOT Order requires DOT 
agencies to address compliance with the Executive Order and the DOT 
Order in all rulemaking activities. To meet this goal, FTA has issued 
additional final guidance in the form of a circular (Circular 4703.1, 
``FTA Policy Guidance for Federal Transit Recipients,'' July 17, 2012; 
http://www.fta.dot.gov/legislation_law/12349_14740.html), to implement 
Executive Order 12898 and DOT Order 5610.2(a).
    FTA evaluated this rule under the Executive Order, the DOT Order, 
and the FTA Circular. Environmental justice principles, in the context 
of establishing a quantitative scoring system for public transit 
vehicles, fall outside the scope of applicability.

[[Page 50387]]

    Nothing inherent in today's regulation would disproportionately 
impact minority or low income populations, as the primary parties 
affected by this rule are those transit vehicle manufactures who would 
be subject to the bus testing procedures and the new quantitative 
scoring system. FTA has determined that the regulation would not cause 
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental 
effects on minority or low income populations.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 665

    Buses, Grant programs--transportation, Public transportation, Motor 
vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Transit 
Administration revises 49 CFR Part 665 as set forth below:

Title 49--Transportation

PART 665--BUS TESTING

Subpart A--General
Sec.
665.1 Purpose.
665.3 Scope.
665.5 Definitions.
665.7 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--Bus Model Scoring System and Pass/Fail 
Standard

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 5318 and 49 CFR 1.91.

Subpart A--General


Sec.  665.1  Purpose.

    An applicant for Federal financial assistance 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 
and has received a passing test score 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 shall not automatically exclude a bus of its automotive 
character or the testing requirement.
    Bus means a rubber-tired automotive vehicle used for the provision 
of public transportation service by or for a recipient of FTA financial 
assistance.
    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 facility used by the entity selected 
by FTA to conduct the bus testing program, including test track 
facilities operated in connection with the program.
    Bus Testing Report means the complete test report for a bus model, 
documenting the results of performing the complete set of bus tests on 
a bus model.
    Curb weight means the weight of the bus including maximum fuel, 
oil, and coolant; but without passengers or driver.
    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 exit the 
tailpipe. 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 the formal approval by the recipient that 
the vehicle has met all of its bid specifications and the recipient has 
received proper title.
    Gross weight (Gross Vehicle Weight, or GVW) means the seated load 
weight of the bus plus 150 pounds of ballast for each standee 
passenger, up to and including, the maximum rated standee passenger 
capacity identified on the bus interior bulkhead.
    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 where they exist.
    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

[[Page 50388]]

accompanied by the corresponding full Bus Testing Report for the 
corresponding baseline bus configuration.
    Public transportation service means the operation of a vehicle that 
provides general or special service to the public on a regular and 
continuing basis consistent with 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.
    Recipient means an entity that receives funds under 49 U.S.C. 
Chapter 53, either directly from FTA or through a direct recipient.
    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 curb weight of the bus plus the seated 
passenger load simulated by adding 150 pounds of ballast to each 
seating position and 600 pounds per wheelchair 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 OEM 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  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 and that the bus received a passing test score as required in 
this part. The recipient shall receive the appropriate full Bus Testing 
Report and any applicable partial testing report(s) before final 
acceptance of the first vehicle.
    (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. A bus manufacturer or recipient may request 
guidance from FTA.

Subpart B--Bus Testing Procedures


Sec.  665.11  Testing requirements.

    (a) In order to be tested at the Bus Testing Facility, a new model 
bus shall--
    (1) Be a single model that complies with NHTSA requirements at 49 
CFR part 565 Vehicle Identification Number Requirements; 49 CFR part 
566 Manufacturer Identification; 49 CFR part 567 Certification; and 
where applicable, 49 CFR part 568 Vehicle Manufactured in Two or More 
Stages--All Incomplete, Intermediate and Final-Stage Manufacturers of 
Vehicle Manufactured in Two or More Stages;
    (2) Have been produced by an entity whose Disadvantaged Business 
Enterprise DBE goals have been submitted to FTA pursuant to 49 CFR part 
26;
    (3) Identify the maximum rated quantity of standee passengers on 
the interior bulkhead in 2 inch tall or greater characters;
    (4) Meet all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, as 
defined by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in part 
571 of this title; and
    (5) Be substantially fabricated and assembled using the techniques, 
tooling, and materials that will be used in production of subsequent 
buses of that model with the manufacturing point of origin for the bus 
structure, the axles, the foundation brakes, the propulsion power 
system and auxiliary power systems (engine, transmission, traction 
batteries, electric motor(s), fuel cell(s)), and the primary energy 
storage and delivery systems (fuel tanks, fuel injectors & manifolds, 
and the fuel injection electronic control unit) identified in the test 
request submitted to FTA during the scheduling process.
    (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 Tests.
    (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 in place 
of full testing.
    (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 in place of full testing.
    (e) Buses shall be tested according to the service life 
requirements identified in the prevailing published version of FTA 
Circular 5010.
    (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.


Sec.  665.13  Test report and manufacturer certification.

    (a) The operator of the Bus Testing Facility shall implement the 
performance standards and scoring system set forth in this part.
    (b) Upon completion of testing, the operator of the facility shall 
provide the scored test results and the resulting test report to the 
entity that submitted the bus for testing and to FTA. The test report 
will be available to recipients only after both the bus manufacturer 
and FTA have approved it for release. If the bus manufacturer declines 
to release the report, or if the bus did not achieve a passing test 
score, the vehicle will be ineligible for FTA financial assistance.
    (c)(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 (c)(1) of 
this section also shall provide notice to the operator of the facility 
that the test

[[Page 50389]]

results and the test report are to be made available to the public.
    (d) If a tested bus model with a Bus Testing Report undergoes a 
subsequent major change in component or configuration, the manufacturer 
or dealer shall advise the recipient during the procurement process and 
shall include a description of the change. Any party may ask FTA for 
confirmation regarding the scope of the change.
    (e) 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. The operator 
shall make the final test results from the approved report available 
electronically and accessible over the internet.
    (f) The Bus Testing Report and the test results are the only 
official information and 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) All requests for testing, including requests for full, partial, 
or repeat testing, shall be submitted to the FTA Bus Testing Program 
Manager for review prior to scheduling with the operator of the Bus 
Testing Facility. All test requests shall provide: A detailed 
description of the new bus model to be tested; the service life 
category of the bus; engineering level documentation characterizing all 
major changes to the bus model; and documentation that demonstrates 
satisfaction of each one of the testing requirements outlined in 
section 665.11(a).
    (b) FTA will review the request, determine if the bus model is 
eligible for testing, and provide an initial response within five (5) 
business days. FTA will prepare a written response to the requester for 
use in scheduling the required testing.
    (c) To schedule a bus for testing, a manufacturer shall contact the 
operator of the Bus Testing Facility and provide the FTA response to 
the test request. Contact information and procedures for scheduling 
testing are available on the operator's Bus Testing Web site, http://www.altoonabustest.com.
    (d) 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 test procedures for the tests that will be conducted on the 
vehicle.
    (e) The operator shall process vehicles FTA has approved 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 different fees for partial 
testing.
    (b) Fees shall be prorated for a vehicle withdrawn from the Bus 
Testing Facility before the completion of testing.
    (c) The manufacturer's portion of the test fee shall be used first 
during the conduct of testing. The operator of the Bus Testing Facility 
shall obtain approval from FTA prior to continuing testing of each bus 
model at the Bus testing program's expense after the manufacturer's fee 
has been expended.


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) Upon receipt of a bus approved for testing the operator of the 
Bus Testing Facility shall:
    (1) Inspect the bus design configuration and compare it to the 
configuration documented in the test request;
    (2) Determine if the bus, when loaded to Gross Weight, does not 
exceed its Gross Vehicle Weight Rating, Gross Axle Weight Ratings, or 
maximum tire load ratings;
    (3) Determine if the bus is capable of negotiating the durability 
test track at curb weight, seated load weight, and Gross Vehicle 
Weight;
    (4) Determine if the bus is capable of performing the Fuel Economy 
and Emissions Test duty cycles within the established standards for 
speed deviation.
    (b) The operator shall present the results obtained from the 
activities of 665.27(a) and present them to the bus manufacturer and 
the FTA Bus Testing Program Manager for review prior to initiating 
testing using the Bus testing program funds. FTA will provide a written 
response within five (5) business days to authorize the start of 
testing or to request clarification for any discrepancies noted from 
the activities of 665.27(a). Testing can commence after five (5) 
business days if FTA does not provide a response.
    (c) 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.
    (d) 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.
    (e) The operator shall investigate each occurrence of unauthorized 
maintenance and repairs and determine the potential impact to the 
validity of the test results. Tests where the results could have been 
impacted must be repeated at the manufacturer's expense.
    (f) The operator shall perform all modifications on the test 
vehicle, consistent with the manufacturer's specifications, unless the 
operator determines that the nature of the modification is best 
performed by the manufacturer under the operator's supervision. All 
vehicle modifications performed after the test has started will first 
require review and approval by FTA. If the modification is determined 
to be a major change, some or all of the tests already completed shall 
be repeated or extended at FTA's discretion.
    (g) The operator shall halt testing after any occurrence of 
unapproved, unauthorized, or unsupervised test vehicle modifications. 
Following an occurrence of unapproved or unsupervised test vehicle 
modifications, the vehicle manufacturer shall submit a new test request 
to FTA that addresses all the requirements in 665.11 to reenter the Bus 
testing program.
    (h) The operator shall perform eight categories of tests on new bus 
models. The eight tests and their corresponding performance standards 
are described in the following paragraphs.
    (1) Maintainability test. The Maintainability test shall include 
bus servicing, preventive maintenance, inspection, and repair. It shall 
also 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. All servicing, preventive 
maintenance, and repair actions shall be recorded and reported. These 
actions shall be performed by test facility staff, although 
manufacturers shall 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. Since the operator may not be familiar with the 
detailed design of all new bus models that are tested, tests to

[[Page 50390]]

determine the time and skill required for removing and reinstalling an 
engine, a transmission, or other major propulsion system components may 
require advice from the bus manufacturer. All routine and corrective 
maintenance shall be carried out by the operator in accordance with the 
manufacturer's specifications.
    (i) The Maintainability Test Report shall 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 purchaser shall be 
included in the report.
    (ii) The performance standard for Maintainability is that no 
greater than 125 hours of total unscheduled maintenance shall be 
accumulated over the execution of a full test.
    (2) Reliability test. Reliability shall not be a separate test, but 
shall be addressed by recording all bus failures and breakdowns during 
all other testing. The detected bus failures, repair time, and the 
actions required to return the bus to operation shall be presented in 
the report. The performance standard for Reliability is that the 
vehicle under test experience no more than one uncorrected Class 1 
failure and two uncorrected Class 2 failures over the execution of a 
full test. Class 1 failures are addressed in the Safety Test, below. An 
uncorrected Class 2 failure is a failure mode not addressed by a design 
or component modification that would cause a transit vehicle to be 
unable to complete its transit route and require towing or on-route 
repairs. A failure is considered corrected when a design or component 
modification is validated through sufficient remaining or additional 
reliability testing in which the failure does not reoccur.
    (3) Safety test. The Safety Test shall consist of a Handling and 
Stability Test, a Braking Performance Test, and a review of the Class 1 
reliability failures that occurred during the test. The Handling and 
Stability Test shall be an obstacle avoidance double-lane change test 
performed on a smooth and level test track. The lane change course will 
be set up using pylons to mark off two 12 foot center to center lanes 
with two 100 foot lane change areas 100 feet apart. Bus speed shall be 
held constant throughout a given test run. Individual test runs shall 
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 shall be tested. The 
performance standard is that the test vehicle can safely negotiate and 
remain within the lane change test course at a speed of no less than 45 
mph.
    (i) The functionality and performance of the service, regenerative 
(if applicable), and parking brake systems shall be evaluated at the 
test track. The test bus shall be subjected to a series of brake stops 
from specified speeds on high, low, and split-friction surfaces. The 
parking brake shall be evaluated with the bus parked facing both up and 
down a steep grade. There are three performance standards for braking. 
The stopping distance from a speed of 45 mph on a high friction surface 
shall satisfy the bus stopping distance requirements of FMVSS 105 or 
121 as applicable. The bus shall remain within a standard 12-foot lane 
width during split coefficient brake stops. The parking brake shall 
hold the test vehicle stationary on a 20 percent grade facing up and 
down the grade for a period of 5 minutes.
    (ii) A review of all the Class 1 failures that occurred during the 
test shall be conducted as part of the Safety Test. Class 1 failures 
include those failures that, when they occur, could result in a loss of 
vehicle control; in serious injury to the driver, passengers, 
pedestrians, or other motorists; and in property damage or loss due to 
collision or fire. The performance standard is that at the completion 
of testing with no uncorrected Class 1 failure modes. A failure is 
considered corrected when a design or component modification is 
validated through sufficient remaining or additional Reliability Tests 
in which the failure does not reoccur over a number of miles equal to 
or greater than the additional failure up to 100% of the durability 
test mileage for the service life category of the tested bus.
    (4) Performance test. The Performance Test shall measure the 
maximum acceleration, speed, and gradeability capability of the test 
vehicle. In determining the transit vehicle's maximum acceleration and 
speed, the bus shall be accelerated at full throttle from rest until it 
achieves its maximum speed on a level roadway. The performance standard 
for acceleration is that the maximum time that the test vehicle 
requires to achieve 30 mph is 18 seconds on a level grade. The 
gradeability test of the test vehicle shall be calculated based on the 
data measured on a level grade during the Acceleration Test. The 
performance standard for the gradeability test is that the test vehicle 
achieves a sustained speed of at least 40 mph on a 2.5 percent grade 
and a sustained speed of at least 10 mph on a 10 percent grade.
    (5) Structural integrity tests. Two complementary Structural 
Integrity Tests shall be performed. Structural Strength and Distortion 
Tests shall be performed at the Bus Testing Center, and the Structural 
Durability Test shall be performed at the test track.
    (i) Structural strength and distortion tests. (1) The bus shall be 
loaded to GVW, with one wheel on top of a curb and then in a pothole. 
This test shall be repeated for all four wheels. The test verifies:
    (i) Normal operation of the steering mechanism and;
    (ii) Operability of all passenger doors, passenger escape 
mechanisms, windows, and service doors. A water leak test shall be 
conducted in each suspension travel condition. The performance standard 
shall be that all vehicle passenger exits remain operational throughout 
the test.
    (2) Using a load-equalizing towing sling, a static tension load 
equal to 1.2 times the curb weight shall be applied to the bus towing 
fixtures (front and rear). The load shall be removed and the two eyes 
and adjoining structure inspected for damages or permanent 
deformations. The performance standard shall be that no permanent 
deformation is experienced at static loads up to 1.2 times the vehicle 
curb weight.
    (3) The bus shall be towed at CW with a heavy wrecker truck for 5 
miles at 20 mph and then inspected for structural damage or permanent 
deformation. The performance standard shall be that the vehicle is 
towable with a standard commercial vehicle wrecker without experiencing 
any permanent damage to the vehicle.
    (4) With the bus at CW, probable damages and clearance issues due 
to tire deflating and hydraulic jacking shall be assessed. The 
performance standard shall be that the vehicle is capable of being 
lifted with a standard commercial vehicle hydraulic jack.
    (5) With the bus at CW, possible damages or deformation associated 
with lifting the bus on a two post hoist system or supporting it on 
jack stands shall be assessed. The performance standard shall be that 
the vehicle is capable of being supported by jack stands rated for the 
vehicle's weight.
    (i) Structural durability test. The Structural Durability Test 
shall be performed on the durability course at the test track, 
simulating twenty-five percent of the vehicle's normal service life. 
The bus structure shall be inspected regularly during the test, and the 
mileage and identification of any structural anomalies and failures 
shall be reported in the Reliability Test. There shall be two 
performance standards for the Durability Test, one to address the

[[Page 50391]]

vehicle frame and body structure and one to address the bus propulsion 
system. The performance standard for the vehicle frame and body 
structure shall be that there are no uncorrected failure modes of the 
vehicle frame and body structure at the completion of the full vehicle 
test. The performance standard for the vehicle propulsion system is 
that there are no uncorrected powertrain failure modes at the 
completion of a full test.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (6) Fuel economy test. The Fuel Economy Test shall be conducted 
using duty cycles that simulate a diverse range of transit service 
operating profiles. This test shall measure the fuel economy or fuel 
consumption of the vehicle and present the results in metrics that 
minimize the number of unit conversions for mass, volume, and energy.
    (i) The Fuel Economy Test shall 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 National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) or U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) or for other purposes.
    (ii) The performance standard for fuel economy shall be the 
prevailing model year fuel consumption standards for heavy-duty 
vocational vehicles outlined in the NHTSA's Medium and Heavy-Duty Fuel 
Efficiency Program (49 CFR part 535).
    (7) Noise test. The Noise Test shall measure interior noise and 
vibration while the bus is idling (or in a comparable operating mode) 
and driving over smooth and irregular road surfaces, and also shall 
measure the transmission of exterior noise to the interior while the 
bus is not running. The exterior noise shall be measured as the bus is 
operated past a stationary measurement instrument. There shall be two 
minimum noise performance standards: One to address the maximum 
interior noise during vehicle acceleration from a stop, and one to 
address the maximum exterior noise during vehicle acceleration from a 
stop. The performance standard for interior noise while the vehicle 
accelerates from 0-35 mph shall be no greater than 80 decibels A-
weighted. The performance standard for exterior noise while the vehicle 
accelerates from 0-35 miles per hour shall be no greater than 83 
decibels A-weighted.
    (8) Emissions test. The Emissions Test shall measure tailpipe 
emissions of those exhaust constituents regulated by the United States 
EPA for transit bus emissions, plus carbon dioxide (CO2) and 
methane (CH4), as the bus is operated over specific 
repeatable transit vehicle driving cycles. The Emissions test shall be 
conducted using an emission testing laboratory equipped with a chassis 
dynamometer capable of both absorbing and applying power.
    (i) The Emissions Test is not a certification test, and is designed 
only to enable FTA recipients to relatively compare the 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 reported to other agencies, such as the EPA, or for other 
purposes.
    (ii) The emissions performance standard shall be the prevailing EPA 
emissions requirements for heavy-duty vehicles outlined in 40 CFR part 
86 and 40 CFR part 1037.

Appendix A to Part 665--Bus Model Scoring System and the Pass/Fail 
Standard

1. Bus Model Scoring System

    The Bus Model Scoring System shall be used to score the test 
results using the performance standards in each category. A bus 
model that fails to meet a minimum performance standard shall be 
deemed to have failed the test and will not receive an aggregate 
score. For buses that have passed all the minimum performance 
standards, an aggregate score shall be generated and presented in 
each Bus Testing Report. A bus model that just satisfies the minimum 
baseline performance standard and does not exceed any of the 
standards shall receive a score of 60. The maximum score a bus model 
shall receive is 100. The minimum and maximum points available in 
each test category shall be as shown below in Table A. The Bus 
Testing report will include a scoring summary table that displays 
the resulting scores in each of the test categories and 
subcategories. The scoring summary table shall have a disclaimer 
footnote stating that the use of the scoring system is not 
mandatory, only that the bus being procured receive a passing score.

2. Pass/Fail Standard

    The passing standard shall be a score of 60. Bus models that 
fail to meet one or more of the minimum baseline performance 
standards will be ineligible to obtain an aggregate passing score.
BILLING CODE P

[[Page 50392]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01AU16.000


[[Page 50393]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01AU16.001



[[Page 50394]]


Carolyn Flowers,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-17889 Filed 7-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE C



                                                                 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations                                           50367

                                              DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION                             fail threshold for new model transit                  be tested to ensure their ability to
                                                                                                       buses procured with FTA financial                     withstand the rigors of regular transit
                                              Federal Transit Administration                           assistance authorized under 49 U.S.C.                 service before FTA funds would be
                                                                                                       Chapter 53. Consistent with 49 U.S.C.                 spent on those vehicles. In the following
                                              49 CFR Part 665                                          5318(e), FTA recipients are prohibited                years, FTA accumulated comprehensive
                                              [Docket No. FTA–2015–0019]                               from using FTA financial assistance to                test data on the scores of buses that had
                                                                                                       procure new buses that have not met the               undergone testing, but the program did
                                              RIN 2132–AB11                                            minimum performance standards                         not assign a comparative ranking to the
                                                                                                       established by this rule. The standards               vehicles. Further, because the program
                                              Bus Testing: Establishment of                            and scoring system address the                        was intended to provide information on
                                              Performance Standards, a Bus Model                       following categories: Structural                      a vehicle’s performance and Congress
                                              Scoring System, a Pass/Fail Standard                     integrity, safety, maintainability,                   did not authorize FTA to use the test
                                              and Other Program Updates                                reliability, fuel economy, emissions,                 data to disqualify a vehicle from
                                              AGENCY:  Federal Transit Administration                  noise, and performance. Buses must                    participating in FTA-assisted
                                              (FTA), DOT.                                              meet a minimum performance standard                   procurements, FTA did not establish a
                                              ACTION: Final rule.
                                                                                                       in each of these categories in order to               pass/fail performance baseline. Since
                                                                                                       receive an overall passing score and be               that time, several tested buses did not
                                              SUMMARY:    The Federal Transit                          eligible for purchase using FTA                       meet their expected service lives at the
                                              Administration (FTA) is issuing a new                    financial assistance. Buses can achieve               cost of millions of dollars to transit
                                              pass/fail standard and new aggregated                    higher scores with higher performance                 agencies and significant inconvenience
                                              scoring system for buses and modified                    in each category, and today’s rule                    to transit riders. In MAP–21, Congress
                                              vans (hereafter referred to as ‘‘bus’’ or                establishes a numerical scoring system                directed FTA to establish a new pass/
                                              ‘‘buses’’) that are subject to FTA’s bus                 based on a 100-point scale so that                    fail standard for tested buses, including
                                              testing program, as mandated by Section                  buyers can more effectively compare                   a weighted scoring system that would
                                              20014 of the Moving Ahead for Progress                   vehicles.                                             assist transit bus buyers in selecting an
                                              in the 21st Century Act (MAP–21). The                       To minimize disruption to transit                  appropriate vehicle. FTA issued the
                                              pass/fail standard and scoring system                    vehicle manufacturers, consistent with                Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
                                              address the following categories as                      the proposal, today’s rule adopts many                for this action on June 23, 2015. Today’s
                                              required by MAP–21: Structural                           of the existing testing procedures and                final rule establishes a new scoring
                                              integrity, safety, maintainability,                      standards used under the current bus                  system and a pass/fail standard for
                                              reliability, fuel economy, emissions,                    testing program. The rule, however,                   buses tested under FTA’s existing bus
                                              noise, and performance. Recipients of                    imposes some changes including: (1)                   testing program, as well as making other
                                              FTA grants are prohibited from using                     New inspections at bus check-in to                    administrative changes.
                                              FTA financial assistance to procure new                  verify the bus configuration is within its
                                                                                                       weight capacity rating at its rated                   Legal Authority
                                              buses that have not met the minimum
                                              performance standards established by                     passenger load and an inspection to                      Although Section 20014 of the
                                                                                                       determine if the major components of                  Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
                                              today’s final rule. Finally, FTA is
                                                                                                       the test bus match those identified in                Century Act (MAP–21) (Pub. L. 121–
                                              requiring bus manufacturers to provide
                                                                                                       the Buy America pre-audit report; (2)                 141) retained the existing bus testing
                                              country-of-origin information for test
                                                                                                       elimination of the on-road fuel economy               categories of maintainability, reliability,
                                              unit bus components, in lieu of
                                                                                                       testing and substituting the fuel                     safety, performance, structural integrity,
                                              applying Buy America U.S. content
                                                                                                       economy results obtained during the                   fuel economy, emissions, and noise in
                                              requirements to all buses submitted for
                                                                                                       emissions test; and (3) revision to the               the existing 49 U.S.C. 5318(a), Section
                                              testing.
                                                                                                       payloading procedure to recognize the                 20014 also expanded 49 U.S.C. 5318(e)
                                              DATES: The effective date of this rule is                                                                      by adding three new requirements on
                                                                                                       manufacturer’s ‘‘standee’’ passenger
                                              October 31, 2016.                                        rating. The final rule does not add any               the use of Chapter 53 funding to acquire
                                              FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For                     new tests to the existing bus testing                 new bus models. The first is that new
                                              technical information, Michael Baltes,                   program—in fact, FTA is eliminating                   bus models must meet performance
                                              Director, Office of Infrastructure and                   two tests, the on-road fuel economy test,             standards for maintainability, reliability,
                                              Asset Innovation, Office of Research,                    as equivalent data could be derived                   performance (including braking
                                              Demonstration and Innovation (TRI),                      from the more accurate dynamometer                    performance), structural integrity, fuel
                                              (202) 366–2182, michael.baltes@dot.gov.                  testing, and the shakedown test, which                economy, emissions, and noise. The
                                              For legal information, Richard Wong,                     is considered redundant to the                        second is that new bus models acquired
                                              Office of the Chief Counsel (TCC), (202)                 structural durability test and no bus                 with Chapter 53 funds must meet the
                                              366–4011, richard.wong@dot.gov.                          models have historically failed this test.            minimum safety performance standards
                                              SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:                                  Because FTA provides financial                     established pursuant to section 5329(b).
                                                                                                       assistance to State and local agencies                The third is that the new bus model
                                              Table of Contents                                        operating public transportation systems,              must satisfy an overall pass/fail
                                              A. Executive Summary                                     covering up to eighty-five percent (85%)              standard based on the weighted
                                              B. Rulemaking Background                                 of a vehicle’s capital cost, while the                aggregate score derived from each of the
                                              C. Summary of Comments and Section-by-                   State or local government provides at                 existing test categories (maintainability,
                                                  Section Analysis                                     least fifteen percent (15%) matching                  reliability, safety, performance
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES




                                              D. Regulatory Analyses and Notices                       share, there is a strong incentive by FTA             (including braking performance),
                                              A. Executive Summary                                     and local agencies to ensure that those               structural integrity, fuel economy,
                                                                                                       funds are used effectively and                        emissions, and noise).
                                              Purpose                                                  efficiently. As part of its stewardship of               Today’s rule does not address the
                                                The purpose of this final rule is to                   those funds, Congress directed FTA in                 minimum safety performance standards
                                              implement minimum performance                            1987 to establish a bus testing program               for public transportation vehicles
                                              standards, a scoring system, and a pass/                 whereby new model buses would first                   required under 49 U.S.C.


                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:30 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00085   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM   01AUR1


                                              50368                      Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

                                              5318(e)(1)(B)(ii). FTA proposed a                                               • Require test model buses to identify                extending the bus testing requirement to
                                              National Public Transportation Safety                                        the country-of-origin for the                            remanufactured buses through today’s
                                              Plan (81 FR 6372, February 5, 2016),                                         components of the test vehicle to                        final rule. Given the growing investment
                                              pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(b), which                                         facilitate a transit agency’s ability to                 in Federal and local dollars in
                                              stated that the minimum safety                                               compare it with the actual production                    remanufactured buses, however, and the
                                              performance standards may eventually                                         model.                                                   emphasis on public transit safety in
                                              be the subject of rulemaking, proposed                                          • The replacement of the on-road fuel                 MAP–21, FTA believes that it is
                                              voluntary vehicle performance                                                economy test with the fuel economy                       responsible Federal stewardship to
                                              standards in the interim, and sought                                         testing already conducted during the                     ensure that remanufactured buses meet
                                              comment on four questions posed in the                                       emissions test on the chassis                            expectations for reliability and
                                              proposed Plan.                                                               dynamometer.                                             durability and will address
                                              Summary of Key Provisions                                                       Generally, FTA is adopting the test                   remanufactured buses in a subsequent
                                                                                                                           procedures that were proposed in the
                                                 Today’s rule is taking the following                                                                                               rulemaking action.
                                                                                                                           NPRM, although FTA, is making a small
                                              actions, the first of which is required by                                   number of changes to some test                           Summary of Benefits and Costs
                                              MAP–21 as part of the new ‘‘pass/fail’’                                      procedures as a result of comments
                                              requirement, and the remainder of                                            received in response to the NPRM. FTA                       Table 1 below summarizes the
                                              which are discretionary actions to                                           is adding a set of brake stops at gross                  potential benefits and costs of this rule
                                              strengthen the program:                                                      passenger load as part of the Braking                    that FTA was able to quantify over 10
                                                 • Establish testing procedures and                                        Test; measuring noise levels while                       years and using a 3 and 7 percent
                                              establish minimum performance                                                traversing road irregularities as part of                discount rate. Quantified costs stem
                                              standards, which are generally based                                         the Noise Test; and eliminating the                      from shipping buses to the testing
                                              upon the pre-MAP–21 tests, and a pass/
                                                                                                                           Shakedown Test and moving its single                     facility, manufacturer testing fees,
                                              fail scoring system for new bus models,
                                                                                                                           point score value into the Structural                    having repair personnel for bus
                                              with a minimum passing score of 60
                                                                                                                           Durability Test. Further, FTA is not                     manufacturers available at the testing
                                              points. A bus model could receive up to
                                                                                                                           adopting the proposal that the test unit                 site, new paperwork requirements, and
                                              an additional 40 points based on its
                                                                                                                           bus must be Buy America-compliant.                       increases to the resources needed to
                                              performance above the proposed
                                                                                                                           Instead, FTA only is requiring that the                  operate the bus testing program (which
                                              minimum performance standard in
                                                                                                                           manufacturer provide the country of                      represents most of the quantified costs).
                                              particular test categories. Buses would
                                                                                                                           origin for the test vehicle’s major                      Unquantified costs include remedial
                                              need to achieve at least a minimum
                                                                                                                           components, which FTA believes will                      actions to buses that do not pass the
                                              score in each category in order to pass
                                              the overall test and be eligible for                                         help transit agencies ensure that the                    proposed test (which may extend to all
                                              procurement using FTA financial                                              tested bus is similar to the bus the will                the buses in a model represented by the
                                              assistances.                                                                 be completed in production. In
                                                                                                                                                                                    tested bus) and potential improvements
                                                 • Establish check-in procedures,                                          addition, FTA is making a few non-
                                                                                                                                                                                    to buses to obtain a higher testing score.
                                              including FTA approval, for new bus                                          substantive amendments, replacing the
                                                                                                                           term ‘‘grantee’’ with ‘‘recipient’’ to bring             However, given that 41 of 49 buses
                                              models proposed for testing.                                                                                                          tested between January 2010 and
                                                 • Require transit vehicle                                                 it into conformity with standard FTA
                                                                                                                           usage, and cross-referencing FTA                         February 2013 would have satisfied the
                                              manufacturers to submit Disadvantaged                                                                                                 proposed performance standards
                                              Business Enterprise (DBE) goals to FTA                                       Circular 5010’s categorization of a
                                                                                                                           vehicle’s useful service life instead of                 without any design changes, FTA
                                              prior to scheduling a test.
                                                 • Determine a new bus model’s total                                       repeating it in the regulatory text.                     believes that the proposed requirements
                                              passenger load based on the                                                     The NPRM sought comment on                            would not drive systemic changes to all
                                              manufacturer’s maximum passenger                                             establishing testing procedures,                         transit bus models. Quantified benefits
                                              rating, including accommodations for                                         performance standards, and a scoring                     are from a reduction in unscheduled
                                              standees.                                                                    system for remanufactured vehicles sold                  maintenance costs. The total annual
                                                 • Establish a simulated passenger                                         by third-party vendors and procured                      program cost impact of this rule is
                                              weight of 150 lbs. for seated and                                            using FTA financial assistance. Based                    estimated to be $159,369. The total
                                              standing (standee) passengers, and a                                         on the comments received, FTA has                        annual program benefit is estimated to
                                              weight of 600 lbs. for passengers who                                        concluded that further consideration is                  be $531,990. The resulting cost and
                                              use wheelchairs.                                                             warranted, and therefore, is not                         benefits are presented in Table 1.
                                                                                                         TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED COSTS AND BENEFITS
                                                                                                                                                                                                     Discounted net benefits @
                                                                                        Year                                                    Costs                Benefits     Net cash flow
                                                                                                                                                                                                        3%              7%

                                              1 ...........................................................................................      $159,369              $531,990        $372,621         $361,768        $348,244
                                              2 ...........................................................................................       159,369               531,990         372,621          351,231         325,462
                                              3 ...........................................................................................       159,369               531,990         372,621          341,001         304,170
                                              4 ...........................................................................................       159,369               531,990         372,621          331,069         284,271
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES




                                              5 ...........................................................................................       159,369               531,990         372,621          321,426         265,674
                                              6 ...........................................................................................       159,369               531,990         372,621          312,064         248,293
                                              7 ...........................................................................................       159,369               531,990         372,621          302,975         232,050
                                              8 ...........................................................................................       159,369               531,990         372,621          294,150         216,869
                                              9 ...........................................................................................       159,369               531,990         372,621          285,583         202,681
                                              10 .........................................................................................        159,369               531,990         372,621          277,265         189,422




                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014          17:30 Jul 29, 2016        Jkt 238001        PO 00000        Frm 00086   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700    E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM   01AUR1


                                                                    Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations                                                                             50369

                                                                                     TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED COSTS AND BENEFITS—Continued
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Discounted net benefits @
                                                                                 Year                                                  Costs                    Benefits              Net cash flow
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    3%              7%

                                                   Net Present Value ........................................................   ........................   ........................   ........................     3,178,533       2,617,134



                                              B. Background                                                        This system remained in place for                                         The primary purpose of today’s rule is
                                                                                                                over twenty years. During the                                             to establish minimum performance
                                                 FTA’s grant programs, including those                          intervening period, however, a handful                                    standards, a new bus model scoring
                                              at 49 U.S.C. 5307, 5310, 5311 and 5339,                           of bus models that had documented                                         system, and a pass/fail standard. In
                                              assist transit agencies with procuring                            problems in their test reports were able                                  developing the proposals contained in
                                              buses. The Federal transit program                                to enter transit service, most notably, a                                 the NPRM, FTA engaged in extensive
                                              allows FTA to provide up to 85%                                   fleet of 226 articulated buses that one of                                discussions with transit industry
                                              funding for each bus. In 2013, for                                the Nation’s largest transit agencies                                     stakeholders through the use of public
                                              example, FTA funds assisted in the                                ordered in 2001. After paying $87.7M of                                   webinars, teleconferences, and
                                              procurement of 8,934 new vehicles, of                             the $102.1M contract, the transit agency                                  presentations at industry conferences.
                                              which approximately 5,600 buses and                               stopped payments in 2005 due to                                           Participants in these public outreach
                                              modified vans were covered under the                              unresolved problems concerning the                                        efforts included transit vehicle
                                              existing testing program. The testing                             suspension systems and structural                                         manufacturers, component suppliers,
                                              program has its origins in Section 317                            cracks around the articulation joint,                                     public transit agencies, State
                                              of the Surface Transportation and                                 near the axles, and in the rear door                                      departments of transportation, and Bus
                                              Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of                              header, triggering years of litigation. In                                Testing Facility personnel, and their
                                              1987 (STURAA, Pub. L. 100–17), which                              addition, in 2009, the transit agency                                     contributions were reflected in the
                                              provided that no funds appropriated or                            abruptly pulled all of these models from                                  aggregate scoring system and pass/fail
                                              made available under the Urban Mass                               service for safety concerns following a                                   criteria contained in the NPRM.
                                              Transportation Act of 1964, as amended,                           structural failure related to the                                            In addition to implementing the
                                              were to be obligated or expended for the                          articulation joint, resulting in lengthier                                statutory mandates, FTA proposed other
                                              acquisition of a new model bus after                              and more crowded commutes for                                             administrative changes that would
                                              September 30, 1989, unless a bus of                               thousands of transit riders. In May 2012,                                 adjust the passenger payloading process
                                              such model had been tested to ensure                              a local court ruled that the transit                                      to better reflect industry practice and
                                              that the vehicle ‘‘will be able to                                agency could sell the buses for scrap                                     ensure that buses tested at the facility
                                              withstand the rigors of transit service’’                         metal, a move that generated only $1.2M                                   comply with FTA Civil Rights and Buy
                                              (H. Rept. 100–27, p. 230). In subsection                          for vehicles that had served barely half                                  America requirements regarding
                                              317(b), Congress mandated seven                                   of their FTA-funded service lives.                                        disadvantaged business enterprises and
                                              specific test categories—maintainability,                            In 2012, MAP–21 amended 49 U.S.C.                                      domestic content, respectively.
                                              reliability, safety, performance,                                 5318 by adding new requirements to                                           Finally, FTA sought comment on
                                              structural integrity, fuel economy, and                           subsection 5318(e), Acquiring New Bus                                     establishing a bus testing requirement
                                              noise—augmenting those tests with the                             Models. Importantly, it shifted the                                       and scoring system for remanufactured
                                              addition of braking performance and                               program to one where recipients could                                     buses sold by third parties and procured
                                              emissions testing through section 6021                            only use FTA funding to procure buses                                     using FTA funds.
                                              of the Intermodal Surface                                         that passed FTA’s testing program,
                                              Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991                             which now included a bus model                                            C. Summary of Comments and Section-
                                              (Pub. L. 102–240). These requirements                             scoring system and a pass/fail standard                                   by-Section Analysis
                                              were subsequently codified at 49 U.S.C.                           based on the weighted aggregate score                                        FTA received a total of 22 comments
                                              5318.                                                             for each of the existing performance                                      in response to the NPRM, including
                                                 FTA issued its initial NPRM in May                             standards (maintainability, reliability,                                  comments from transit bus
                                              1989 (54 FR 22716, May 25, 1989) and                              performance (including braking                                            manufacturers, remanufacturers of
                                              an interim Final Rule three months later                          performance), structural integrity, fuel                                  transit buses, national and state transit
                                              (54 FR 35158, August 23, 1989),                                   economy, emissions, and noise).                                           associations, and transit agencies
                                              establishing a bus testing program that                              MAP–21 also amended section                                            procuring transit buses. FTA also
                                              submitted vehicles to seven statutorily-                          5318(e) to require that new bus models                                    received several comments from fire
                                              mandated tests resulting in a test report                         meet the minimum safety performance                                       safety advocates and component
                                              and requiring transit bus manufacturers                           standards to be established by the                                        manufacturers, who urged FTA to adopt
                                              to submit that completed test report to                           Secretary of Transportation pursuant to                                   fire safety standards for materials used
                                              transit agencies before FTA funds could                           49 U.S.C. 5329(b). In the recently-                                       in bus interiors, including bus seats,
                                              be expended to purchase those vehicles.                           proposed National Public                                                  which exceed Federal Motor Vehicle
                                              Although Congress did not authorize                               Transportation Safety Plan (81 FR 6372,                                   Safety Standard (FMVSS) 302. As noted
                                              FTA to withhold financial assistance for                          February 5, 2016), FTA proposed to                                        above, although Congress directed FTA
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES




                                              a vehicle based on the data contained in                          establish voluntary vehicle performance                                   to establish minimum safety
                                              a test report, FTA expected that the test                         standards as an interim measure,                                          performance standards for vehicles used
                                              report would provide accurate and                                 acknowledging that minimum safety                                         in public transportation in 49 U.S.C.
                                              reliable bus performance information to                           performance standards eventually may                                      5329(b), FTA has not yet initiated such
                                              transit authorities that could be used in                         be the subject of rulemaking, and sought                                  a rulemaking and those comments,
                                              their purchasing and operational                                  comment on four questions posed in the                                    however well-intentioned, are beyond
                                              decisions.                                                        proposed Plan.                                                            the scope of today’s regulatory action.


                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014     17:30 Jul 29, 2016     Jkt 238001     PO 00000      Frm 00087      Fmt 4700       Sfmt 4700       E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM               01AUR1


                                              50370              Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

                                                 Although today’s final rule contains                  free floor space).’’ to ‘‘the seated load             length of a tested bus model is
                                              much of what was proposed in the                         weight of the bus plus 150 pounds of                  considered a major change in
                                              NPRM, FTA is making some changes to                      ballast for each rated standee passenger,             configuration and could result in
                                              the test procedures as a result of                       up to and including, the maximum rated                additional testing.
                                              comments received in response to the                     standee passenger capacity identified on                With regard to the commenter who
                                              NPRM. FTA is adding a set of brake                       the bus interior bulkhead’’.                          sought clarification on the simulated
                                              stops at gross passenger load as part of                    FTA proposed changing the definition               passenger weight, FTA had proposed
                                              the Braking Test; measuring noise levels                 of Seated Load Weight from ‘‘Seated                   raising the weight from 150 pounds to
                                              while traversing road irregularities as                  load weight means the weight of the bus               175 pounds in a 2011 Federal Register
                                              part of the Noise Test; and eliminating                  plus driver, fuel, and seated passengers              Notice (76 FR 13580, March 14, 2011),
                                              the Shakedown Test and moving its                        simulated by adding 150 pounds of                     but that proposal was subsequently
                                              single point score value into the                        ballast to each seating position.’’ to ‘‘the          withdrawn (77 FR 76597, December 14,
                                              Structural Durability Test. Further, FTA                 curb weight of the bus plus seated                    2012).
                                              is removing the proposal that the test                   passengers simulated by adding 150                      Therefore, FTA is adopting this
                                              unit bus be Buy America-compliant, and                   pounds of ballast to each seating                     section in the final rule without change.
                                              instead, is only requiring the                           position and 600 pounds per wheelchair                Remanufactured Buses
                                              manufacturer to provide the country of                   position.’’ This 600 pound figure is
                                                                                                       based on the minimum load-bearing                        FTA also posed a series of questions
                                              origin for the test vehicle’s major
                                                                                                       capacity for wheelchair lifts and ramps               seeking comment on whether
                                              components, which FTA believes will
                                                                                                       in the USDOT’s accessible bus                         remanufactured buses (i.e., previously
                                              help transit agencies ensure that the
                                                                                                       specifications at 49 CFR 38.23(b)(1) and              owned buses that have undergone
                                              tested bus is similar to the bus that will
                                                                                                       (c)(1).                                               substantial structural, mechanical,
                                              be produced and delivered. In addition,
                                                                                                          Comments Received: FTA received                    electrical, and/or cosmetic rebuilding
                                              FTA is making a few non-substantive
                                                                                                       two comments on this section. One                     and are sold to a transit agency other
                                              technical amendments, replacing the                                                                            than the vehicle’s original owner)
                                              term ‘‘grantee’’ with ‘‘recipient’’ to bring             commenter suggested that buses be
                                                                                                       tested at their maximum Gross Vehicle                 should be subject to the bus testing
                                              it into conformity with standard FTA                                                                           requirement. As FTA explained in the
                                              usage, and cross-referencing FTA                         Weight Rating (GVWR) and Gross Axle
                                                                                                       Weight Rating (GAWR), and that loading                NPRM, FTA had not previously
                                              Circular 5010’s categorization of a                                                                            extended the testing requirements to
                                              vehicle’s useful service life instead of                 a bus based on the number of seated and
                                                                                                       standing passengers (using a simulated                these types of buses because, until
                                              repeating it in the regulatory text.                                                                           recently, transit agencies were only
                                                                                                       weight of 150 pounds for each passenger
                                              Section 665.1 Purpose                                    and 600 pounds for each wheelchair                    rebuilding their existing buses as part of
                                                                                                       location) would not accurately reflect a              their fleet maintenance. However, FTA
                                                FTA proposed to amend the purpose
                                                                                                       fully loaded bus or actual operating                  is aware that remanufactured buses are
                                              of the regulation to reflect a new pass/
                                                                                                       conditions. The other commenter sought                now being offered by third-parties to
                                              fail test and scoring system.
                                                Comments Received: FTA did not                         clarification about the simulated                     transit agencies as a less expensive
                                              receive any comments on this section.                    passenger payload of 150 pounds per                   alternative to acquiring new buses. FTA
                                                Agency Response: FTA is including                      person, believing that FTA had raised it              therefore is concerned that these models
                                              this section in the final rule without                   to 175 pounds in a previous regulatory                could be introduced as de facto new
                                              change.                                                  action.                                               buses or purchased in lieu of new buses,
                                                                                                          Agency Response: FTA does not                      without having to go through the same
                                              Section 665.3 Scope                                      support testing a bus at its maximum                  testing requirements as a new bus
                                                FTA proposed no changes, as the                        GVWR and GAWR for several reasons.                    model. However, because FTA had
                                              requirements of this part continue to                    First, unlike trucks that transport cargo             various questions about how to apply
                                              apply to recipients of Federal financial                 and axle loads that must be monitored,                the bus testing program to this category
                                              assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.                   buses transport people and are loaded                 of vehicles, FTA sought comment
                                                Comments Received: FTA did not                         based on the number of available seat/                through the NPRM.
                                              receive any comments on this section.                    wheelchair positions and the amount of                   One manufacturer of new transit
                                                Agency Response: FTA is including                      open floor space where standees are                   buses, one transit agency, one trade
                                              this section in the final rule without                   allowed by the bus operator, regardless               association, and two bus
                                              change.                                                  of the vehicle’s weight ratings. Second,              remanufacturers submitted comments,
                                                                                                       in actual transit use, the capacity of a              all of whom agreed that remanufactured
                                              Section 665.5 Definitions                                transit bus is not based on the vehicle’s             buses need to meet safety and durability
                                                 FTA proposed changing the definition                  GVWR or GAWR limit, but rather, on                    requirements, but disagreeing on the
                                              of Curb Weight from ‘‘Curb weight                        the vehicle’s actual passenger capacity.              preferred method. The manufacturer of
                                              means the weight of the empty, ready-                    FTA will allow bus manufacturers to                   new buses supported the standardized
                                              to-operate bus plus driver and fuel.’’ to                request that the bus be loaded up to its              testing of remanufactured buses,
                                              ‘‘Curb weight means the weight of the                    maximum weight rating when the                        believing that ‘‘remanufactured buses
                                              bus including maximum fuel, oil, and                     resulting gross vehicle weight at the                 should undergo the same rigorous
                                              coolant; but without passengers or                       manufacturer’s rated passenger load is                testing that new buses and coaches must
                                              driver.’’                                                less than the GVWR to allow the                       meet in order to ensure their safety and
                                                 FTA proposed changing the definition                  manufacturer the flexibility to adjust the            reliability,’’ recommending that the final
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES




                                              of Gross Weight from ‘‘Gross weight,                     seating layouts up to the full weight                 rule include provisions that ensure that
                                              also gross vehicle weight, means the                     capacity of the bus model. If a bus’s                 the original bus manufacturer is not
                                              curb weight of the bus plus passengers                   advertised passenger capacity is well                 referenced in a test report to limit
                                              simulated by adding 150 pounds of                        below its weight ratings, a manufacturer              confusion and to prevent a company
                                              ballast to each seating position and 150                 may not increase the length of the                    from selling remanufactured vehicles
                                              pounds for each standing position                        vehicle to accommodate additional                     using the original bus manufacturer’s
                                              (assumed to be each 1.5 square feet of                   passengers because an increase in the                 name for marketing purposes. In


                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:30 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00088   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM   01AUR1


                                                                 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations                                           50371

                                              contrast, the remanufacturers said their                 and Final-Stage Manufacturers of                      be documented by the TVM during the
                                              vehicles already undergo extensive                       Vehicle Manufactured in Two or More                   test scheduling process—these would
                                              testing and analysis before, during, and                 Stages. Bus models would also need to                 include the vehicle shell, axles, brakes,
                                              after the remanufacturing process to                     identify the maximum rated quantity of                propulsion power system and auxiliary
                                              ensure the vehicles’ safety and                          standee passengers identified on the                  power systems (engine, transmission,
                                              durability, and that additional testing at               interior bulkhead in 2 inch tall or                   traction batteries, electric motor(s), fuel
                                              Altoona would be ineffective and                         greater characters; be capable of                     cell(s)), and the primary energy storage
                                              redundant.                                               negotiating the Durability Test course at             and delivery systems (fuel tanks, fuel
                                                 FTA is also aware that procuring                      the requisite test speed under all                    injectors & manifolds, and the fuel
                                              remanufactured buses is being                            conditions of loading (curb weight,                   injection electronic control unit).
                                              advertised in trade magazines and at                     SLW, and GVW); and be capable of                         This is a modification from the
                                              trade shows as a less expensive                          following the test duty cycles used for               NPRM, which proposed that all buses
                                              alternative to procuring a newly built                   Fuel Economy and Emissions Tests                      submitted for testing meet the domestic
                                              bus, and submitting both new and                         within the test procedure for allowable               content requirements of the FTA Buy
                                              remanufactured vehicles to the same                      speed deviation. Lastly, FTA proposed                 America regulation. The primary focus
                                              testing program could place both on an                   that bus models submitted would need                  of the proposal was to ensure that the
                                              equal footing and ensure the safety and                  to satisfy the domestic content                       design configuration of the test unit bus
                                              reliability of each. Furthermore, the                    requirements for rolling stock in 49 CFR              matched subsequent production units.
                                              national trade association’s comments                    part 661, Buy America Requirements.                   However, commenters made FTA aware
                                              noted some issues within the trucking                       FTA also proposed a technical                      that the test unit bus may not be fully
                                              industry related to remanufactured                       amendment to section 665.11(g)                        representative of all production units,
                                              equipment that could compromise                          reflecting the addition of Appendix B to              and that grantees have the ability to
                                              safety and reliability of vehicles. Given                this part, resulting in the relabeling of             specify changes in a production unit’s
                                              Congressional direction in MAP–21 to                     the former appendix as the new                        components and configuration. These
                                              augment FTA’s safety responsibilities                    ‘‘Appendix A.’’                                       changes may subject the bus to
                                              and to strengthen the bus testing                           Comments Received: FTA received
                                                                                                                                                             additional testing, but that is a decision
                                              program through today’s regulatory                       multiple comments on this section. One
                                                                                                                                                             that the purchaser must knowingly
                                              changes, FTA believes the subject of                     commenter supported applying the
                                                                                                                                                             make. In addition, bus models delivered
                                              remanufactured buses should undergo                      Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
                                                                                                                                                             for testing do not always include all of
                                              further review and consideration and                     (DBE) and Buy America requirement to
                                                                                                                                                             the ancillary systems (seats, wheelchair
                                              will address the subject in a later                      bus models submitted for testing, stating
                                                                                                                                                             tie-downs, passenger information
                                              rulemaking.                                              that an inspection of a vehicle’s
                                                                                                       domestic content prior to introducing a               systems, etc.) that may well be part of
                                              Section 665.7 Certification of                           new foreign bus model is vital to                     the domestic content calculation of a
                                              Compliance                                               preserve the integrity and reliability of             particular bus procurement but these
                                                                                                       the testing program and provides a level              systems are not evaluated by the bus
                                                FTA proposed to amend this section
                                                                                                       playing field among competitors, noting               testing program, nor are they required in
                                              to reflect that the recipient must certify
                                                                                                       the importance of the test unit matching              order for the vehicle to under testing.
                                              that a bus has received a passing test
                                                                                                       the composition of subsequent                         Finally, changes in, or the inclusion of,
                                              score, but acknowledging that parties
                                                                                                       production units. Another commenter                   components may also alter a production
                                              may seek assistance from FTA,
                                                                                                       indicated that documentation of the                   vehicle’s domestic content, and
                                              consistent with FTA’s role in reviewing
                                                                                                       vehicle’s domestic content will assist                documenting the test unit vehicle’s
                                              partial testing requests as described in
                                                                                                       future purchasers to assess the impact                domestic content in a permanent test
                                              section 665.11(d). FTA is also removing
                                                                                                       that changes in components could have                 report may give a false indication of a
                                              the term ‘‘Grantee’’ from the section
                                                                                                       on a vehicle’s Buy America compliance.                vehicle’s Buy America content. FTA
                                              heading and throughout this part, as
                                                                                                       In contrast, several commenters                       acknowledges that the pre-award and
                                              FTA now uses the term ‘‘recipient.’’
                                                Comments Received: FTA did not                         opposed the Buy America content                       post-delivery audits required by 49
                                              receive any comments on this section.                    proposal—two noted that the buses                     U.S.C. 5323(m) and 49 CFR part 663 are
                                                Agency Response: FTA is including                      submitted for testing are typically the               the only acceptable confirmation of a
                                              this section in the final rule without                   private property of the bus manufacturer              vehicle’s Buy America compliance and
                                              change.                                                  and are not being procured with FTA                   for that reason, TVMs will not be
                                                                                                       funds, with FTA funding serving as a                  required to document a vehicle’s
                                              Section 665.11 Testing Requirements                                                                            compliance with Buy America during
                                                                                                       determinant of Buy America
                                                FTA proposed new entrance                              applicability. Another commenter                      the check-in process.
                                              requirements for a bus to enter the bus                  indicated that the requirement will                      However, because the primary
                                              testing program. Before submitting a                     discourage innovation by locking buses                objective of the proposed requirement
                                              new bus model for testing, the transit                   into a particular configuration and                   was to ensure that the design
                                              vehicle manufacturer (TVM) would                         leaving no leeway for the introduction                configuration of the test unit bus
                                              have to submit its disadvantaged                         of new technologies. Another                          (structure design and materials, axles
                                              business enterprise (DBE) goals to FTA                   commenter requested that FTA consider                 and brakes, and propulsion system and
                                              consistent with the Department’s DBE                     alternative bus service life categories               fuel systems) was representative of the
                                              regulations in 49 CFR part 26. Test                      that account for the risk to grantees that            production unit buses that would be
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES




                                              model buses would also need to comply                    procure new technology vehicles.                      delivered to FTA grantees, FTA is
                                              with applicable FMVSS requirements in                       Agency Response: FTA is eliminating                requiring TVMs to provide information
                                              49 CFR part 566, Manufacturer                            the proposed Buy America content                      concerning the source of essential
                                              Identification; 49 CFR part 567,                         requirement from section 665.11(a)(5) in              vehicle components so that purchasers
                                              Certification; and 49 CFR part 568,                      the final rule. Instead, FTA will require             will have an effective means of
                                              Vehicle Manufactured in Two or More                      that the manufacturing country of origin              comparing the test unit bus against the
                                              Stages—All Incomplete, Intermediate                      for the test vehicle’s major components               specific vehicle they intend to procure.


                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:30 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00089   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM   01AUR1


                                              50372              Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

                                                Lastly, to acknowledge the broader                     component, may require additional time                Appendix A into section 665.27 and
                                              applicability of FTA’s service life                      to review the specific design and                     assigning performance standards to each
                                              categories other than simply as a means                  engineering changes proposed and                      of the test categories as MAP–21
                                              of determining a vehicle’s testing                       provide a final response.                             requires. FTA proposed amending the
                                              procedure, FTA is removing the list of                                                                         Performance Test category by removing
                                                                                                       Section 665.23 Fees                                   the language regarding the Braking
                                              vehicle service life categories in section
                                              665.11(e) and will instead incorporate                      FTA proposed that the manufacturer’s               Performance Test and moving it into the
                                              the service life categories contained in                 share of the test fee would be expended               Safety Test category. FTA also proposed
                                              FTA’s Circular 5010.1.                                   first during the testing procedure and                adding the requirement for a review of
                                                                                                       that the Bus Testing Facility operator                the Class 1 failures documented in the
                                              Section 665.13 Test Report and                           would obtain approval from FTA prior                  Reliability Test category to the Safety
                                              Manufacturer Certification                               to committing FTA program funds.                      Test category.
                                                FTA proposed adding language to this                      Comments Received: FTA did not                       Comments Received and Agency
                                              section that would require the Bus                       receive any comments on this section.                 Response: FTA received numerous
                                              Testing Facility operator to score the                      Agency Response: FTA is including                  comments on this section. One
                                              test results using the performance                       this section in the final rule without                commenter asked how many days FTA
                                              standards and scoring system outlined                    change.                                               would need to perform the test
                                              in Appendix A of this part. FTA also                                                                           readiness review and issue a decision
                                                                                                       Section 665.25 Transportation of
                                              proposed that the Bus Testing Facility                                                                         regarding the start of testing. The other
                                                                                                       Vehicle
                                              operator obtain approval of the Bus                                                                            comments on this section were
                                              Testing Report by the bus manufacturer                     FTA did not propose any changes.                    pertaining to the specific tests and the
                                              and by FTA prior to its release and                        Comments Received: FTA did not                      proposed performance standards, which
                                              publication. Finally, FTA proposed that                  receive any comments on this section.                 are summarized as follows:
                                              the Bus Testing Facility operator make                     Agency Response: FTA is including
                                                                                                       this section in the final rule without                Structural Integrity
                                              the test results available electronically
                                              to supplement the printed copies.                        change.                                                  There were nine comments on the
                                                Comments Received: FTA did not                                                                               Structural Integrity test category and the
                                                                                                       Section 665.27 Procedures During
                                              receive any comments on this section.                                                                          associated performance standards. In
                                                                                                       Testing
                                                Agency Response: FTA is including                                                                            response to comments, several
                                              this section in the final rule without                      FTA proposed additional language for               refinements were applied to the final
                                              change.                                                  this section to require the Bus Testing               rule.
                                                                                                       Facility operator to inspect the bus                     FTA received two comments
                                              Section 665.21 Scheduling                                model configuration upon arrival to                   concerning the Shakedown test and
                                                 FTA proposed that all requests for                    compare it to that submitted in the test              performance standard, with one
                                              testing, including requests for full or                  request; to compare the gross vehicle                 recommending a maximum deflection of
                                              partial testing, be submitted to the FTA                 weight and gross axle weights to the                  0.100 inch to account for the floor load
                                              Bus Testing Program Manager prior to                     ratings on the bus; to determine if the               of a passenger on a wheeled mobility
                                              scheduling with the Bus Testing Facility                 bus model can negotiate the test track                device, the second challenging the
                                              operator. All test requests would                        and maintain proper test speed over the               relevance of the test and considering it
                                              provide: a detailed description of the                   durability, fuel economy and emission                 to be redundant with the test track
                                              new bus model to be tested, the service                  drive cycles; and to provide these                    durability test. The Shakedown test in
                                              life category of the bus, engineering                    results to the bus manufacturer and FTA               section 665.27(h)(5)(i)(1) has been
                                              level documentation characterizing all                   prior to conducting testing using FTA                 eliminated as FTA believes that this test
                                              major changes to the bus model, and                      program funds.                                        is a legacy test procedure that pre-dates
                                              documentation that demonstrates                             FTA also proposed additional                       the bus testing program and provided a
                                              satisfaction of each one of the testing                  language to require the Bus Testing                   means to verify a level of structural
                                              requirements outlined in section                         Facility operator to investigate each                 integrity at a transit agency facility in
                                              665.11(a). FTA would review the test                     occurrence of unsupervised                            lieu of performing a test track durability
                                              request and determine if the bus model                   maintenance and assess the impact on                  test. Any incremental value provided by
                                              is eligible for testing and which tests                  the validity of the test results and to               the Shakedown test in light of the
                                              need to be performed. FTA would                          repeat any impacted test results at the               Structural Durability test performed on
                                              prepare a written response to the                        manufacturer’s expense. FTA also                      the test track is not apparent.
                                              requester for use in scheduling the                      proposed language to address                             One commenter inquired whether the
                                              required testing with the Bus Testing                    modifications to bus models undergoing                Dynamic Towing test would capture any
                                              Facility operator.                                       testing. Specifically, FTA proposed that              structural or other types of failures
                                                 Comments Received: FTA received                       the Bus Testing Facility operator                     throughout the bus and if the test was
                                              two comments on this section. Both                       perform or supervise and document the                 performed in a stop-and-go manner
                                              comments asked FTA to commit to a                        performance of bus modifications only                 including the negotiation of turns. FTA
                                              maximum amount of time to review the                     after the modifications have been                     is not making any changes to section
                                              test requests and provide a response to                  reviewed and approved by FTA. The                     665.27(h)(5)(i)(4) regarding the Dynamic
                                              the requester.                                           language also stated that testing would               Towing test and performance standard.
                                                 Agency Response: FTA will commit to                   be halted after the occurrence of                     The Dynamic Towing test is a
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES




                                              reviewing the test request and providing                 unsupervised bus modifications and the                demonstration that the bus can be safely
                                              an initial response within five business                 Bus Testing Facility operator would not               and effectively towed by a common
                                              days. Some requests, particularly                        resume testing until FTA has issued a                 heavy duty vehicle tow truck, without
                                              requests for partial testing of a bus                    determination regarding the                           regard to operational usage or
                                              model that has undergone the testing                     modifications.                                        negotiation of turns. The test, however,
                                              process but is subsequently produced                        In addition, FTA proposed moving                   does induce unique loads into the bus
                                              with a change in configuration or                        the listing of test categories from                   structure and on the rear axle of the bus,


                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:30 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00090   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM   01AUR1


                                                                 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations                                           50373

                                              as the five-mile towing distance                         structure modeling techniques, and                    alter existing test data in the Bus Testing
                                              performed during the test is continuous                  suggested that FTA allow the durability               Report. While the scope of the
                                              around the paved test loop.                              test to continue after a durability                   powertrain durability performance
                                                 One commenter questioned the                          performance standard failure so that                  standard casts a wider net than the
                                              relevance of the Jacking test and                        testing can progress while the bus                    partial testing policy for powertrain
                                              recommend that FTA seek the input of                     manufacturer prepares the design                      changes, bus manufacturers will be
                                              transit operators. FTA is not revising                   remedy.                                               allowed to substitute minor powertrain
                                              section 665.27(h)(5)(i)(5), the Jacking                     To clarify, then, for the structural               components not currently tracked by the
                                              test. FTA believes that this test remains                durability performance standard, any                  current partial testing policy if a
                                              relevant, that a bus model that fails to                 discontinuity (e.g., cracking,                        credible analysis is provided that
                                              meet the performance standard could be                   deformation, or separation) that                      demonstrates the component
                                              a significant operational problem for                    develops during the test in any of the                substitution is durable in a transit
                                              transit operators, and that the time and                 bus material elements that are                        service environment and that secondary
                                              cost burdens of conducting the test are                  permanently affixed, through welding or               failures of the primary powertrain
                                              minimal.                                                 other bonding methods including non-                  components are not induced if the
                                                 Another commenter suggested that                      serviceable fasteners such as rivets,                 substituted component fails. FTA does
                                              FTA consider evaluating the corrosion                    whose function is to bear the weight of               not believe that the supply of
                                              resistance of bus models during the                      the vehicle or the weight of the                      aftermarket parts available to transit
                                              structural durability test. One                          passengers, or maintain the physical                  operator for maintaining their buses will
                                              commenter offered a proposal to                          geometry of other load bearing elements               be negatively affected by the powertrain
                                              evaluate the corrosion resistance of new                 and openings in the bus body, or that                 durability performance standard. FTA
                                              bus models. FTA considered this                          secure and retain other non-bonded bus                only requires that the buses remain in
                                              proposal and believes that this non-                     body components will be considered a                  service for at least their designated
                                              testing based evaluation does not                        failure to meet this performance                      service life. Grantees do not have to
                                              provide sufficient technical analysis on                 standard. Material discontinuities that               maintain the original design
                                              which to base a score, in addition to                    develop during the test in the main                   configuration throughout a vehicle’s
                                              being outside the scope of this                          frame rails and the frame cross-members               service life and may replace
                                              rulemaking.                                              on body-on-frame bus models will also                 components and major subsystems over
                                                 One commenter proposed that FTA to                    be considered a failure of the structural             the vehicle’s lifespan.
                                              make bus models available to                             durability performance standard. For                     Commenters also sought clarification
                                              component suppliers to use for partial                   the powertrain durability performance                 regarding the inclusion of electric bus
                                              testing programs to enable the                           standard, all malfunctions of bus                     model off-board charging equipment in
                                              development of robust aftermarket                        powertrain system will be classified as               the powertrain durability performance
                                              components and new technology                            a failure of the powertrain durability                standard. Currently, all battery bus
                                              subsystems. While this is an interesting                 performance standard until remedied                   chargers are unique to the bus models.
                                              proposal, this is also outside the scope                 and validated. Structural failures of the             If the charging system fails to perform,
                                              of today’s rulemaking and FTA would                      powertrain components, including any                  the bus can only operate on the
                                              need a significant increase in funding in                associated bracketry, mounts, cradles,                remaining charge. For bus fleets that
                                              order to acquire and maintain a fleet of                 and fasteners used to physically attach               employ bus models designed for
                                              buses to serve as platforms for the                      the components to the bus body or                     overnight charging, FTA assumes that
                                              testing of new components and                            frame are also considered a failure of the            more than one battery charger will be
                                              technologies.                                            powertrain durability performance                     available at the bus depot, providing a
                                                                                                       standard.                                             charging system redundancy that can be
                                              Structural Integrity—Durability
                                                                                                          If the Durability test reveals a                   leveraged to maintain bus operations.
                                                 There were several comments                           durability performance standard failure,              These battery chargers would not be
                                              requesting clarification on the                          the structural durability test will be                considered as part of the vehicle’s
                                              implications of the proposed durability                  paused awaiting a proposed design                     powertrain. For bus models designed
                                              performance standards and suggestions                    remedy from the bus manufacturer. FTA                 specifically for on-route charging, the
                                              for alternatives methods for evaluating                  will review the proposed remedy and                   off-board charging system and the on-
                                              both structural and powertrain                           provide a response to the proposed                    board charging system interfaces are
                                              durability of new bus models,                            design remedy within five business                    considered part of the bus powertrain.
                                              components, and subsystems.                              days. The intent of the FTA review is to              Additionally, since all bus charging
                                                 First, FTA was asked to clarify the                   evaluate that the proposed design                     systems are unique, all electric bus
                                              types of failures that invoke a failure to               modification is relevant to the failure               models are subject to the testing
                                              meet the durability performance                          mode and that it is suitable for                      requirement. The Bus Testing Facility
                                              standard and the process for resolving                   production.                                           operator provides access to a high
                                              those failures. The commenter wanted                        FTA will employ the existing partial               voltage source for the battery charger,
                                              to know if there were certain types of                   testing policy for powertrain changes or              while the TVM or component vendor is
                                              failures that would automatically trigger                updates to new bus models that are                    expected to provide the battery charger
                                              a test restart, if FTA could commit to a                 subject to the Pass/Fail rule. Currently,             with the bus model to be tested. Once
                                              response time to provide feedback about                  FTA focuses on the engine, transmission               battery charging systems for buses
                                              the proposed design remedy to resolve                    fuel system, and drive axle to assess if              become standardized, FTA will pursue
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES




                                              a durability failure. The commenter                      partial testing is needed. Once each of               their installation at the test site.
                                              proposed that FTA consider not                           these new components has been tested                     Various commenters also proposed
                                              requiring a mile-for-mile validation of                  in a bus, FTA allows their use in                     alternative durability tests. First, one
                                              structural durability failures that are not              subsequent bus models without                         commenter proposed the use of a risk
                                              Class 1 or Class 2 level reliability                     additional testing based on FTA’s                     assessment and field monitoring process
                                              failures through the use of stress and                   experience that the replacement of these              for the introduction of new bus
                                              strain measurements and common                           components is not likely to significantly             technologies on an existing bus model


                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:30 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00091   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM   01AUR1


                                              50374              Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

                                              as a substitute for performing partial                   standards for wheeled mobility device                 performance standard will be assessed
                                              testing. While this concept has some                     securement devices.                                   using the test results with the bus
                                              merit, it would not satisfy the current                     One recommended that the                           loaded to seated load weight as was
                                              legislative mandate to conduct actual                    acceleration test be inserted into the                proposed in the NPRM.
                                              testing and additional program                           Safety test category and that FTA adopt
                                                                                                       performance standards for mobility aid                Reliability
                                              resources would need to be made
                                              available in order to execute this type of               securement devices. The suggestion to                    One comment to the Reliability test
                                              program. Another commenter requested                     move the acceleration test into the                   category and proposed performance
                                              that FTA reduce the amount of                            Safety test category is not being adopted             standard recommended that flat tire
                                              additional test mileage required to                      because FTA believes this test is more                incidents not be counted as a test
                                              validate a design modification in the                    pertinent to the vehicle’s performance,               failure, as flat tires are commonly
                                              event of a failure to meet the durability                rather than affecting the vehicle’s safety.           caused by road debris and not by bus
                                              performance standard. This commenter                        Additional commenters sought                       design.
                                              suggested a combination of stress and                    clarification on the definition of Class 1               FTA does not agree with the
                                              strain measurements and analytical                       failures. With regard to the commenter                commenter’s suggestion to ignore the
                                              models to be used to validate that the                   who sought clarification on whether                   occurrence of flat tires during the test
                                              probability of the stress induced                        structural failures should be addressed               and not count them against the
                                              structural discontinuities in the bus                    as hazards, FTA considers the following               Reliability performance standard. Flat
                                              have been reduced or eliminated with                     types of test incidents as Class 1                    tires that are the result of a physical
                                              the new design. FTA considered the                       reliability failures resulting in a failure           interference or structural problem will
                                              merits of this proposal and has decided                  to satisfy the hazards performance                    need to be addressed and resolved prior
                                              that in cases where there is not enough                  standard: (1) the loss or degradation of              to test completion, but flat tires due to
                                              remaining mileage in a test procedure to                 the obstacle avoidance capability                     the presence of debris on the test track
                                              validate the design change on an actual                  (braking, steering, & acceleration/speed              will not be documented in the test
                                              mileage basis, FTA will consider the                     control) of the bus due to a component                report.
                                              manufacturer’s efforts to characterize                   malfunction. For example, a loss of
                                                                                                       power steering is considered a Class 1                Noise
                                              the material stresses through
                                              measurements, analyses, and other                        reliability failure due to the expected                  Two comments to the Noise test
                                              engineering work to determine an                         increase in the force required to turn the            category and proposed performance
                                              adequate test distance to validate the                   steering wheel, reducing the rate of                  standards were offered. The first
                                              analysis and the proposed design                         directional change a driver can effect                requested clarification as to how the
                                              remedy.                                                  into the bus and compromising its                     performance applied to electric bus
                                                                                                       ability to avoid an obstacle; (2) the                 charging systems. The second suggested
                                              Safety                                                   occurrence of a fire or the potential for             that the noise levels, while traversing a
                                                 There were multiple comments                          a fire (e.g. fuel leak in the presence of             fixed object, such as a speed bump, be
                                              related to the Safety test category. Seven               an ignition source, electrical short                  measured during the noise test.
                                              commenters recommended that FTA                          circuit, leaks of other flammable fluids                 FTA will accommodate the request to
                                              consider heightened standards with                       near an ignition or heat source); (3)                 measure noise levels while the bus
                                              respect to the flammability of interior                  major structural failures that can induce             traverses road irregularities, as the
                                              materials to address the inadequacies of                 conditions (1) or (2) above, or lead to a             current audible vibration test is
                                              Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard                    physical compromise of the passenger                  conducted over the road while
                                              (FMVSS) 302. Although establishing fire                  compartment (an unintended exposure                   travelling from the test track to the main
                                              safety standards for bus testing program                 to the outside environment or physical                maintenance shop area in Altoona. In
                                              is outside the scope of the NPRM, FTA                    trauma to a passenger) or degrades the                addition to the over the road segment
                                              reviewed the large number of vehicle                     ability of a passenger to exit the bus.               this general interior noise test will be
                                              interior fire safety information                            Regarding the proposed testing and                 conducted on the test track. However,
                                              submitted by various commenters. FTA                     performance standards for Braking, one                there is no minimum performance
                                              notes that updating FMVSS 302 is not                     commenter recommended the                             standard or scoring associated with this
                                              within FTA’s regulatory authority and                    elimination of the brake stopping                     test, and noise testing of an electric bus
                                              suggests that commenters direct their                    distance test and the use of FMVSS                    will not be conducted while it is being
                                              comments to the National Highway                         certification testing results. Another                charged, as it is not directly related to
                                              Traffic Safety Administration, the U.S.                  commenter recommended that the buses                  the vehicle’s durability or performance.
                                              DOT mode responsible for maintaining                     be weighted to the maximum gross
                                              the FMVSS.                                               passenger load for the braking test, and              Performance
                                                 Another commenter suggested that                      another asked FTA to establish                          Two similar comments on the
                                              FTA establish a requirement for the use                  additional brake performance                          Performance test category and
                                              of collision avoidance systems in transit                requirements for stopping on a grade.                 performance standard suggested that
                                              buses, while another recommended that                    The commenter’s suggestion to                         FTA conduct the tests in this test
                                              FTA establish crashworthiness test                       eliminate the stopping distance test was              category at a fully-weighted or gross
                                              standards for buses. The commenter’s                     not accommodated, as a braking                        passenger load.
                                              recommendation to establish safety                       performance test is required by statute,                With regard to the suggestion to
                                              performance standards to require                         and FMVSS compliance is based on                      conduct acceleration and gradeability
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES




                                              collision avoidance systems and                          self-certification, whereas FTA’s is                  tests at the maximum gross passenger
                                              crumple zone or other crashworthiness                    based on actual test data. FTA is                     load, current tests are conducted at a
                                              standards on transit buses are not                       adopting the suggestion to conduct the                seated passenger load and there is no
                                              within the scope of the NPRM, as is the                  stopping distance test at a full passenger            technical basis to conduct additional
                                              proposal to establish braking standards                  load by conducting an additional set of               test runs. However, expected
                                              for emergency stops on a grade and the                   brake stops at gross passenger load.                  performance standards for acceleration
                                              recommendation to adopt performance                      However, the stopping distance                        and gradeability can be extrapolated


                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:30 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00092   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM   01AUR1


                                                                 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations                                                  50375

                                              using the results from the seated                        determinative factor in a competitive                 equivalent (MPGe) scale developed by
                                              passenger load test runs.                                procurement is not required. Grantees                 the Environmental Protection Agency
                                                For the check-in procedures outlined                   may use their own specified selection                 (EPA) for light duty vehicles 1 and
                                              in section 665.27(b), FTA has revised                    criteria, so long as the selected bus                 adjusted to the diesel fuel energy
                                              the language to provide FTA five                         model received a passing test score.                  equivalent, was considered. The MPGe
                                              business days to review the results from                 Grantees are allowed to establish                     scale expresses the fuel economy of all
                                              the procedure outlined in 665.27(a) and                  evaluation criteria more stringent than               other vehicle fuel types in terms of the
                                              provide a decision to either start the test              those used in FTA’s testing program or                energy equivalent of a gallon of
                                              or to request clarification about the                    to use an alternative weighting for the               gasoline. This methodology examines
                                              results of that review. To prevent                       scoring of the test results, provided that            the efficiency of each vehicle’s energy to
                                              administrative test delays, the Bus                      those criteria do not violate FTA’s                   power conversion from the fuel tank to
                                              Testing Facility operator has the                        requirement for full and open                         the wheels but does not account for the
                                              authority to commence specific tests                     competition (See 49 U.S.C. 5323(a)).                  efficiency of producing and delivering
                                              where FTA does not provide a response                       Based on comments that the                         the fuel to the vehicle.
                                              within five business days and the                        Shakedown test is redundant in light of                  FTA strongly believes that given the
                                              performance of those tests is not                        the broader Structural Durability test,               wide range of fuel types available in the
                                              dependent on FTA’s determination.                        FTA is eliminating the Shakedown test                 transit bus marketplace, the best and
                                                                                                       and moving the base points (1.0)                      most commonly cited scoring metric for
                                              Appendix A to Part 665—Bus Model
                                                                                                       associated with the test into the                     fuel economy is fuel cost per operating
                                              Scoring System and the Pass/Fail
                                                                                                       Structural Durability test category,                  mile. However, due to the volatility of
                                              Standard
                                                                                                       increasing the value of the later test                fuel prices, regional fuel price variances,
                                                FTA proposed adding tables as                          from 12.0 to 13.0 points. Regarding the               and the variance in the availability of
                                              Appendix A to graphically illustrate the                 comments requesting modification of                   various fuels, establishing a
                                              new Bus Model Scoring System and the                     the Fuel Economy test procedure to                    standardized baseline for fuel economy
                                              Pass/Fail Standard.                                      reflect the effect of HVAC operation on               test results based on fuel cost per
                                              Comments Received                                        fuel consumption, neither the existing                operating mile is inherently problematic
                                                                                                       test track test procedure nor the                     for inclusion in the rule.
                                                 Four commenters expressed a concern                   dynamometer procedures are capable to                    FTA examined the use of MPGde for
                                              that the aggregate score will encourage                  testing the effects of various HVAC                   the scoring of the fuel economy test
                                              grantees to use the score blindly and not                systems on the measured fuel economy.                 results but declines to adopt such an
                                              read the actual content of the test                      While the testing is conducted with the               approach for several reasons. First,
                                              reports. They also expressed a concern                   ventilation fan engaged, the air                      MPGde does not factor the energy cost
                                              that a procurement protest could be                      conditioning and the heating system                   efficiency of each fuel type into the
                                              filed if they selected a bus model that                  controls are set to the equivalent of an              calculation. High values of MPGde do
                                              did not have the highest score of those                  ‘‘off’’ state. Although evaluating the                not always indicate low overall fuel
                                              submitted for bid. In addition, one                      effect of HVAC systems on fuel                        operating costs which is a top bus
                                              commenter wanted to know if they                         economy is technically possible, it                   performance priority for most agencies.
                                              would be allowed to apply a different                    would require that the dynamometer                    For example, hydrogen fuel cell buses
                                              weighting to the scoring system than the                 facility be capable of maintaining                    would be expected to have an MPGde
                                              weights assigned by FTA.                                 extreme temperatures to accurately                    rating more than twice as high as a
                                                 FTA also received several comments                    stress the HVAC systems and the overall               diesel bus but the fuel currently costs
                                              regarding the fuel economy test and the                  thermal performance of the bus body.                  more than three times that of diesel fuel
                                              fuel economy scoring system. Two                         Performing this type of testing would                 on a gallon equivalent basis resulting in
                                              commenters were concerned that the                       require a significant capital investment              higher overall fuel operating costs.
                                              new dynamometer based fuel economy                       in the test facility and also would                   Similarly, CNG buses would be
                                              test method will not differentiate the                   require a significant increase in testing             expected to have an MPGde rating about
                                              efficiency differences between heating,                  fees.                                                 20% lower than that of a diesel bus but
                                              ventilation, and air conditioning                           Both the test track and dynamometer-               the fuel itself costs less than half that of
                                              (HVAC) systems installed on the test                     based fuel economy tests do not                       diesel making it a popular choice in
                                              buses and that the new test                              expressly inhibit engine-off hybrid                   many locales even when the capital and
                                              methodology does not fully reveal the                    buses from turning their engines off                  operating costs of the fueling stations
                                              potential of the new hybrid bus                          during the test procedure. Two of the                 are considered.
                                              technologies. Two commenters strongly                    three dynamometer-based test cycles are                  Second, MPGde does not account for
                                              recommended that FTA employ a                            actual transit duty cycles. Because buses             the significant fueling infrastructure
                                              universal fuel economy scoring system                    are designed to operate in an efficient               costs of most alternative fuels
                                              for use with all fuel types, to illustrate               manner, a bus should end with the                     introduced into transit fleets, nor does
                                              the higher fuel economy of electric and                  battery state of charge (SOC) at the same             MPGde account for the significant
                                              hybrid-electric vehicles. Another                        level or higher than at the start of the              differences in maintenance facilities,
                                              commenter recommended that the fuel                      test cycle. This may require the vehicle              maintenance practices and tools, and
                                              economy scores for 60-foot bus models                    to idle for an additional time period to              maintainer skill sets required for each
                                              be adjusted higher by 150 percent to                     restore the battery’s SOC.                            fuel type. While the choice between
                                              reflect the additional weight of the                        Several commenters on the proposed                 gasoline and diesel is not an issue for
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES




                                              vehicle.                                                 fuel economy scoring scale                            private owners of passenger vehicles,
                                                 Agency Response: In regards to the                    recommended using a single scoring for                who can take the vehicle to any number
                                              concerns about the use of the scoring                    all fuel types instead of the individual              of car dealers or maintenance garages,
                                              system as a primary determinant in                       fuel-specific scales proposed in the                  switching or adding a new bus fuel type
                                              procurement decisions, FTA will insert                   NPRM. A scale such as Miles per Gallon
                                              a disclaimer in test reports explaining                  diesel equivalent (MPGde), conceptually                 1 https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/carlabel/

                                              that the using the test scores as the                    based on the current Miles Per Gallon                 electriclabelreadmore.htm.



                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:30 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00093   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM   01AUR1


                                              50376              Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

                                              can be a significant undertaking for                     D. Regulatory Analyses and Notices                    requirement of passing all of the tests.
                                              most agencies with respect to bus                        Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 and                  While FTA’s review of various systems
                                              maintenance. Although MPGde could be                     DOT Regulatory Policies and                           indicated that such qualitative systems
                                              considered relevant to an overarching                    Procedures                                            are simple to implement, they can be
                                              Federal interest in minimizing                                                                                 very subjective. Moreover, the five-tier
                                                                                                          This rulemaking is a significant                   system did not capture the level of
                                              transportation energy consumption,
                                                                                                       regulatory action within the meaning of               detail and differential information that
                                              FTA believes that MPGde is not used by                   Executive Orders 13563 and 12866, and
                                              transit agencies as it is not a clear                                                                          FTA desired to convey to the transit
                                                                                                       FTA has determined that it is also                    industry and manufacturers. FTA also
                                              indicator of fuel operating costs.                       significant under DOT regulatory                      reviewed and considered an ‘‘A to D’’
                                                 Third, MPGde only assesses the fuel                   policies and procedures because of                    based grading system. Again, while this
                                              efficiency of the vehicle from the                       substantial State, local government,                  would have resulted in a fairly simple
                                              vehicle’s fuel tank to the wheels and not                congressional, and public interest.                   and straightforward system, it did not
                                              the true ‘‘well-to-wheels’’ efficiency of                However, this rule is not ‘‘economically              convey the level of information or the
                                              the complete fuel chain. This                            significant,’’ as defined in Executive                level of detail to inform transit agencies
                                              methodology generates an artificially                    Order 12866.                                          who are purchasing the vehicles. Thus,
                                              high MPGde value for electric vehicles                      This section explains the purpose of               FTA rejected these two qualitative
                                              as most of the costs of generating and                   the bus testing program, why FTA is                   systems. While they were simple,
                                                                                                       establishing a pass/fail requirement                  straightforward, and easy to understand,
                                              delivering electric ‘‘fuel’’ take place off-
                                                                                                       with a point-based system and how that                they did not meet FTA’s goal of
                                              board the vehicle at the electric
                                                                                                       fits within FTA’s mission, the                        providing meaningful information to
                                              powerplant and along the power                           alternative scoring systems FTA
                                              transmission lines. For instance, a bus                                                                        transit agencies and manufacturers.
                                                                                                       considered, the logic that FTA                           Next, FTA considered quantitative
                                              can consume compressed natural gas                       employed in determining the weights                   point-based systems with the minimum
                                              (CNG) and achieve one MPGde value,                       assigned to the different test categories,            threshold requirement of passing all of
                                              versus burning CNG to fuel an electric                   FTA’s rationale for prioritizing use of               the tests. FTA considered various scales.
                                              powerplant and delivering the                            the manufacturer’s portion of the testing             FTA rejected a 50-point based scale for
                                              electricity over wires to charge an                      fee, and FTA’s analysis of the costs and              lack of simplicity. FTA considered an
                                              electric bus, with a resultant MPGde                     benefits.                                             80-point scale (10 points for each test
                                              rating approximately five to six times                                                                         category) and rejected it because it did
                                              greater than that of the CNG bus due                     Alternative Scoring Systems
                                                                                                       Considered                                            not capture the relative importance or
                                              primarily to the efficiency accounting                                                                         weighting of the categories. FTA also
                                              methodology and not the actual well-to-                     While reviewing and developing                     considered various levels for the pass/
                                              wheels fuel efficiency. Therefore, FTA                   scoring systems to meet the MAP–21                    fail threshold for each of the scales.
                                              believes that adopting MPGde is not a                    requirements, FTA considered a number                 Finally, FTA settled on a 100-point
                                              suitable scoring mechanism to indicate                   of alternatives. To begin, FTA                        scale due to its universality. FTA
                                              the Federal priorities for energy                        considered the importance of the                      initially considered a minimum passing
                                              sustainability to the transit industry.                  entirety of the safety tests within the               score of 40 points, believing the 60
                                                                                                       existing Bus Testing Program. Noting                  discretionary points would provide
                                                 Lastly, if FTA scored the fuel                        how integral to the bus testing program               purchasers with a greater range with
                                              economy results using MPGde, the                         each of the testing categories were, FTA              which to evaluate different vehicles, but
                                              resulting inflated electric vehicle                      wanted to ensure that the buses that                  given the grading systems used in
                                              MPGde values will require expanding                      were tested, at the very least, met all of            academia and other applications, FTA
                                              the range of the scoring scale                           the minimum performance standards,                    established a minimum passing
                                              significantly. Due to the current scale                  regardless of the scoring system that                 threshold of 60 points with 40
                                              having a fixed number of points, the                     FTA adopted. Stated differently, FTA                  discretionary points. This quantitative
                                              resolution of the scale will be reduced,                 resolved that the scoring system would                scale with the minimum threshold of
                                              making all bus models of the same size                   have to preclude a bus model from                     passing all of the tests met all of FTA’s
                                              class and fuel type look identical with                  passing the test solely by attaining                  goals that the scoring system is
                                              respect to the score. This defeats the                   additional points in other categories                 relatively simple, straightforward, and
                                              primary purpose of the program which                     (while failing in one or more key                     easy to understand, and will provide
                                              is to provide agencies objective                         categories), resulting in points greater              meaningful information to transit
                                              information for the selection of bus                     than the threshold that FTA set for the               agencies and manufacturers.
                                              models during the bus procurement                        pass/fail standard. FTA also wanted to
                                                                                                       ensure that whatever system FTA                       Logic Used To Determine Weighting for
                                              process.                                                                                                       Tests and Sub-Tests
                                                                                                       adopted would be relatively simple,
                                                 By maintaining the separate proposed                  straightforward, and easy to understand,                 After deciding to propose a 100-point
                                              fuel economy scoring scales, the well-to-                and provide meaningful information to                 scale for the Bus testing program, FTA
                                              wheels efficiency differences of                         both transit agencies and manufacturers.              had to weigh the importance of each of
                                              different fuel types are neutralized as                  Using these principles, FTA assessed                  the test categories within the Bus testing
                                              each fuel type has its own scale. This                   various systems that FTA could adopt or               program. FTA determined that the
                                              approach highlights the efficiency                       implement to meet the requirements of                 Structural Integrity and Safety Tests
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES




                                              differences between bus models of the                    MAP–21.                                               were the most important components of
                                              same fuel type which is very useful for                     FTA first considered various                       the bus testing program, as both were
                                              transit agencies while still supporting                  qualitative systems. FTA reviewed a                   critical to the operation of the vehicle
                                              the Federal interest in reducing                         ‘‘five-tier’’ based system, as used by                while on the road. Therefore, FTA
                                              transportation fuel consumption.                         other organizations. FTA liked the                    allotted 50 of the total 100 points to
                                                                                                       simplicity of the five-star system for                these two tests. Between the two tests,
                                                                                                       grading buses that met the minimum                    FTA determined that while both were


                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:30 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00094   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM   01AUR1


                                                                 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations                                          50377

                                              important, the Structural Integrity Test                 slightly more important in terms of                   from bus models submitted before they
                                              was more important than the Safety                       helping a transit agency to budget for a              are ready for testing, thereby conserving
                                              Test, based on its greater importance in                 vehicle’s fuel consumption over its                   Federal resources and ensuring that the
                                              evaluating a vehicle’s construction,                     lifetime and in calculating the vehicle’s             proper incentive structures are in place.
                                              design, and ability to meet service life                 incremental benefit towards meeting                   This will encourage manufacturers to
                                              requirements. Hence, FTA assigned 60                     Clean Air Act requirements. Therefore,                ensure their product can withstand the
                                              percent of the points for these tests to                 as opposed to assigning equal weighting               rigors of bus testing. FTA would
                                              the Structural Integrity Test and the                    to each of the remaining tests, FTA                   continue to pay the 80 percent Federal
                                              remaining 40 percent to the Safety Test.                 allocated slightly more weight to the                 match for one retest and would
                                                 Within the Structural Integrity Test                  Fuel Economy and Emissions Tests than                 contribute no Federal funds for a third
                                              are six sub-test categories, of which five               the Noise and Performance Tests. This                 test or subsequent tests required to
                                              are pass/fail tests. Thus, FTA allotted                  resulted in a point allocation of seven               achieve a passing test score.
                                              one point each for the Distortion, Static                points or 27 percent of the remaining
                                              Towing, Dynamic Towing, Hydraulic                        points for to the Fuel Economy and                    Cost-Benefit Analysis
                                              Jacking, and Hoisting Tests. The                         Emissions Tests and an average of six
                                              Durability Test, as the most important                   points or 23 percent of the remaining                    This section contains FTA’s analysis
                                              component of the Structural Integrity                    points for the Noise and Performance                  of the benefits and costs of the rule. FTA
                                              Test, received the remaining 25 points.                  Tests.                                                estimated the rule’s benefits and costs
                                              Within these Durability Tests, FTA                          The Fuel Economy Test allocates                    through two steps: First, FTA identified
                                              allocated 13 points to structural                        points on a performance basis                         and analyzed the costs of the existing
                                              durability and 12 points to powertrain                   determined by the output of the type of               Bus testing program (baseline). Second,
                                              durability due to importance to meeting                  fuel. For the Emissions Tests, FTA                    FTA identified and analyzed the
                                              service life requirements.                               apportioned one-half point for each of                expected costs of the rule relative to the
                                                 For the Safety sub-tests, FTA                         the five Emissions Tests that are already             baseline. To determine the benefits and
                                              determined that the Hazards Test was as                  regulated by other Federal agencies and               costs of the rule, FTA reviewed the test
                                              important as the other two sub-tests                     the remaining points for the Carbon                   data for all bus models that had been
                                              within this category and allotted it one-                Dioxide Test. This weighting for carbon               tested at the Bus Testing Facility
                                              half of the total 20 points. The Stability               dioxide captures the importance of                    between January 2010, when the
                                              and Braking Tests have three                             alternative fuels with respect to                     Environmental Protection Agency’s
                                              component tests that require a pass/fail                 greenhouse gases.                                     (EPA’s) current Diesel Engine Emission
                                              grading and one that is a performance                       The Noise Test allocates points on a               Standards took effect (40 CFR part 86,
                                              based allocation. FTA valued each of                     performance basis determined by the                   as amended, 66 FR 5002, January 18,
                                              these tests equally, based on their                      level of decibels produced. FTA                       2001), and February 2013, when this
                                              relative importance when evaluating a                    weighted the Interior Noise and Exterior              rulemaking commenced. The resulting
                                              vehicle. Hence, FTA apportioned 25                       Noise Test equally (3.5 points each). As              diesel engine exhaust after-treatment
                                              percent of the remaining points to each                  for the Performance Test, FTA weighted                systems used to satisfy the 2010
                                              test.                                                    the bus model performance on a 2.5                    requirements potentially impacted the
                                                 For the Maintainability and                           percent grade and the performance                     reliability, maintainability, fuel
                                              Reliability Tests, FTA assessed the                      during the acceleration test as being                 economy, emissions, and noise test
                                              Maintainability Test to be twice as                      equally important and together being                  results for a portion of the 49 buses.
                                              important as the Reliability Test, but                   worth 60 percent of the five points                   Additionally, there were OEM product
                                              both tests to be as important as the                     available. The performance on a 10                    updates to many of the medium-duty
                                              remaining tests, as both directly affect a               percent grade was valued at 40 percent                chassis used by the five, seven, and ten
                                              transit agency’s operating costs.                        of the Performance test category.                     year service life buses that would affect
                                              Maintainability reflects how much time                                                                         test results in several test categories.
                                              and resources the transit agency should                  Testing Fee Prioritization
                                              expect to budget over the course of a                       In order to preclude buses that are not               A total of 49 buses had been tested
                                              vehicle’s service life to perform routine                ready to complete the bus testing                     over this period. FTA believes that the
                                              maintenance, and reliability reflects a                  program, the NPRM proposed to exhaust                 test results for these 49 bus models
                                              vehicle’s ability to meet its service life               the manufacturer’s 20 percent                         tested since 2010 provide the best
                                              requirements without significant service                 contribution for the total testing fee                available source of information for
                                              disruptions caused by unscheduled                        prior to employing funds from FTA’s 80                determining the cost of the rule on
                                              maintenance. For ease of assigning                       percent contribution. This prioritizing               future buses that would be tested (and
                                              points within the weightings, FTA                        of the manufacturers’ portion of the test             the models they represent). All bus
                                              allocated 24 points (or just less than                   fee will incentivize transit vehicle                  types and sizes are included in the
                                              one-half of the 50 points for the                        manufacturers to ensure that the bus                  group of 49, from accessible vans to 60-
                                              remaining tests) to these two tests.                     model submitted will, at a minimum,                   foot articulated bus models. Buses
                                              Hence, within FTA’s weighting scheme,                    clear the initial check-in inspections,               fueled by compressed natural gas (CNG),
                                              the Maintainability Test received 16                     passenger loading, and initial testing                electricity, diesel, gasoline, and
                                              percent of the total points and the                      operations. FTA estimates that,                       liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) are
                                              Reliability Test received eight percent of               depending on the bus model, the first 20              included within this group. To
                                              the total points.                                        percent of the testing fee should                     determine qualitative benefits, FTA also
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES




                                                 Assessing the remaining four tests,                   encompass the check-in process and                    examined the test results and the transit
                                              Fuel Economy, Emissions, Noise, and                      threshold tests.                                      experience with two bus models tested
                                              Performance Tests, FTA determined that                      Based on previous testing experience,              (prior to 2010) that failed to meet their
                                              each was about the same level of                         FTA determined that bus models that                   service life requirements in transit
                                              importance based on comments from                        fail these preliminary activities will not            service. FTA has placed the test results
                                              transit agencies, but that two, Fuel                     perform well during subsequent tests.                 of the buses that it analyzed in the
                                              Economy and Emissions Tests, were                        This policy minimizes the cost to FTA                 docket for this rulemaking.


                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:30 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00095   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM   01AUR1


                                              50378                   Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

                                              Costs                                                                       value was estimated by identifying a                                  year buses, a cost of $2.00 per mile was
                                                 A summary of the results of FTA’s                                        recent purchase value from the 2013                                   used to estimate the shipping cost. This
                                              cost analysis is presented in Table H–1.                                    APTA Fleet Report and applying a                                      cost is based on a recent shipment of a
                                              Eight categories of costs were identified,                                  depreciation factor of 50% to bus                                     mid-sized bus on a truck. For heavy-
                                              analyzed, and annualized:                                                   models that underwent a durability test                               duty 12-year diesel fueled buses, a cost
                                                 1. Cost of Required Bus Design                                           and a factor of 20% for bus models that                               of $1.61 per mile was used to cover the
                                              Changes: This category is the estimated                                     only underwent performance and other                                  costs of driving the bus to the test center
                                              annual cost of applying the design                                          non-durability related tests.                                         and back. The estimated fuel costs were
                                              changes and components necessary to                                            3. Shipping of Test Buses: This                                    calculated using the bus model’s
                                              comply with all of the proposed                                             category estimates the cost of shipping                               measured highway fuel economy and a
                                              performance standards to all affected                                       the test buses to the Bus Testing and                                 fuel price of $3.00 per gallon was added.
                                              bus models produced in one year.                                            Research Center and back to the                                       For heavy-duty buses powered by
                                                 2. Lost Value of Test Buses: This                                        manufacturer. The actual/estimated                                    natural gas or electricity, a shipping cost
                                              category estimates the depreciation cost                                    distance that each of the 49 bus models
                                                                                                                                                                                                of $4.00 per mile was applied. This cost
                                              of a bus subjected to the testing process.                                  traveled was determined and was used
                                                                                                                                                                                                represents the cost to ship these bus
                                              For each of the 49 buses models tested                                      for FTA’s calculations. Table H–0
                                                                                                                                                                                                models on a truck.
                                              from 2010 through 2012, the full retail                                     presents this data. For 10-, 7-, 5-, and 4-

                                                                                                   TABLE H–0—DISTANCE TRAVELED TO AND FROM TEST CENTER
                                                                                                                                                                                                             Actual/Estimated    Shipped via truck
                                                                                                                                                                                                             shipping distance
                                                                                                       Report No.                                                                        Service life                            to and from test
                                                                                                                                                                                                              to and from test        center
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   center

                                              1001   .................................................................................................................................                   7                490
                                              1002   .................................................................................................................................                   7                490
                                              1003   .................................................................................................................................                  12                549
                                              1004   .................................................................................................................................                   7                490
                                              1005   .................................................................................................................................                   7               1014
                                              1006   .................................................................................................................................                  10                490
                                              1007   .................................................................................................................................                  12                310
                                              1008   .................................................................................................................................                   7                490
                                              1009   .................................................................................................................................                   7                490
                                              1010   .................................................................................................................................                  10                975
                                              1011   .................................................................................................................................                  12                780
                                              1012   .................................................................................................................................                   7                490
                                              1014   .................................................................................................................................                   7                490
                                              1015   .................................................................................................................................                  12               1400
                                              1016   .................................................................................................................................                  12               1400           X
                                              1017   .................................................................................................................................                   4                490
                                              1101   .................................................................................................................................                  12               1400
                                              1102   .................................................................................................................................                   7                490
                                              1103   .................................................................................................................................                   7               1112
                                              1104   .................................................................................................................................                  10                490
                                              1105   .................................................................................................................................                   7               1112
                                              1106   .................................................................................................................................                   7                490
                                              1107   .................................................................................................................................                  12                574           X
                                              1108   .................................................................................................................................                  12                482
                                              1109   .................................................................................................................................                  12               2676           X
                                              1110   .................................................................................................................................                  10                490
                                              1111   .................................................................................................................................                   7                490
                                              1112   .................................................................................................................................                   7                490
                                              1113   .................................................................................................................................                   7                430
                                              1114   .................................................................................................................................                   7                490
                                              1115   .................................................................................................................................                   4               1112
                                              1116   .................................................................................................................................                   7               1112
                                              1117   .................................................................................................................................                  12                310
                                              1118   .................................................................................................................................                  12               1400           X
                                              1120   .................................................................................................................................                   7                490
                                              1201   .................................................................................................................................                   7                490
                                              1202   .................................................................................................................................                  12                310
                                              1203   .................................................................................................................................                   7                430
                                              1204   .................................................................................................................................                   7               1112
                                              1205   .................................................................................................................................                  12               1400
                                              1206   .................................................................................................................................                  12               2676           X
                                              1207   .................................................................................................................................                   7               1112
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES




                                              1208   .................................................................................................................................                   7                430
                                              1210   .................................................................................................................................                   7               1112
                                              1211   .................................................................................................................................                  12               1400
                                              1212   .................................................................................................................................                   7                955
                                              1213   .................................................................................................................................                  12                482
                                              1214   .................................................................................................................................                   7               1112           X
                                              1215   .................................................................................................................................                   4                490



                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014        17:30 Jul 29, 2016         Jkt 238001       PO 00000        Frm 00096         Fmt 4700       Sfmt 4700        E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM    01AUR1


                                                                         Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations                                                                                                                                  50379

                                                 4. Parts Consumed: This cost category                                           manufacturers of providing mandatory                                                          testing. The current Paperwork
                                              is for the cost of parts consumed during                                           information to the bus testing program.                                                       Reduction Act reportable costs are
                                              the test.                                                                            7. Manufacturer Testing Fees: This                                                          $9,016. The estimated annual cost of on-
                                                                                                                                 cost category covers the 20 percent                                                           site manufacturer personnel is estimated
                                                 5. On-Site Personnel: This cost
                                                                                                                                 testing fees that the manufacturers pay                                                       to be $76,673. The value of the parts
                                              category is for the cost of maintaining                                            to have testing conducted.
                                              manufacturer personnel on-site at the                                                                                                                                            consumed in the testing process is
                                                                                                                                   8. FTA Program Cost: This cost                                                              unknown. The annual estimated bus
                                              test center. For each test of a heavy-duty                                         category covers the funding provided by
                                              bus, the cost of a mechanic’s labor                                                                                                                                              shipping costs for the current program
                                                                                                                                 FTA to cover 80 percent of the costs
                                              ($20.35 an hour), lodging, and per diem                                            associated with testing a bus model.                                                          is $63,743. The estimated annual test
                                              at State College, PA for three full                                                  FTA estimates the costs of the existing                                                     bus depreciation cost is $1,591,714. The
                                              months. Manufacturer personnel are                                                 bus testing program are as follows: The                                                       annual cost of bus design improvements
                                              often on-site during the testing of heavy-                                         maximum total annual program cost is                                                          as a result of the current program is
                                              duty bus models.                                                                   $3,750,000 with 80 percent ($3,000,000)                                                       assumed zero as there are no minimum
                                                                                                                                 covered by FTA and 20 percent                                                                 performance standards requirements.
                                                 6. Paperwork Burden: This cost
                                                                                                                                 ($750,000) paid by transit vehicle                                                            The estimated annual cost of the current
                                              category covers the costs to
                                                                                                                                 manufacturers who submit a bus for                                                            bus testing program is $5,491,146.
                                                                                                                  TABLE H–1—SUMMARY OF COST ANALYSIS RESULTS
                                                                                                                                                                [All values in $]

                                                                                                                  Cost of req’d           Lost value                  Shipping                                         Manufacturer                                                              FTA
                                                                                                                                                                                                  Parts                                           Paperwork                Testing
                                                                                                                   bus design               of test                    of test                                           on-site                                                               Program
                                                                                                                                                                                                consumed                                           burden                   fees
                                                                                                                    changes                 buses                      buses                                            personnel                                                                cost

                                              Baseline-current program ............................               0 .................       1,591,714                       63,743         unknown .....                          76,673                    9,016             750,000          3,000,000
                                              Proposed MAP–21 Minimum Proposed Per-                               unknown .....                     0                        2,209         unknown .....                           5,103                      767              33,362            133,448
                                                 formance Standards and Scoring System.
                                              Proposed Discretionary Program Changes                              58,308 ........                         0                           0    0     .................                          0               2,810            ¥15,328            ¥61,310
                                              Revised Bus Payloading Procedures ..........                        58,308 ........                         0                           0    0     .................                          0               1,488               ¥74               ¥294
                                              Elimination of On-Road Fuel Economy Test                            0 .................                     0                           0    0     .................                          0                   0            ¥16,000            ¥64,000
                                              Revised Bus Passenger Load for Emissions                            0 .................                     0                           0    0     .................                          0                   0              ¥118               ¥470
                                                 Testing.
                                              Bus Testing Entrance Requirements ...........                       0 .................                     0                          0     0 .................                              0                  0                      664          2,654
                                              Revisions to the Test Scheduling Require-                           0 .................                     0                          0     0 .................                              0              1,322                        0              0
                                                 ments.
                                              Test Requirements Review Milestone .........                        0 .................                     0                           0    0 .................                              0                      0                    0             0
                                              Penalty for Unauthorized Maintenance &                              0 .................                     0                           0    0 .................                              0                      0                  200           800
                                                 Modification.
                                              Estimated Program Costs (Baseline & New                             58,308 ........           1,591,714                        65,952        unknown .....                           81,776                 12,593               768,034         3,072,138
                                                 Proposals).

                                                   Total ......................................................   ....................   ....................       ....................       ....................   ........................   ....................   ....................   5,650,515
                                                   Baseline Total .......................................         ....................   ....................       ....................       ....................   ........................   ....................   ....................   5,491,146
                                                   Incremental Program Cost ....................                  ....................   ....................       ....................       ....................   ........................   ....................   ....................     159,369



                                                 To estimate the costs of the rule, FTA                                          validate a vehicle that has failed one or                                                     estimated the costs for retesting, and in
                                              first identified all of the bus models in                                          more tests. Eight of the 49 buses FTA                                                         two cases, the cost of a potential
                                              the study group of 49 that would fail to                                           examined failed one or more tests. The                                                        remedy.
                                              meet the standards.                                                                below table identifies each test these
                                                 The most significant cost caused by                                             buses would have failed, thus triggering
                                              this rule will be the cost of retesting to                                         the retesting requirement. FTA also
                                                                                    TABLE H–2—SUMMARY OF THE COSTS FOR RETESTING FAILED BUS MODELS
                                                                         [Cost of remedying and retesting bus models (2010–2013) that would fail a proposed performance standard ($)]

                                                                                                                                                                        Shipping of
                                                                                                                                                                          test bus
                                                                                                                                                                           back to
                                                                                                                                              Lost value                 manufac-                   Additional                                                                                   FTA
                                                     Bus                      Failed test               Cost of required bus                                                                                                On-site               Paperwork             Testing fees
                                                                                                                                                of test                   turer for                   parts                                                                                    program
                                                 (report No.)                  category                   design changes                                                                                                   personnel               burden                  (20%)
                                                                                                                                                buses                    modifica-                  consumed                                                                                     cost
                                                                                                                                                                         tions and
                                                                                                                                                                          return to
                                                                                                                                                                           Altoona

                                              PTI–BY–1214 .....            Structural du-             Unknown—upper body                                        0                          0      Unknown ....                       4,374                     215               11,152           44,608
                                                                             rability.                  structure failing.
                                              PTI–BT–1208 .....            Structural du-             Unknown—body struc-                                       0                          0      Unknown ....                       4,374                     215              11,152            44,608
                                                                             rability.                  ture cracks.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES




                                              PTI–BT–1110 .....            Structural du-             Unknown—body to                                           0                          0      Unknown ....                       4,374                    215                17,054           68,216
                                                                             rability.                  frame interface is
                                                                                                        cracking. Potentially
                                                                                                        need a new bus
                                                                                                        body mount design.




                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014          17:30 Jul 29, 2016            Jkt 238001        PO 00000           Frm 00097         Fmt 4700            Sfmt 4700             E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM                    01AUR1


                                              50380               Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

                                                                    TABLE H–2—SUMMARY OF THE COSTS FOR RETESTING FAILED BUS MODELS—Continued
                                                                  [Cost of remedying and retesting bus models (2010–2013) that would fail a proposed performance standard ($)]

                                                                                                                                 Shipping of
                                                                                                                                   test bus
                                                                                                                                    back to
                                                                                                                    Lost value    manufac-               Additional                                                                FTA
                                                     Bus             Failed test        Cost of required bus                                                                     On-site              Paperwork   Testing fees
                                                                                                                      of test      turer for               parts                                                                 program
                                                 (report No.)         category            design changes                                                                        personnel              burden        (20%)
                                                                                                                      buses       modifica-              consumed                                                                  cost
                                                                                                                                  tions and
                                                                                                                                   return to
                                                                                                                                    Altoona

                                              PTI–BT–1108 .....   Powertrain du-       Unknown—multiple dif-                 0             2,034        Unknown ....           ....................         710        23,578       94,312
                                                                    rability.             ferent powertrain fail-
                                                                                          ure modes need to
                                                                                          be remedied.
                                                                  Maintainability      If powertrain durability              0                    0     Unknown ....           ....................           0             0              0
                                                                                          failures are corrected
                                                                                          this standard would
                                                                                          be met as well.
                                              PTI–BT–1108 .....   Performance ...      Unknown—the max-                      0                     0    Unknown ....           ....................           0           600        2,400
                                                                                          imum propulsion
                                                                                          power delivered to
                                                                                          the wheels needs to
                                                                                          be increased.
                                              PTI–BT–1009 .....   Powertrain du-       Unknown—multiple dif-                 0                     0    Unknown ....                     2,187              215        11,152       44,608
                                                                    rability.             ferent powertrain fail-
                                                                                          ure modes need to
                                                                                          be remedied.
                                              PTI–BT–1107 .....   Structural du-       $130—radius rod                       0                    0     ....................   ....................          42             0              0
                                                                    rability.             mount was re-weld-
                                                                                          ed to correct manu-
                                                                                          facturing defect.
                                                                  Powertrain du-       Unknown—multiple dif-                 0              4,592       Unknown ....           ....................         380        23,578       94,312
                                                                    rability.             ferent powertrain fail-
                                                                                          ure modes need to
                                                                                          be remedied. Trans-
                                                                                          mission cradle was
                                                                                          the primary issue.
                                              PTI–BT–1107 .....   Performance ...      Unknown—the max-                      0   ....................   Unknown ....           ....................          42           600        2,400
                                                                                          imum propulsion
                                                                                          power delivered to
                                                                                          the wheels needs to
                                                                                          be increased.
                                                                  Safety-braking       Additional test trials                0                    0     0 .................                      0            0           620        2,480
                                                                                          needed to achieve
                                                                                          greater brake lining
                                                                                          contact with brake
                                                                                          rotors.
                                                                  Maintainability      0—if the powertrain du-               0                    0     Unknown ....           ....................           0             0              0
                                                                                          rability failures are
                                                                                          corrected this stand-
                                                                                          ard would be met as
                                                                                          well.
                                              PTI–BT–1006 .....   Interior Noise ..    $211—this trolley bus                 0                    0     0 .................                      0          133           300        1200
                                                                                          exceeded the pro-
                                                                                          posed interior noise
                                                                                          standard by 4 dB at
                                                                                          the driver’s seating
                                                                                          position. Commer-
                                                                                          cially available sound
                                                                                          dampening material
                                                                                          applied to the floor
                                                                                          and engine cover
                                                                                          area would reduce
                                                                                          the average noise
                                                                                          level by 5 dBs 20
                                                                                          square feet of this
                                                                                          material costs
                                                                                          $170.00 retail and a
                                                                                          two hours of me-
                                                                                          chanic labor (2 ¥
                                                                                          20.35 = 40.70) to in-
                                                                                          stall.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES




                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014    17:30 Jul 29, 2016    Jkt 238001   PO 00000    Frm 00098   Fmt 4700     Sfmt 4700         E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM                    01AUR1


                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations                                                                         50381

                                                                         TABLE H–2—SUMMARY OF THE COSTS FOR RETESTING FAILED BUS MODELS—Continued
                                                                       [Cost of remedying and retesting bus models (2010–2013) that would fail a proposed performance standard ($)]

                                                                                                                                                   Shipping of
                                                                                                                                                     test bus
                                                                                                                                                      back to
                                                                                                                                     Lost value     manufac-        Additional                                                         FTA
                                                      Bus                   Failed test            Cost of required bus                                                                   On-site        Paperwork    Testing fees
                                                                                                                                       of test       turer for        parts                                                          program
                                                  (report No.)               category                design changes                                                                      personnel        burden         (20%)
                                                                                                                                       buses        modifica-       consumed                                                           cost
                                                                                                                                                    tions and
                                                                                                                                                     return to
                                                                                                                                                      Altoona

                                              PTI–BT–1010 .....          Interior Noise ..       $211—this trolley bus                        0              0     0 .................               0          133            300       1200
                                                                                                   exceeded the pro-
                                                                                                   posed interior noise
                                                                                                   standard by 4 dB at
                                                                                                   the driver’s seating
                                                                                                   position. Commer-
                                                                                                   cially available sound
                                                                                                   dampening material
                                                                                                   applied to the floor
                                                                                                   and engine cover
                                                                                                   area would reduce
                                                                                                   the average noise
                                                                                                   level by 5 dBs 20
                                                                                                   square feet of this
                                                                                                   material costs
                                                                                                   $170.00 retail and a
                                                                                                   two hours of me-
                                                                                                   chanic labor (2 ¥
                                                                                                   20.35 = 40.70) to in-
                                                                                                   stall.

                                                                         Total Cost ($)          Unknown .....................                0          6,626     0 .................       15,309           2,300       100,086     400,344
                                                                         Annual Cost             Unknown .....................                0          2,209     0 .................        5,103             767        33,362     133,448
                                                                           ($)



                                                In addition, the testing fees for the                                    charged fees only for the tests that must                         current program is shown in Table
                                              program are broken down by test and                                        be conducted. The fee schedule for the                            H–3.
                                              sub-test categories, with manufacturers

                                                                                                TABLE H–3—ADJUSTED BUS TESTING PROGRAM COSTS AND FEES
                                                                                                                                           500,000 mi—       350,000 mi—                 200,000 mi —         150,000 mi —      100,000 mi —
                                                                                       Test                                                  12 year           10 year                      7 year               5 year            4 year
                                                                                                                                            service life      service life                service life         service life      service life

                                              Check-In ...............................................................................              3,000                   3,000                    3,000             3,000            3,000
                                              Inspect for Accessibility .......................................................                     1,500                   1,500                    1,500             1,500            1,500

                                              Maintainability (scheduled and unscheduled) ......................                                                          Included in the durability test cost

                                              Selected Maintainability .......................................................                      4,500                   4,500                    4,500             4,500            4,500

                                              Reliability ..............................................................................                                  Included in the durability test cost

                                              Safety ...................................................................................            3,000                 3,000                  3,000                 3,000            3,000
                                              Performance .........................................................................                 6,000                 6,000                  6,000                 6,000            6,000
                                              Brake ....................................................................................            6,100                 6,100                  6,100                 6,100            6,100
                                              Distortion ..............................................................................             3,000                 3,000                  3,000                 3,000            3,000
                                              Static Towing .......................................................................                 1,500                 1,500                  1,500                 1,500            1,500
                                              Dynamic Towing ..................................................................                     1,500                 1,500                  1,500                 1,500            1,500
                                              Jacking .................................................................................             1,500                 1,500                  1,500                 1,500            1,500
                                              Hoisting ................................................................................             1,500                 1,500                  1,500                 1,500            1,500
                                              Structural Durability ..............................................................                117,890                85,270                 55,760                40,060           25,970
                                              Fuel Economy ......................................................................                   6,000                 6,000                  6,000                 6,000            6,000
                                              Interior Noise ........................................................................               1,500                 1,500                  1,500                 1,500            1,500
                                              Exterior Noise ......................................................................                 1,500                 1,500                  1,500                 1,500            1,500
                                              Emissions .............................................................................              44,000                44,000                 44,000                44,000           44,000
                                              Total for Full Testing (100%) ...............................................                       203,990               171,370                141,860                77,660           60,570
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES




                                              Manufacturer’s Portion Fee (20%) .......................................                             40,798                 34,274                28,372                15,532           12,114



                                                The results from this analysis indicate                                  performance standards to the FTA                                  additional manufacturer’s fees would be
                                              that annual costs would increase in                                        program cost is estimated to be                                   collected from the additional tests. An
                                              several areas. The impact of the                                           $133,448. A total of $33,362 in                                   additional paperwork burden of $767


                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014         17:30 Jul 29, 2016        Jkt 238001      PO 00000        Frm 00099    Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700     E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM             01AUR1


                                              50382                   Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

                                              would be incurred from the required                                    program from implementing the Bus                          from loading the mid-sized buses with
                                              failure analysis and remedy proposal                                   Model Scoring System, as the scores                        fewer or no simulated standee
                                              process. An additional $5,103 would be                                 will be calculated automatically once                      passengers. FTA estimates an increase
                                              expended for on-site personnel                                         the test results are finalized.                            in the annual paperwork burden of
                                              expenses incurred performing test bus                                     FTA also analyzed the costs of the                      $1,488 from the increased manufacturer
                                              modifications at the test site. An                                     discretionary program changes in the                       labor required to determine and report
                                              unknown amount of additional parts                                     final rule. The rule will modify two test                  to FTA the total passenger capacity of
                                              and components would be consumed                                       procedures (payloading and emissions                       new bus models submitted to the
                                                                                                                     test payload) but will not impose any
                                              during the retesting. FTA estimates that                                                                                          program. The only other cost introduced
                                                                                                                     completely new testing procedures, and
                                              one of the eight failed buses would be                                                                                            by the revised bus payloading
                                                                                                                     will eliminate the On-Road Fuel
                                              returned to the manufacturer for                                       Economy Test procedure, thereby                            procedures is the requirement to add a
                                              systemic modifications incurring                                       reducing the aggregate costs currently                     placard on the interior bulkhead of the
                                              additional round-trip shipping expenses                                associated with the bus testing program.                   bus identifying the maximum standee
                                              of $2,034. FTA believes that the                                       For the revised bus payloading                             passenger rating in 2 inch or taller
                                              retesting process will not depreciate the                              procedures, FTA estimates an annual                        letters. FTA estimates the annual cost
                                              test bus an additional amount beyond                                   decrease in the program cost of $294                       impact to new bus models is $58,038.
                                              the first test. However, FTA believes                                  and a decrease in testing fees of $74.                     This cost analysis is presented in Table
                                              there are no additional costs to the                                   These are a result of labor cost savings                   H–3.

                                                                                             TABLE H–4—COST OF STANDEE PASSENGER RATING PLACARD ($)
                                                                                                                   Estimated cost per decal                                   Labor amount       Estimated cost    Total annual
                                                           Standee Rating Placard                                                                          Labor rate (hr)
                                                                                                                   (using a quantity of 500)                                   to install (hr)       per bus           cost

                                              Annual cost for new production transit
                                                buses (5600 units a year) ......................                                                   8.99             13.74                0.10              10.36         58,038
                                                 (Source: www.edecals.com using a 2.5 inch tall lettering stating ‘‘XX Standees Maximum’’).
                                                 Labor rate assumes a category of ‘‘assembler and fabricator’’ from bls.gov.


                                                 The annual cost savings of                                          testing, the cost for conducting one                       seated passenger load as all of the other
                                              eliminating the on-road fuel economy                                   electric bus fuel economy test was                         non-durability performance tests are
                                              test is $64,000 for the FTA program and                                retained.                                                  conducted at full seated load.
                                              $16,000 in manufacturer test fees. FTA                                   FTA is also changing the bus                               The program entrance requirements
                                              estimates that 15 on-road fuel economy                                 passenger load for the emissions test                      are expected to increase the annual FTA
                                              tests would be eliminated annually and                                 from 2/3 seated load weight to full                        program costs by $2,654 and require
                                              the cost of the dynamometer based fuel                                 seated load weight. FTA estimates a cost                   $664 in additional manufacturer costs.
                                              economy test is already captured in the                                reduction of $470 for the FTA program                      The additional costs are a result of the
                                              cost for the emissions test. One full                                  portion and $118 in reduced fees to the                    bus configuration inspections
                                              electric bus is expected to be tested                                  manufacturers. The cost savings is                         conducted at bus check-in. The details
                                              annually. Although electric bus models                                 derived from eliminating the labor of                      of this cost analysis are outlined in
                                              do not need to undergo emissions                                       unloading and reloading 1/3 of the                         Table H–5.

                                                                                                         TABLE H–5—BUS CONFIGURATION INSPECTION COST
                                                                              Labor category                                            Hourly rate             Source               Total hours per bus              Cost

                                              Diesel auto service tech ........................................................                    20.35            bls.gov                                 4             81.40
                                              Technical writer ......................................................................              31.49            bls.gov                                 4            125.96
                                                                                                                                                                                                Cost per bus             207.36
                                                                                                                                                                                 Total annual cost (16 buses)            $3,318



                                                 The revisions to the test scheduling                                were determined by amortizing the cost                     presented in Table H–6. FTA has
                                              process are expected to increase the                                   of test track upgrades for physical                        identified and analyzed seven categories
                                              annual paperwork burden to bus                                         security and surveillance over a 10-year                   of program benefits:
                                              manufacturers by $1,322. The test                                      period.                                                      1. Greater probability of meeting
                                              entrance requirements review milestone                                   The total annual cost of the Bus Test
                                                                                                                                                                                service life and reduced unscheduled
                                              is not expected to add any costs to the                                Program is estimated to be $5,650,515
                                                                                                                                                                                maintenance: This category estimates
                                              program as only FTA will be reviewing                                  given the changes made under this rule.
                                                                                                                     The current Bus Test Program incurs                        the annual benefits achieved by
                                              the results of the check-in process and                                                                                           adopting these procedures will improve
                                              determining the outcome of the                                         annual costs of $5,494,146. The
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES




                                                                                                                     incremental cost of the rule is                            the likelihood that new model bus
                                              milestone review.                                                                                                                 models entering revenue service will
                                                                                                                     anticipated to be $159,369 per year for
                                                 Lastly, the annual cost of the penalty                              the new bus models.                                        satisfy their service life requirement and
                                              for unauthorized maintenance and                                                                                                  the benefits obtained through a
                                              modification is estimated to be $800 for                               Benefits                                                   reduction of unscheduled maintenance
                                              the FTA program cost portion and $200                                    A summary of the estimated annual
                                              in fees to the manufacturers. The costs                                benefits of the Bus testing program is


                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014        18:56 Jul 29, 2016      Jkt 238001      PO 00000       Frm 00100    Fmt 4700    Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM     01AUR1


                                                                           Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations                                                                                                                         50383

                                              in actual service. While FTA provides a                                                  5. Increased confidence the delivered                                             categories. For many of the categories
                                              potential estimate of this benefit, FTA                                               production buses will perform the same                                               where FTA believes there are benefits
                                              does not include it in its quantitative                                               as the test bus: This category examines                                              but was unable to quantify, the result is
                                              analysis, but notes that this will most                                               the benefits of the proposals in                                                     identified as ‘‘unknown’’. For categories
                                              likely be a cost reduction (qualitative                                               increasing the understanding and                                                     where FTA believes there is no benefit,
                                              benefit) to the industry.                                                             confidence that the bus model a                                                      the result was identified as ‘‘0’’. The
                                                 2. Reduced safety risk: This category                                              recipient procures and is delivered, and                                             benefits of a greater probability of bus
                                              estimates the annual benefits that                                                    matches the bus tested with respect to                                               models meeting their service life was
                                              reduce the safety risk of new bus models                                              its design configuration and major                                                   quantified, but only to inform FTA’s
                                              entering transit service.                                                             components.                                                                          qualitative assumptions.
                                                 3. Improved recipient awareness and                                                   6. Faster comprehension of test
                                              accuracy of total bus passenger                                                       results/scores and motivation for                                                       Overall, FTA believes that the current
                                              capacity: This category of benefits                                                   improved bus performance: This                                                       program provides potential benefits in
                                              examines the benefits obtained from                                                   category examines the benefits derived                                               all of the seven categories identified
                                              determining and communicating the                                                     from the proposals to increase the speed                                             when the information generated by the
                                              rated standee passenger capacity of a                                                 and depth of comprehension of the bus                                                program is used in the procurement
                                              bus to recipients to inform their                                                     testing results.                                                                     decision process. FTA did not receive
                                              procurement process and their bus                                                        7. Simplified test scheduling process                                             comments to the docket challenging or
                                              operations.                                                                           and elimination of unnecessary testing:                                              questioning these benefits, but FTA
                                                 4. Improved recipient knowledge of a                                               This category examines the benefits of                                               believes that adopting these minimum
                                              bus model production configuration:                                                   maintaining one point and process of                                                 performance standards will reduce
                                              This category improves the knowledge                                                  program entry and the benefits of                                                    safety risks, reduce unscheduled
                                              of the tested bus model configuration                                                 eliminating unnecessary testing.                                                     maintenance, and ensure a greater
                                              and any deviations from the original                                                     FTA was unable to provide monetized                                               probability of a bus model meeting its
                                              planned configuration herein.                                                         benefits for many of the benefit                                                     expected service life.
                                                                                  TABLE H–6—SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL BENEFITS FOR ALL PROPOSALS
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Increased con-
                                                                                                          Greater prob-                                                                      Improved grant-                                           Faster com-                Simplified test
                                                                                                                                                                 Grantee aware-                                          fidence the de-
                                                                                                         ability of meet-                                                                     ee Knowledge                                            prehension of              scheduling and
                                                                                                                                                                 ness and accu-                                          livered produc-
                                                                                                         ing service life            Reduced safety                                          of Buy America                                          test scores and             process & elimi-
                                                                    Item                                                                                         racy of total bus                                        tion buses will
                                                                                                          and reduced                     risk                                               and bus testing                                          motivation for               nation of un-
                                                                                                                                                                  passenger ca-                                             perform the
                                                                                                          unscheduled                                                                        production con-                                          improved bus               necessary test-
                                                                                                                                                                      pacity                                               same as the
                                                                                                          maintenance                                                                           figuration                                             performance                      ing
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              test bus

                                              Baseline—Current Program ..............                   Unknown .........            Unknown .........           Unknown .........           Unknown .........           Unknown .........           Unknown .........           Unknown.
                                              Proposed MAP—21 Minimum Per-                              Cost reduction               Unknown .........           0 ......................    0 ......................    0 ......................    0 ......................    0.
                                                 formance Standards.
                                              Proposed Scoring System ................                  Unknown .........            Unknown .........           0 ......................    0 ......................    0 ......................    Unknown .........           0.
                                              Proposed Discretionary Program                            .........................    .........................   .........................   .........................   .........................   .........................
                                                 Changes.
                                              Revised Bus Payloading Procedures                         Unknown .........            Unknown .........           Unknown .........           0 ......................    0 ......................    0 ......................    0.
                                              Elimination of On-Road Fuel Econ-                         0 ......................     0 ......................    0 ......................    0 ......................    Unknown .........           0 ......................    Cost reduction.
                                                 omy Test.
                                              Revised Bus Passenger Load for                            0 ......................     0 ......................    0 ......................    0 ......................    0 ......................    0 ......................    Cost reduction.
                                                 Emissions Testing.
                                              Bus Testing Entrance Requirement ..                       0 ......................     Unknown .........           Unknown .........           Unknown .........           Unknown .........           0 ......................    Unknown.
                                              Revisions to the Scheduling of Test-                      0 ......................     0 ......................    0 ......................    0 ......................    0 ......................    0 ......................    Unknown.
                                                 ing Requirements.
                                              Test Requirements Review Milestone                        0 ......................     0 ......................    0 ......................    0 ......................    0 ......................    0 ......................    Unknown.
                                              Penalty for Unauthorized Mainte-                          Unknown .........            Unknown .........           Unknown .........           Unknown .........           Unknown .........           Unknown .........           0.
                                                 nance and Modification.
                                              Estimated Program Benefit (Baseline                       Cost Reduction               Unknown .........           Unknown .........           Unknown .........           Unknown .........           Unknown .........           Cost reduction.
                                                 and all Proposals).


                                                                                 TABLE H–7—BENEFITS ACHIEVED FROM THE MINIMUM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
                                                                             [Projected benefit from the service life loss prevention resulting from the proposed durability requirements]

                                                                                                                                                                                                Estimated                                              Estimated an-
                                                                                                                                                                    # of tested                 quantity of                                          nual service life            Total cost of
                                                                                                                                        # of models                models that                 buses sold in
                                                                            Service life cat-            # of units sold                                                                                                   Average new                value loss (as-              new transit
                                                     Bus Size                                                                          tested 2010–              failed durability           2013 that have
                                                                              egory (yrs)                   in 2013 1                                                                                                     bus value 2 ($)             sumes bus re-              buses procured
                                                                                                                                           2012                   (structural or              failed the pro-                                        tirement at 50%                in 2013
                                                                                                                                                                   powertrain)               posed durability                                             life) ($)
                                                                                                                                                                                                 standard

                                              > 55 foot articu-                                  12                        172                              2                           0                           0                760,766                                0         130,851,752
                                                lated.
                                              45 foot ..................                      12                           18                              2                            0                          0                 449,712                          0                 8,094,816
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES




                                              40 foot ..................                      12                         1906                             10                            1                         38                 439,954                  8,385,523               838,552,324
                                              35 foot ..................                      12                          373                              2                            1                         37                 286,972                  5,352,028               107,040,556
                                              30 foot ..................                      10                          283                              4                            1                         14                 207,528                  1,468,261                58,730,424
                                              < 27 foot ..............                    4, 5, 7                        2892                             29                            3                         60                  62,410                  1,867,135               180,489,720

                                                    Total ..............    .........................                    5644                             49                            6                       149      .........................          17,072,947            1,323,759,592
                                                1Table   9A, FY2013: http://www.fta.dot.gov/about_FTA_16073.html.
                                                2   See APTA Public Transportation Vehicle Database. http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/OtherAPTAStatistics.aspx.



                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014          18:42 Jul 29, 2016            Jkt 238001        PO 00000           Frm 00101          Fmt 4700        Sfmt 4700         E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM                   01AUR1


                                              50384                    Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

                                                FTA is not able to provide a                                           each bus size category. This estimate                                     include these values in its quantitative
                                              monetized value for the safety risk                                      assumes that 20 percent of the bus                                        calculation of benefits. FTA conducted
                                              reduction. Further, FTA estimated                                        models sold in 2013 were bus models                                       this analysis to inform FTA’s qualitative
                                              benefits of bus models meeting their                                     tested between 2010 and 2012. The                                         assumption of potential benefits. FTA
                                              service life requirements, but FTA used                                  other 80 percent of the sales were                                        found, as shown above in Table H–6,
                                              this to inform FTA’s qualitative                                         assumed to consist of existing bus                                        that the potential for a major cost
                                              assumption that there would be                                           models tested prior to 2010. FTA then                                     reduction for the industry is great, but
                                              aggregate benefits to the industry. FTA                                  estimated the projected quantity of                                       FTA is uncertain of the potential
                                              did not include this in FTA’s                                            failing buses by applying a ratio of the                                  aggregate savings on a year-to-year basis
                                              quantitative calculations because FTA                                    number of tested buses that would fail                                    into the future as the industry adapts to
                                              was uncertain of the potential aggregate                                 the proposed durability standard by the                                   the new requirements.
                                              savings on a year-to-year basis into the                                 number of bus models tested in that size
                                              future as the industry adapts to today’s                                 category to 20 percent of the 2013 bus                                       As another baseline, the lost service
                                              rulemaking. The results of this analysis                                 sales figures. This resulting quantity of                                 life value of two tested bus models
                                              are presented in Table H–7.                                              buses was multiplied by the average                                       known to have failed in service but
                                                The analysis presented in Table H–7                                    monetary value of that bus size category                                  outside the study window from 2010–
                                              used the 2013 transit bus procurement                                    and divided by two to obtain the                                          2012 was also estimated. The results of
                                              data outlined in Table 9A in the FY                                      average amount of service life value lost                                 this analysis are presented in Table H–
                                              2013 FTA statistical summaries by bus                                    assuming that each of the failed buses                                    8. Again, while FTA performed this
                                              size category and quantity. This analysis                                only satisfied 50 percent of their service                                analysis, FTA did not include these
                                              also estimated the average cost of a bus                                 life requirement. FTA notes that this                                     values in FTA’s quantitative calculation
                                              model in each size category using the                                    analysis assumes that all six models                                      of benefits. FTA used this analysis to
                                              cost information in Table 9A. FTA then                                   were not modified by the manufacturer                                     inform FTA’s qualitative assumption of
                                              determined the quantity of bus models                                    prior to procurement, as the agency has                                   potential benefits. FTA found again, as
                                              tested in each of the size categories from                               no information concerning whether or                                      shown in Table H–8, that the potential
                                              2010–2012 (49 buses total) and the                                       not any modifications did in fact occur.                                  for a major cost reduction for the
                                              number of those that failed the proposed                                 If modifications did occur, then the                                      industry is great, but FTA is uncertain
                                              durability performance standard (6).                                     potential benefits discussed here may be                                  of the potential aggregate savings on a
                                              FTA estimated the quantity of bus                                        overstated.                                                               year-to-year basis into the future as the
                                              models sold in 2013 that would have                                         FTA notes here that although FTA                                       industry adapts to the new
                                              been restricted from FTA recipients in                                   conducted this analysis, FTA did not                                      requirements.

                                                                      TABLE H–8—ESTIMATED SERVICE LIFE VALUE LOSS OF TWO FAILED BUS MODELS
                                               [Estimated benefits from service life loss prevention of proposed durability requirements with known bus models that failed in service from 2003
                                                                                                                   to 2013]

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Estimated annual
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             service life value
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Initial bus
                                                                                                         Bus size                                                                          Quantity                                        loss (assumes bus
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     value ($)              retirement at 50%
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  life) ($)

                                              60 foot articulated ................................................................................................................                     226                 451,328                 51,000,064
                                              23 foot hybrid electric ..........................................................................................................                         70                150,000                  5,250,000
                                              Total Service Value Loss .....................................................................................................         ........................   ........................           56,250,064
                                              Estimated Annual Loss over 2003–2013 ............................................................................                      ........................   ........................            5,625,006



                                                FTA, though, was able to quantify                                      reduction in labor costs and not the                                      remedies for structural and powertrain
                                              benefits provided by the durability                                      associated reduction in the costs of                                      durability were applied to the failing
                                              performance standards in the form of                                     replacement components. The basis for                                     bus models identified in the study
                                              reduced unscheduled maintenance,                                         the reduction in labor costs was the                                      group. The results of this analysis are
                                              which FTA estimates to be $531,990 per                                   estimated reduction in unscheduled                                        presented in Table H–9.
                                              year. FTA was only able to estimate the                                  maintenance hours after the design

                                                                                      TABLE H–9—BENEFITS FROM REDUCED UNSCHEDULED MAINTENANCE
                                                                           [Benefit derived from reduced bus maintenance requirements as a result of proposed durability standards]

                                                                                                                                           Average un-                Average un-
                                                                                                                                            scheduled                                          Estimated                  Benefit from
                                                                                                                                                                       scheduled                                                                  Benefit from
                                                                                                                  # of tested             maintenance                                          quantity of               the reduction
                                                                                                                                                                     maintenance                                                                 the reduction
                                                                                                                 models that              hours per bus                                       buses sold in                in mainte-
                                                                                       Service Life                                                                 hours per bus                                                               in the amount
                                                         Bus size                                              failed durability          eliminated by                                      2013 that have               nance hours
                                                                                      Category (yrs)                                                                 avoided over                                                                  of compo-
                                                                                                                (structural or               durability                                      failed the pro-               @20.35/hr
                                                                                                                                                                      50% service                                                                  nents re-
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES




                                                                                                                 powertrain)              standard dur-                                       posed dura-               (diesel service
                                                                                                                                                                    life (until early                                                                placed
                                                                                                                                          ing test (25%                                      bility standard            technician) ($)
                                                                                                                                                                       retirement)
                                                                                                                                           service life)

                                              >55 foot articulated .......                              12                          0                         0                        0                          0                         0   unknown.




                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014        18:42 Jul 29, 2016        Jkt 238001      PO 00000       Frm 00102       Fmt 4700      Sfmt 4700      E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM               01AUR1


                                                                         Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations                                                                                  50385

                                                                                TABLE H–9—BENEFITS FROM REDUCED UNSCHEDULED MAINTENANCE—Continued
                                                                             [Benefit derived from reduced bus maintenance requirements as a result of proposed durability standards]

                                                                                                                                                 Average un-                 Average un-
                                                                                                                                                  scheduled                                             Estimated         Benefit from
                                                                                                                                                                              scheduled                                                     Benefit from
                                                                                                                        # of tested             maintenance                                             quantity of      the reduction
                                                                                                                                                                            maintenance                                                    the reduction
                                                                                                                       models that              hours per bus                                          buses sold in       in mainte-
                                                                                          Service Life                                                                     hours per bus                                                  in the amount
                                                          Bus size                                                   failed durability          eliminated by                                         2013 that have      nance hours
                                                                                         Category (yrs)                                                                     avoided over                                                     of compo-
                                                                                                                      (structural or               durability                                         failed the pro-      @20.35/hr
                                                                                                                                                                             50% service                                                     nents re-
                                                                                                                       powertrain)              standard dur-                                          posed dura-      (diesel service
                                                                                                                                                                           life (until early                                                   placed
                                                                                                                                                ing test (25%                                         bility standard   technician) ($)
                                                                                                                                                                              retirement)
                                                                                                                                                 service life)

                                              45 foot ...........................                          12                              0                       0                          0                    0                0     unknown.
                                              40 foot ...........................                          12                              1                     103                        206                   38          159,300     unknown.
                                              35 ft ...............................                        12                              1                     113                        226                   37          170,167     unknown.
                                              30 ft ...............................                        10                              1                       4                          8                   14            2,279     unknown.
                                              <27 foot ........................                        4, 5, 7                             3                      82                        164                   60          200,244     unknown.

                                                     Total .......................       ........................                          6    ........................   ........................              149          531,990



                                                 FTA believes the scoring system will                                        to seated load weight instead of the 2/                                    (manufacturer, Bus Testing Facility
                                              provide benefits in the areas of reduced                                       3 seated load weight that was unique in                                    operator, FTA, and potential
                                              unscheduled maintenance, reduced                                               the emission test, the benefit of this                                     purchasers) a clear understanding of a
                                              safety risk, with the faster                                                   change is a minor cost reduction from                                      new bus model’s program eligibility and
                                              comprehension of test results, and                                             the reduced labor of unloading and                                         readiness for testing.
                                              provide industry motivation to seek bus                                        loading 1/3 of the seated load weight                                         The penalty for unauthorized
                                              models with higher test scores.                                                just for this test. FTA does not expect                                    maintenance and modification is the
                                                 FTA is confident the revisions to the                                       any other benefits from this approach.                                     repeat of all potentially affected tests.
                                              bus pay loading procedures that require                                          The entrance requirements are                                            This rule provides benefits in all the
                                              the posting of the maximum rated                                               expected to provide benefits with                                          categories identified except with the
                                              standee passenger load on the interior                                         reduced safety risk, greater awareness                                     ‘‘simplified test scheduling and
                                              bus bulkhead will provide benefits in                                          and accuracy of the bus passenger                                          elimination of unnecessary testing’’
                                              the areas of greater probability of a bus                                      capacity, greater understanding of Buy                                     category.
                                              meeting its service life requirements,                                         America implications on bus
                                              reduced amounts of unscheduled                                                 configurations with respect to major                                       Summary of Costs and Benefits for Bus
                                              maintenance, reduced safety risk, and                                          components, and prevention of                                              Model Testing
                                              greater understanding of the total rated                                       unnecessary retesting due to bus                                             The annual incremental cost of the
                                              bus passenger capacity.                                                        production configuration anomalies                                         rule is $159,369 and the quantified
                                                 FTA believes that eliminating the                                           discovered during or after the test is                                     annual benefit of future bus tests is
                                              current on-road fuel economy test and                                          completed.                                                                 expected to be $531,990, giving an
                                              only publishing the fuel economy test                                            The primary benefit of the revisions to                                  annual net benefit of $372,621. The
                                              results from the dynamometer based test                                        the scheduling of testing requirements is                                  costs and benefits of the rule are
                                              will provide recipients more realistic                                         that the process will be the same                                          expected to be the same each year into
                                              and reliable test results than the current                                     whether it is a request for full testing or                                the future.
                                              on-road fuel economy test. Having only                                         partial testing. By establishing a single
                                                                                                                                                                                                        Summary of Overall Costs and Benefits
                                              one set of fuel economy test results will                                      point of entry for the program there will
                                              also eliminate the potential confusion to                                      be less confusion about the program                                           Using a 3 and 7 percent discount rate
                                              recipients and manufacturers with                                              requirements and the process and                                           over a ten-year analysis period for the
                                              respect to the scoring of the test results.                                    consistency in the resulting                                               annual costs and benefits developed
                                              FTA was unable to quantify the benefits,                                       determinations.                                                            above, the Net Present Value of the
                                              beyond the program cost reduction, of                                            The benefit of the test requirements                                     changes encompassed within this rule
                                              eliminating the on-road fuel economy                                           review milestone is a program event that                                   would yield a net benefit of $3,178,533
                                              test.                                                                          will deliver the benefits of the bus                                       at 3 percent discount rate and
                                                 Regarding the revision to the bus                                           entrance requirements. This milestone                                      $2,617,134 at 7 percent discount rate, as
                                              passenger load for the emissions testing                                       will provide all testing stakeholders                                      shown in Table H–14.

                                                                                                      TABLE H–10—SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED COSTS AND BENEFITS
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Discounted Net Benefits @
                                                                                         Year                                                         Costs                    Benefits               Net Cash Flow
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             3%                7%
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES




                                              1   ...........................................................................................           $159,369                   $531,990                $372,621          $361,768          $348,244
                                              2   ...........................................................................................            159,369                    531,990                 372,621           351,231           325,462
                                              3   ...........................................................................................            159,369                    531,990                 372,621           341,001           304,170
                                              4   ...........................................................................................            159,369                    531,990                 372,621           331,069           284,271
                                              5   ...........................................................................................            159,369                    531,990                 372,621           321,426           265,674
                                              6   ...........................................................................................            159,369                    531,990                 372,621           312,064           248,293
                                              7   ...........................................................................................            159,369                    531,990                 372,621           302,975           232,050
                                              8   ...........................................................................................            159,369                    531,990                 372,621           294,150           216,869



                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014          17:30 Jul 29, 2016          Jkt 238001        PO 00000       Frm 00103       Fmt 4700        Sfmt 4700      E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM          01AUR1


                                              50386                      Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

                                                                                         TABLE H–10—SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED COSTS AND BENEFITS—Continued
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Discounted Net Benefits @
                                                                                        Year                                                         Costs                    Benefits              Net Cash Flow
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  3%              7%

                                              9 ...........................................................................................             159,369                    531,990                     372,621             285,583         202,681
                                              10 .........................................................................................              159,369                    531,990                     372,621             277,265         189,422

                                                     Net Present Value ........................................................               ........................   ........................   ........................     3,178,533       2,617,134



                                              Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)                                           Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of                                              Privacy Act
                                                This rule has been analyzed in                                             1995
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Anyone is able to search the
                                              accordance with the principles and                                             The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act                                           electronic form for all comments
                                              criteria contained in Executive Order                                        of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532, et seq.) requires                                    received into any of FTA’s dockets by
                                              13132 (‘‘Federalism’’’). This rule does                                      agencies to evaluate whether an agency                                       the name of the individual submitting
                                              not include any regulation that has                                          action would result in the expenditure                                       the comments (or signing the comment,
                                              substantial direct effects on the States,                                    by State, local and tribal governments,                                      if submitted on behalf of an association,
                                              the relationship between the national                                        in the aggregate, or by the private sector,                                  business, labor union, etc.). You may
                                              government and the States, or the                                            of $155 million or more (as adjusted for                                     review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
                                              distribution of power and                                                    inflation) in any one year, and if so, to                                    Statement in the Federal Register
                                              responsibilities among the various                                           take steps to minimize these unfunded                                        published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
                                              levels of government. Therefore, the                                         mandates. FTA does not believe the                                           65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you
                                              consultation and funding requirements                                        rulemaking would result in                                                   may visit www.regulations.gov.
                                              of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.                                       expenditures exceeding this level.
                                                                                                                                                                                                        Executive Order 12898 (Environmental
                                              Executive Order 13175 (Consultation                                          Paperwork Reduction Act                                                      Justice)
                                              and Coordination With Indian Tribal                                            Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
                                              Governments)                                                                                                                                                 Executive Order 12898, ‘‘Federal
                                                                                                                           of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), a
                                                                                                                                                                                                        Actions to Address Environmental
                                                This rule has been analyzed in                                             Federal agency must obtain approval
                                                                                                                                                                                                        Justice in Minority Populations and
                                              accordance with the principles and                                           from OMB before conducting or
                                                                                                                                                                                                        Low-Income Populations,’’ and DOT
                                              criteria contained in Executive Order                                        sponsoring a collection of information
                                                                                                                                                                                                        Order 5610.2(a), ‘‘Actions to Address
                                              13175 and because this rule does not                                         as defined by the PRA. Because today’s
                                                                                                                                                                                                        Environmental Justice in Minority
                                              have tribal implications and does not                                        regulation contains a new provision that
                                                                                                                                                                                                        Populations and Low-Income
                                              impose direct compliance costs, the                                          would require manufacturers to provide
                                                                                                                                                                                                        Populations (see, www.fhwa.dot.gov/
                                              funding and consultation requirements                                        technical specifications regarding their
                                                                                                                                                                                                        environment/environmental_justice/ej_
                                              of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.                                       vehicles to FTA in order to receive
                                                                                                                                                                                                        at_dot/order_56102a/index.cfm),
                                                                                                                           approval to proceed with testing, FTA
                                              Executive Order 13272                                                                                                                                     require DOT agencies to achieve
                                                                                                                           submitted a revised information
                                              (Intergovernmental Review)                                                                                                                                environmental justice (EJ) as part of
                                                                                                                           collection estimate to OMB and invited
                                                The regulations implementing                                                                                                                            their mission by identifying and
                                                                                                                           comment on the information collection
                                              Executive Order 12372 regarding                                                                                                                           addressing, as appropriate,
                                                                                                                           burden estimate published in the
                                              intergovernmental consultation on                                                                                                                         disproportionately high and adverse
                                                                                                                           NPRM.
                                              Federal programs and activities do not                                                                                                                    human health or environmental effects,
                                              apply to this rulemaking.                                                    Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)                                           including interrelated social and
                                                                                                                              A regulation identifier number (RIN)                                      economic effects, of their programs,
                                              Regulatory Flexibility Act                                                                                                                                policies, and activities on minority
                                                                                                                           is assigned to each regulatory action
                                                 The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5                                         listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal                                      populations and low-income
                                              U.S.C. 601–611) requires each agency to                                      Regulations. The Regulatory Information                                      populations in the United States. The
                                              analyze regulations and proposals to                                         Service Center publishes the Unified                                         DOT Order requires DOT agencies to
                                              assess their impact on small businesses                                      Agenda in April and October of each                                          address compliance with the Executive
                                              and other small entities to determine                                        year. The RIN number contained in the                                        Order and the DOT Order in all
                                              whether the rule or proposal will have                                       heading of this document may be used                                         rulemaking activities. To meet this goal,
                                              a significant economic impact on a                                           to cross-reference this action with the                                      FTA has issued additional final
                                              substantial number of small entities.                                        Unified Agenda.                                                              guidance in the form of a circular
                                              Although the testing requirement                                                                                                                          (Circular 4703.1, ‘‘FTA Policy Guidance
                                              imposes compliance costs on the                                              National Environmental Policy Act                                            for Federal Transit Recipients,’’ July 17,
                                              regulated industry, including bus                                              The National Environmental Policy                                          2012; http://www.fta.dot.gov/
                                              manufacturers who meet the definition                                        Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42                                           legislation_law/12349_14740.html), to
                                              of ‘‘small businesses,’’ Congress has                                        U.S.C. 4321–4347), requires Federal                                          implement Executive Order 12898 and
                                              authorized FTA to pay 80% of the bus                                         agencies to consider the consequences                                        DOT Order 5610.2(a).
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES




                                              manufacturer’s testing fee, defraying the                                    of major federal actions and prepare a                                          FTA evaluated this rule under the
                                              direct financial impact on these entities.                                   detailed statement on actions                                                Executive Order, the DOT Order, and
                                              FTA has estimated the additional costs                                       significantly affecting the quality of the                                   the FTA Circular. Environmental justice
                                              and the projected benefits of this rule                                      human environment. FTA has                                                   principles, in the context of establishing
                                              and certifies that this rule would not                                       determined that this rulemaking is                                           a quantitative scoring system for public
                                              have a significant economic impact on                                        categorically excluded pursuant to 23                                        transit vehicles, fall outside the scope of
                                              a substantial number of small entities.                                      CFR 771.118(c)(4).                                                           applicability.


                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014          17:30 Jul 29, 2016        Jkt 238001        PO 00000        Frm 00104       Fmt 4700       Sfmt 4700       E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM               01AUR1


                                                                 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations                                            50387

                                                Nothing inherent in today’s regulation                    Administrator means the                            structure, material or configuration, or a
                                              would disproportionately impact                          Administrator of the Federal Transit                  change in chassis suspension type.
                                              minority or low income populations, as                   Administration or the Administrator’s                    Major change in components means:
                                              the primary parties affected by this rule                designee.                                                (1) For those vehicles that are not
                                              are those transit vehicle manufactures                      Automotive means that the bus is not               manufactured on a third-party chassis, a
                                              who would be subject to the bus testing                  continuously dependent on external                    change in a vehicle’s engine, axle,
                                              procedures and the new quantitative                      power or guidance for normal operation.               transmission, suspension, or steering
                                              scoring system. FTA has determined                       Intermittent use of external power shall              components;
                                              that the regulation would not cause                      not automatically exclude a bus of its                   (2) For those that are manufactured on
                                              disproportionately high and adverse                      automotive character or the testing                   a third-party chassis, a change in the
                                              human health and environmental effects                   requirement.                                          vehicle’s chassis from one major design
                                              on minority or low income populations.                      Bus means a rubber-tired automotive                to another.
                                                                                                       vehicle used for the provision of public                 Major change in configuration means
                                              List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 665                                                                            a change that is expected to have a
                                                                                                       transportation service by or for a
                                                 Buses, Grant programs—                                recipient of FTA financial assistance.                significant impact on vehicle handling
                                              transportation, Public transportation,                      Bus model means a bus design or                    and stability or structural integrity.
                                              Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and                      variation of a bus design usually                        Modified third-party chassis or van
                                              recordkeeping requirements.                              designated by the manufacturer by a                   means a vehicle that is manufactured
                                                                                                       specific name and/or model number.                    from an incomplete, partially assembled
                                                 For the reasons stated in the                                                                               third-party chassis or van as provided
                                              preamble, the Federal Transit                               Bus Testing Facility means the facility
                                                                                                       used by the entity selected by FTA to                 by an OEM to a small bus manufacturer.
                                              Administration revises 49 CFR Part 665                                                                         This includes vehicles whose chassis
                                              as set forth below:                                      conduct the bus testing program,
                                                                                                       including test track facilities operated in           structure has been modified to include:
                                              Title 49—Transportation                                  connection with the program.                          A tandem or tag axle; a drop or lowered
                                                                                                          Bus Testing Report means the                       floor; changes to the GVWR from the
                                              PART 665—BUS TESTING                                                                                           OEM rating; or other modifications that
                                                                                                       complete test report for a bus model,
                                                                                                       documenting the results of performing                 are not made in strict conformance with
                                              Subpart A—General
                                                                                                       the complete set of bus tests on a bus                the OEM’s modifications guidelines
                                              Sec.                                                                                                           where they exist.
                                              665.1 Purpose.                                           model.
                                                                                                                                                                New bus model means a bus model
                                              665.3 Scope.                                                Curb weight means the weight of the
                                                                                                                                                             that—
                                              665.5 Definitions.                                       bus including maximum fuel, oil, and                     (1) Has not been used in public
                                              665.7 Certification of compliance.                       coolant; but without passengers or                    transportation service in the United
                                              Subpart B—Bus Testing Procedures                         driver.                                               States before October 1, 1988; or
                                                                                                          Emissions means the components of                     (2) Has been used in such service but
                                              665.11 Testing requirements.
                                              665.13 Test report and manufacturer                      the engine tailpipe exhaust that are                  which after September 30, 1988, is being
                                                  certification.                                       regulated by the United States                        produced with a major change in
                                                                                                       Environmental Protection Agency                       configuration or a major change in
                                              Subpart C—Operations                                     (EPA), plus carbon dioxide (CO2) and                  components.
                                              665.21 Scheduling.                                       methane (CH4).                                           Operator means the operator of the
                                              665.23 Fees.                                                Emissions control system means the
                                              665.25 Transportation of vehicle.                                                                              Bus Testing Facility.
                                                                                                       components on a bus whose primary                        Original equipment manufacturer
                                              665.27 Procedures during testing.
                                              Appendix A to Part 665—Bus Model Scoring
                                                                                                       purpose is to minimize regulated                      (OEM) means the original manufacturer
                                                System and Pass/Fail Standard                          emissions before they exit the tailpipe.              of a chassis or van supplied as a
                                                                                                       This definition does not include                      complete or incomplete vehicle to a bus
                                                Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5318 and 49 CFR                   components that contribute to low
                                              1.91.                                                                                                          manufacturer.
                                                                                                       emissions as a side effect of the manner                 Parking brake means a system that
                                              Subpart A—General                                        in which they perform their primary                   prevents the bus from moving when
                                                                                                       function (e.g., fuel injectors or                     parked by preventing the wheels from
                                              § 665.1   Purpose.                                       combustion chambers).                                 rotating.
                                                An applicant for Federal financial                        Final acceptance means the formal                     Partial testing means the performance
                                              assistance for the purchase or lease of                  approval by the recipient that the                    of only that subset of the complete set
                                              buses with funds obligated by the FTA                    vehicle has met all of its bid                        of bus tests in which significantly
                                              shall certify to the FTA that any new                    specifications and the recipient has                  different data would reasonably be
                                              bus model acquired with such                             received proper title.                                expected compared to the data obtained
                                              assistance has been tested and has                          Gross weight (Gross Vehicle Weight,                in previous full testing of the baseline
                                              received a passing test score in                         or GVW) means the seated load weight                  bus model at the Bus Testing Facility.
                                              accordance with this part. This part                     of the bus plus 150 pounds of ballast for                Partial testing report, also partial test
                                              contains the information necessary for a                 each standee passenger, up to and                     report, means a report documenting, for
                                              recipient to ensure compliance with this                 including, the maximum rated standee                  a previously-tested bus model that is
                                              provision.                                               passenger capacity identified on the bus              produced with major changes, the
                                                                                                       interior bulkhead.                                    results of performing only that subset of
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES




                                              § 665.3   Scope.                                            Hybrid means a propulsion system                   the complete set of bus tests in which
                                                This part shall apply to an entity                     that combines two power sources, at                   significantly different data would
                                              receiving Federal financial assistance                   least one of which is capable of                      reasonably be expected as a result of the
                                              under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.                              capturing, storing, and re-using energy.              changes made to the bus from the
                                                                                                          Major change in chassis design                     configuration documented in the
                                              § 665.5   Definitions.                                   means, for vehicles manufactured on a                 original full Bus Testing Report. A
                                                 As used in this part—                                 third-party chassis, a change in frame                partial testing report is not valid unless


                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:30 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00105   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM   01AUR1


                                              50388              Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

                                              accompanied by the corresponding full                    § 665.7    Certification of compliance.               identified in the test request submitted
                                              Bus Testing Report for the                                  (a) In each application to FTA for the             to FTA during the scheduling process.
                                              corresponding baseline bus                               purchase or lease of any new bus model,                  (b) If the new bus model has not
                                              configuration.                                           or any bus model with a major change                  previously been tested at the Bus
                                                 Public transportation service means                   in configuration or components to be                  Testing Facility, then the new bus
                                              the operation of a vehicle that provides                 acquired or leased with funds obligated               model shall undergo the full tests
                                              general or special service to the public                 by the FTA, the recipient shall certify               requirements for Maintainability,
                                              on a regular and continuing basis                        that the bus was tested at the Bus                    Reliability, Safety, Performance
                                              consistent with 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.                    Testing Facility and that the bus                     (including Braking Performance),
                                                                                                       received a passing test score as required             Structural Integrity, Fuel Economy,
                                                 Recipient means an entity that
                                                                                                       in this part. The recipient shall receive             Noise, and Emissions Tests.
                                              receives funds under 49 U.S.C. Chapter
                                                                                                       the appropriate full Bus Testing Report                  (c) If the new bus model has not
                                              53, either directly from FTA or through
                                                                                                       and any applicable partial testing                    previously been tested at the Bus
                                              a direct recipient.
                                                                                                       report(s) before final acceptance of the              Testing Facility and is being produced
                                                 Regenerative braking system means a                   first vehicle.                                        on a third-party chassis that has been
                                              system that decelerates a bus by                            (b) In dealing with a bus manufacturer             previously tested on another bus model
                                              recovering its kinetic energy for on-                    or dealer, the recipient shall be                     at the Bus Testing Facility, then the new
                                              board storage and subsequent use.                        responsible for determining whether a                 bus model may undergo partial testing
                                                 Retarder means a system other than                    vehicle to be acquired requires full                  in place of full testing.
                                              the service brakes that slows a bus by                   testing or partial testing or has already                (d) If the new bus model has
                                              dissipating kinetic energy.                              satisfied the requirements of this part. A            previously been tested at the Bus
                                                 Seated load weight means the curb                     bus manufacturer or recipient may                     Testing Facility, but is subsequently
                                              weight of the bus plus the seated                        request guidance from FTA.                            manufactured with a major change in
                                              passenger load simulated by adding 150                                                                         chassis or components, then the new
                                              pounds of ballast to each seating                        Subpart B—Bus Testing Procedures                      bus model may undergo partial testing
                                              position and 600 pounds per wheelchair                                                                         in place of full testing.
                                                                                                       § 665.11    Testing requirements.                        (e) Buses shall be tested according to
                                              position.
                                                                                                         (a) In order to be tested at the Bus                the service life requirements identified
                                                 Service brake(s) means the primary                    Testing Facility, a new model bus
                                              system used by the driver during normal                                                                        in the prevailing published version of
                                                                                                       shall—                                                FTA Circular 5010.
                                              operation to reduce the speed of a                         (1) Be a single model that complies                    (f) Tests performed in a higher service
                                              moving bus and to allow the driver to                    with NHTSA requirements at 49 CFR                     life category (i.e., longer service life)
                                              bring the bus to a controlled stop and                   part 565 Vehicle Identification Number                need not be repeated when the same bus
                                              hold it there. Service brakes may be                     Requirements; 49 CFR part 566                         model is used in lesser service life
                                              supplemented by retarders or by                          Manufacturer Identification; 49 CFR                   applications.
                                              regenerative braking systems.                            part 567 Certification; and where
                                                 Small bus manufacturer means a                        applicable, 49 CFR part 568 Vehicle                   § 665.13 Test report and manufacturer
                                              secondary market assembler that                          Manufactured in Two or More Stages—                   certification.
                                              acquires a chassis or van from an OEM                    All Incomplete, Intermediate and Final-                  (a) The operator of the Bus Testing
                                              for subsequent modification or assembly                  Stage Manufacturers of Vehicle                        Facility shall implement the
                                              and sale as 5-year/150,000-mile or 4-                    Manufactured in Two or More Stages;                   performance standards and scoring
                                              year/100,000-mile minimum service life                     (2) Have been produced by an entity                 system set forth in this part.
                                              vehicle.                                                 whose Disadvantaged Business                             (b) Upon completion of testing, the
                                                 Tailpipe emissions means the exhaust                  Enterprise DBE goals have been                        operator of the facility shall provide the
                                              constituents actually emitted to the                     submitted to FTA pursuant to 49 CFR                   scored test results and the resulting test
                                              atmosphere at the exit of the vehicle                    part 26;                                              report to the entity that submitted the
                                              tailpipe or corresponding system.                          (3) Identify the maximum rated                      bus for testing and to FTA. The test
                                                                                                       quantity of standee passengers on the                 report will be available to recipients
                                                 Third party chassis means a
                                                                                                       interior bulkhead in 2 inch tall or                   only after both the bus manufacturer
                                              commercially available chassis whose
                                                                                                       greater characters;                                   and FTA have approved it for release. If
                                              design, manufacturing, and quality
                                                                                                         (4) Meet all applicable Federal Motor               the bus manufacturer declines to release
                                              control are performed by an entity
                                                                                                       Vehicle Safety Standards, as defined by               the report, or if the bus did not achieve
                                              independent of the bus manufacturer.
                                                                                                       the National Highway Traffic Safety                   a passing test score, the vehicle will be
                                                 Unmodified mass-produced van                          Administration in part 571 of this title;             ineligible for FTA financial assistance.
                                              means a van that is mass-produced,                       and                                                      (c)(1) A manufacturer or dealer of a
                                              complete and fully assembled as                            (5) Be substantially fabricated and                 new bus model or a bus produced with
                                              provided by an OEM. This shall include                   assembled using the techniques, tooling,              a major change in component or
                                              vans with raised roofs, and/or                           and materials that will be used in                    configuration shall provide a copy of the
                                              wheelchair lifts, or ramps that are                      production of subsequent buses of that                corresponding full Bus Testing Report
                                              installed by the OEM or by a party other                 model with the manufacturing point of                 and any applicable partial testing
                                              than the OEM provided that the                           origin for the bus structure, the axles,              report(s) to a recipient during the point
                                              installation of these components is                      the foundation brakes, the propulsion                 in the procurement process specified by
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES




                                              completed in strict conformance with                     power system and auxiliary power                      the recipient, but in all cases before
                                              the OEM modification guidelines.                         systems (engine, transmission, traction               final acceptance of the first bus by the
                                                 Unmodified third-party chassis means                  batteries, electric motor(s), fuel cell(s)),          recipient.
                                              a third-party chassis that either has not                and the primary energy storage and                       (2) A manufacturer who releases a
                                              been modified, or has been modified in                   delivery systems (fuel tanks, fuel                    report under paragraph (c)(1) of this
                                              strict conformance with the OEM’s                        injectors & manifolds, and the fuel                   section also shall provide notice to the
                                              modification guidelines.                                 injection electronic control unit)                    operator of the facility that the test


                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:30 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00106   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM   01AUR1


                                                                 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations                                            50389

                                              results and the test report are to be made                 (e) The operator shall process vehicles             of the maintenance or repair is best
                                              available to the public.                                 FTA has approved for testing in the                   performed by the manufacturer under
                                                 (d) If a tested bus model with a Bus                  order in which the contracts are signed.              the operator’s supervision.
                                              Testing Report undergoes a subsequent                                                                             (d) The manufacturer shall be
                                                                                                       § 665.23   Fees.                                      permitted to observe all tests. The
                                              major change in component or
                                              configuration, the manufacturer or                         (a) The operator shall charge fees in               manufacturer shall not provide
                                              dealer shall advise the recipient during                 accordance with a schedule approved                   maintenance or service unless requested
                                              the procurement process and shall                        by FTA, which shall include different                 to do so by the operator.
                                              include a description of the change. Any                 fees for partial testing.                                (e) The operator shall investigate each
                                              party may ask FTA for confirmation                         (b) Fees shall be prorated for a vehicle            occurrence of unauthorized
                                              regarding the scope of the change.                       withdrawn from the Bus Testing Facility               maintenance and repairs and determine
                                                 (e) A Bus Testing Report shall be                     before the completion of testing.                     the potential impact to the validity of
                                              available publicly once the bus                            (c) The manufacturer’s portion of the               the test results. Tests where the results
                                              manufacturer makes it available during                   test fee shall be used first during the               could have been impacted must be
                                              a recipient’s procurement process. The                   conduct of testing. The operator of the               repeated at the manufacturer’s expense.
                                                                                                       Bus Testing Facility shall obtain                        (f) The operator shall perform all
                                              operator of the facility shall have copies
                                                                                                       approval from FTA prior to continuing                 modifications on the test vehicle,
                                              of all the publicly available reports
                                                                                                       testing of each bus model at the Bus                  consistent with the manufacturer’s
                                              available for distribution. The operator
                                                                                                       testing program’s expense after the                   specifications, unless the operator
                                              shall make the final test results from the
                                                                                                       manufacturer’s fee has been expended.                 determines that the nature of the
                                              approved report available electronically
                                                                                                                                                             modification is best performed by the
                                              and accessible over the internet.                        § 665.25   Transportation of vehicle.                 manufacturer under the operator’s
                                                 (f) The Bus Testing Report and the test                 A manufacturer shall be responsible                 supervision. All vehicle modifications
                                              results are the only official information                for transporting its vehicle to and from              performed after the test has started will
                                              and documentation that shall be made                     the Bus Testing Facility at the beginning             first require review and approval by
                                              publicly available in connection with                    and completion of the testing at the                  FTA. If the modification is determined
                                              any bus model tested at the Bus Testing                  manufacturer’s own risk and expense.                  to be a major change, some or all of the
                                              Facility.                                                                                                      tests already completed shall be
                                                                                                       § 665.27   Procedures during testing.                 repeated or extended at FTA’s
                                              Subpart C—Operations                                        (a) Upon receipt of a bus approved for             discretion.
                                              § 665.21   Scheduling.                                   testing the operator of the Bus Testing                  (g) The operator shall halt testing after
                                                                                                       Facility shall:                                       any occurrence of unapproved,
                                                (a) All requests for testing, including                   (1) Inspect the bus design
                                              requests for full, partial, or repeat                                                                          unauthorized, or unsupervised test
                                                                                                       configuration and compare it to the                   vehicle modifications. Following an
                                              testing, shall be submitted to the FTA                   configuration documented in the test                  occurrence of unapproved or
                                              Bus Testing Program Manager for review                   request;                                              unsupervised test vehicle modifications,
                                              prior to scheduling with the operator of                    (2) Determine if the bus, when loaded              the vehicle manufacturer shall submit a
                                              the Bus Testing Facility. All test                       to Gross Weight, does not exceed its                  new test request to FTA that addresses
                                              requests shall provide: A detailed                       Gross Vehicle Weight Rating, Gross Axle               all the requirements in 665.11 to reenter
                                              description of the new bus model to be                   Weight Ratings, or maximum tire load                  the Bus testing program.
                                              tested; the service life category of the                 ratings;                                                 (h) The operator shall perform eight
                                              bus; engineering level documentation                        (3) Determine if the bus is capable of             categories of tests on new bus models.
                                              characterizing all major changes to the                  negotiating the durability test track at              The eight tests and their corresponding
                                              bus model; and documentation that                        curb weight, seated load weight, and                  performance standards are described in
                                              demonstrates satisfaction of each one of                 Gross Vehicle Weight;                                 the following paragraphs.
                                              the testing requirements outlined in                        (4) Determine if the bus is capable of                (1) Maintainability test. The
                                              section 665.11(a).                                       performing the Fuel Economy and                       Maintainability test shall include bus
                                                (b) FTA will review the request,                       Emissions Test duty cycles within the                 servicing, preventive maintenance,
                                              determine if the bus model is eligible for               established standards for speed                       inspection, and repair. It shall also
                                              testing, and provide an initial response                 deviation.                                            include the removal and reinstallation
                                              within five (5) business days. FTA will                     (b) The operator shall present the                 of the engine and drive-train
                                              prepare a written response to the                        results obtained from the activities of               components that would be expected to
                                              requester for use in scheduling the                      665.27(a) and present them to the bus                 require replacement during the bus’s
                                              required testing.                                        manufacturer and the FTA Bus Testing                  normal life cycle. Much of the
                                                (c) To schedule a bus for testing, a                   Program Manager for review prior to                   maintainability data should be obtained
                                              manufacturer shall contact the operator                  initiating testing using the Bus testing              during the Bus Durability Test. All
                                              of the Bus Testing Facility and provide                  program funds. FTA will provide a                     servicing, preventive maintenance, and
                                              the FTA response to the test request.                    written response within five (5)                      repair actions shall be recorded and
                                              Contact information and procedures for                   business days to authorize the start of               reported. These actions shall be
                                              scheduling testing are available on the                  testing or to request clarification for any           performed by test facility staff, although
                                              operator’s Bus Testing Web site, http://                 discrepancies noted from the activities               manufacturers shall be allowed to
                                              www.altoonabustest.com.                                  of 665.27(a). Testing can commence                    maintain a representative on-site during
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES




                                                (d) Upon contacting the operator, the                  after five (5) business days if FTA does              the testing. Test facility staff may
                                              operator shall provide the manufacturer                  not provide a response.                               require a manufacturer to provide
                                              with the following:                                         (c) The operator shall perform all                 vehicle servicing or repair under the
                                                (1) A draft contract for the testing;                  maintenance and repairs on the test                   supervision of the facility staff. Since
                                                (2) A fee schedule; and                                vehicle, consistent with the                          the operator may not be familiar with
                                                (3) The test procedures for the tests                  manufacturer’s specifications, unless                 the detailed design of all new bus
                                              that will be conducted on the vehicle.                   the operator determines that the nature               models that are tested, tests to


                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:30 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00107   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM   01AUR1


                                              50390              Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

                                              determine the time and skill required                    within the lane change test course at a               Tests shall be performed. Structural
                                              for removing and reinstalling an engine,                 speed of no less than 45 mph.                         Strength and Distortion Tests shall be
                                              a transmission, or other major                              (i) The functionality and performance              performed at the Bus Testing Center,
                                              propulsion system components may                         of the service, regenerative (if                      and the Structural Durability Test shall
                                              require advice from the bus                              applicable), and parking brake systems                be performed at the test track.
                                              manufacturer. All routine and corrective                 shall be evaluated at the test track. The                (i) Structural strength and distortion
                                              maintenance shall be carried out by the                  test bus shall be subjected to a series of            tests. (1) The bus shall be loaded to
                                              operator in accordance with the                          brake stops from specified speeds on                  GVW, with one wheel on top of a curb
                                              manufacturer’s specifications.                           high, low, and split-friction surfaces.               and then in a pothole. This test shall be
                                                 (i) The Maintainability Test Report                   The parking brake shall be evaluated                  repeated for all four wheels. The test
                                              shall include the frequency, personnel                   with the bus parked facing both up and                verifies:
                                              hours, and replacement parts or                          down a steep grade. There are three                      (i) Normal operation of the steering
                                              supplies required for each action during                 performance standards for braking. The                mechanism and;
                                              the test. The accessibility of selected                  stopping distance from a speed of 45                     (ii) Operability of all passenger doors,
                                              components and other observations that                   mph on a high friction surface shall                  passenger escape mechanisms,
                                              could be important to a bus purchaser                    satisfy the bus stopping distance                     windows, and service doors. A water
                                              shall be included in the report.                         requirements of FMVSS 105 or 121 as                   leak test shall be conducted in each
                                                 (ii) The performance standard for                     applicable. The bus shall remain within               suspension travel condition. The
                                              Maintainability is that no greater than                  a standard 12-foot lane width during                  performance standard shall be that all
                                              125 hours of total unscheduled                           split coefficient brake stops. The                    vehicle passenger exits remain
                                              maintenance shall be accumulated over                    parking brake shall hold the test vehicle             operational throughout the test.
                                              the execution of a full test.                            stationary on a 20 percent grade facing                  (2) Using a load-equalizing towing
                                                 (2) Reliability test. Reliability shall               up and down the grade for a period of                 sling, a static tension load equal to 1.2
                                              not be a separate test, but shall be                     5 minutes.                                            times the curb weight shall be applied
                                              addressed by recording all bus failures                     (ii) A review of all the Class 1 failures          to the bus towing fixtures (front and
                                              and breakdowns during all other testing.                 that occurred during the test shall be                rear). The load shall be removed and the
                                              The detected bus failures, repair time,                  conducted as part of the Safety Test.                 two eyes and adjoining structure
                                              and the actions required to return the                   Class 1 failures include those failures               inspected for damages or permanent
                                              bus to operation shall be presented in                   that, when they occur, could result in a              deformations. The performance
                                              the report. The performance standard                     loss of vehicle control; in serious injury            standard shall be that no permanent
                                              for Reliability is that the vehicle under                to the driver, passengers, pedestrians, or            deformation is experienced at static
                                              test experience no more than one                         other motorists; and in property damage               loads up to 1.2 times the vehicle curb
                                              uncorrected Class 1 failure and two                      or loss due to collision or fire. The                 weight.
                                              uncorrected Class 2 failures over the                    performance standard is that at the                      (3) The bus shall be towed at CW with
                                              execution of a full test. Class 1 failures               completion of testing with no                         a heavy wrecker truck for 5 miles at 20
                                              are addressed in the Safety Test, below.                 uncorrected Class 1 failure modes. A                  mph and then inspected for structural
                                              An uncorrected Class 2 failure is a                      failure is considered corrected when a                damage or permanent deformation. The
                                              failure mode not addressed by a design                   design or component modification is                   performance standard shall be that the
                                              or component modification that would                     validated through sufficient remaining                vehicle is towable with a standard
                                              cause a transit vehicle to be unable to                  or additional Reliability Tests in which              commercial vehicle wrecker without
                                              complete its transit route and require                   the failure does not reoccur over a                   experiencing any permanent damage to
                                              towing or on-route repairs. A failure is                 number of miles equal to or greater than              the vehicle.
                                              considered corrected when a design or                    the additional failure up to 100% of the                 (4) With the bus at CW, probable
                                              component modification is validated                      durability test mileage for the service               damages and clearance issues due to tire
                                              through sufficient remaining or                          life category of the tested bus.                      deflating and hydraulic jacking shall be
                                              additional reliability testing in which                     (4) Performance test. The Performance              assessed. The performance standard
                                              the failure does not reoccur.                            Test shall measure the maximum                        shall be that the vehicle is capable of
                                                 (3) Safety test. The Safety Test shall                acceleration, speed, and gradeability                 being lifted with a standard commercial
                                              consist of a Handling and Stability Test,                capability of the test vehicle. In                    vehicle hydraulic jack.
                                              a Braking Performance Test, and a                        determining the transit vehicle’s                        (5) With the bus at CW, possible
                                              review of the Class 1 reliability failures               maximum acceleration and speed, the                   damages or deformation associated with
                                              that occurred during the test. The                       bus shall be accelerated at full throttle             lifting the bus on a two post hoist
                                              Handling and Stability Test shall be an                  from rest until it achieves its maximum               system or supporting it on jack stands
                                              obstacle avoidance double-lane change                    speed on a level roadway. The                         shall be assessed. The performance
                                              test performed on a smooth and level                     performance standard for acceleration is              standard shall be that the vehicle is
                                              test track. The lane change course will                  that the maximum time that the test                   capable of being supported by jack
                                              be set up using pylons to mark off two                   vehicle requires to achieve 30 mph is 18              stands rated for the vehicle’s weight.
                                              12 foot center to center lanes with two                  seconds on a level grade. The                            (i) Structural durability test. The
                                              100 foot lane change areas 100 feet                      gradeability test of the test vehicle shall           Structural Durability Test shall be
                                              apart. Bus speed shall be held constant                  be calculated based on the data                       performed on the durability course at
                                              throughout a given test run. Individual                  measured on a level grade during the                  the test track, simulating twenty-five
                                              test runs shall be made at increasing                    Acceleration Test. The performance                    percent of the vehicle’s normal service
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES




                                              speeds up to a specified maximum or                      standard for the gradeability test is that            life. The bus structure shall be inspected
                                              until the bus can no longer be operated                  the test vehicle achieves a sustained                 regularly during the test, and the
                                              safely over the course, whichever speed                  speed of at least 40 mph on a 2.5                     mileage and identification of any
                                              is lower. Both left- and right-hand lane                 percent grade and a sustained speed of                structural anomalies and failures shall
                                              changes shall be tested. The                             at least 10 mph on a 10 percent grade.                be reported in the Reliability Test. There
                                              performance standard is that the test                       (5) Structural integrity tests. Two                shall be two performance standards for
                                              vehicle can safely negotiate and remain                  complementary Structural Integrity                    the Durability Test, one to address the


                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:30 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00108   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM   01AUR1


                                                                 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations                                             50391

                                              vehicle frame and body structure and                     while the bus is idling (or in a                      other agencies, such as the EPA, or for
                                              one to address the bus propulsion                        comparable operating mode) and                        other purposes.
                                              system. The performance standard for                     driving over smooth and irregular road                  (ii) The emissions performance
                                              the vehicle frame and body structure                     surfaces, and also shall measure the                  standard shall be the prevailing EPA
                                              shall be that there are no uncorrected                   transmission of exterior noise to the                 emissions requirements for heavy-duty
                                              failure modes of the vehicle frame and                   interior while the bus is not running.                vehicles outlined in 40 CFR part 86 and
                                              body structure at the completion of the                  The exterior noise shall be measured as               40 CFR part 1037.
                                              full vehicle test. The performance                       the bus is operated past a stationary
                                              standard for the vehicle propulsion                      measurement instrument. There shall be                Appendix A to Part 665—Bus Model
                                              system is that there are no uncorrected                  two minimum noise performance                         Scoring System and the Pass/Fail
                                              powertrain failure modes at the                          standards: One to address the maximum                 Standard
                                              completion of a full test.                               interior noise during vehicle                         1. Bus Model Scoring System
                                                 (ii) [Reserved]                                       acceleration from a stop, and one to
                                                 (6) Fuel economy test. The Fuel                                                                                The Bus Model Scoring System shall be
                                                                                                       address the maximum exterior noise
                                              Economy Test shall be conducted using                                                                          used to score the test results using the
                                                                                                       during vehicle acceleration from a stop.              performance standards in each category. A
                                              duty cycles that simulate a diverse range                The performance standard for interior
                                              of transit service operating profiles. This                                                                    bus model that fails to meet a minimum
                                                                                                       noise while the vehicle accelerates from              performance standard shall be deemed to
                                              test shall measure the fuel economy or                   0–35 mph shall be no greater than 80                  have failed the test and will not receive an
                                              fuel consumption of the vehicle and                      decibels A-weighted. The performance                  aggregate score. For buses that have passed
                                              present the results in metrics that                      standard for exterior noise while the                 all the minimum performance standards, an
                                              minimize the number of unit                              vehicle accelerates from 0–35 miles per               aggregate score shall be generated and
                                              conversions for mass, volume, and                        hour shall be no greater than 83 decibels             presented in each Bus Testing Report. A bus
                                              energy.                                                  A-weighted.                                           model that just satisfies the minimum
                                                 (i) The Fuel Economy Test shall be                                                                          baseline performance standard and does not
                                              designed only to enable FTA recipients                      (8) Emissions test. The Emissions Test
                                                                                                                                                             exceed any of the standards shall receive a
                                              to compare the relative fuel economy of                  shall measure tailpipe emissions of
                                                                                                                                                             score of 60. The maximum score a bus model
                                              buses operating at a consistent loading                  those exhaust constituents regulated by               shall receive is 100. The minimum and
                                              condition on the same set of typical                     the United States EPA for transit bus                 maximum points available in each test
                                              transit driving cycles. The results of this              emissions, plus carbon dioxide (CO2)                  category shall be as shown below in Table A.
                                              test are not directly comparable to fuel                 and methane (CH4), as the bus is                      The Bus Testing report will include a scoring
                                              economy estimates by other agencies,                     operated over specific repeatable transit             summary table that displays the resulting
                                              such as the National Highway Traffic                     vehicle driving cycles. The Emissions                 scores in each of the test categories and
                                              Safety Administration (NHTSA) or U.S.                    test shall be conducted using an                      subcategories. The scoring summary table
                                              Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)                    emission testing laboratory equipped                  shall have a disclaimer footnote stating that
                                                                                                       with a chassis dynamometer capable of                 the use of the scoring system is not
                                              or for other purposes.
                                                                                                       both absorbing and applying power.                    mandatory, only that the bus being procured
                                                 (ii) The performance standard for fuel
                                                                                                                                                             receive a passing score.
                                              economy shall be the prevailing model                       (i) The Emissions Test is not a
                                              year fuel consumption standards for                      certification test, and is designed only to           2. Pass/Fail Standard
                                              heavy-duty vocational vehicles outlined                  enable FTA recipients to relatively                     The passing standard shall be a score of 60.
                                              in the NHTSA’s Medium and Heavy-                         compare the emissions of buses                        Bus models that fail to meet one or more of
                                              Duty Fuel Efficiency Program (49 CFR                     operating on the same set of typical                  the minimum baseline performance
                                              part 535).                                               transit driving cycles. The results of this           standards will be ineligible to obtain an
                                                 (7) Noise test. The Noise Test shall                  test are not directly comparable to                   aggregate passing score.
                                              measure interior noise and vibration                     emissions measurements reported to                    BILLING CODE P
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES




                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:30 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00109   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM   01AUR1


                                              50392              Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations


                                                                           TABLE A: Performance Standards, Scoring System, and Pass/Fail
                                                                                                                                                       All Performance Standards Met?
                                                                                                                                                  No                 Yes    -          Assess Score
                                                            Test Category                             Performance Standard
                                                                                                                                                         Base Score
                                                                                                                                                                             + Prorated Points for
                                                                                                                                                                           Measured Test Performance

                                                                                                 All exits remain operational under each
                                                                       Distortion                                                                             1.0
                                                                                                 distortion loading condition

                                                                                                 No significant deformation nuder 120%
                                                                       Static Towing                                                                          1.0
                                                                                                 curb weight load

                                                                       Dynamic Towing            Bus is towable with standard wrecker                         1.0
                                                Structural
                                                Integrity              Jacking                   Bus is liftable with a standard jack                         1.0
                                                (30 pts.)              Hoisting                  Bus stable on jacks                                          1.0

                                                                                                 No uncorrected frame & body structure
                                                                                                                                                             13.0
                                                                                                 failures remaining at completion of test
                                                                       Durability
                                                                                                 No uncorrected powertrain failures
                                                                                                                                                             12.0
                                                                                                 remaining at completion oftest

                                                                                                 No uncorrected Class 1 reliability failures
                                                                       Hazards                                                                               10.0
                                                                                                 remaining at test completion

                                                                       Stability                 Lane change speed no less than 45 mph                        2.5


                                                Safety                                           Stopping distance from 45 mph within 158
                                                                                                                                                              0.5
                                                (20 pts.)                                        feet as per FMVSS 105 & FMVSS 121

                                                                       Braking
                                                                                                 Bus remains within lane during split
                                                                                                                                                              2.5
                                                                                                 coefficient brake stops

                                                                                                 Parking brake holds on 20% grade                             2.5

                                                                                                                                                                           Hours:         125          0
                                                                                                 Accumulation of uo more than 125 hours
                                                Maintainability (16 pts.)                        of unscheduled maintenance
                                                                                                                                                              2.0
                                                                                                                                                                           Points:        0.0         14.0

                                                                                                                                                                           Failures:       2           0
                                                                                                 No more than 2 uncorrected Class 2
                                                Reliability (8 pts.)                             failures remaining at completion of test
                                                                                                                                                              2.0
                                                                                                                                                                           Points:        0.0         6.0
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES




                                                                                                                                                                                                             ER01AU16.000</GPH>




                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:30 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00110   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4725   E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM    01AUR1


                                                                 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations                                           50393

                                                                       Liquid Fuels                                                                                      MPG:                   13
                                                                       (Diesel, Gasoline,
                                                                       LPG, LNG)                                                                                         Points:         0.0    6.0

                                                Fuel                                                                                                                     SCF/mi:         50     10
                                                                       CNG                       Compliant with 49 CFR part 535
                                                Economy                                          MEDIUM- AND IlEAVY-DUTY                                                 Points:         0.0    6.0
                                                (7 pts.)                                         VEHICLE FUEL EFFICIENCY                                      1.0
                                                                                                 PROGRAM- Heavy-Duty Vocational                                          SCF/mi:         98     15
                                                                       Hydrogen                  Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards
                                                                                                                                                                         Points:         0.0    6.0
                                                (Only 1 fuel type
                                                scored)                                                                                                                  kW-hr/mi:        3
                                                                       Electric
                                                                                                                                                                         Points:         0.0    6.0

                                                                                                                                                                         Grams/mi:       4000    0
                                                                       Carbon Dioxide
                                                                       (COz)                                                                                             Points:                4.0
                                                                                                                                                                                         0.0

                                                                                                                                                                         Grams/mi:        20     0
                                                                       Carbon Monoxide
                                                                       (CO)                      Compliant with all applicable EPA exhaust
                                                                                                 emissions regulations at date of                                        Points:         0.0    0.4
                                                                                                 manufacture including:
                                                                                                                                                                         Grams/mi:        3      0
                                                                       Total Hydrocarbon
                                                                                                  40 CFR part 86 CONTROL OF
                                                                       (THC)
                                                Emissions                                         EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE                               1.0        Points:          0.0   0.4
                                                (7 pts.)                                          HIGHWAY VEHICLES AND ENGINES
                                                                       Non-Methane                                                                                       Grams/mi:        3      0
                                                                       Hydrocarbon                40 CFR part 1037 CONTROL OF
                                                                       (NMHC)                     EMISSIONS FROM NEW HEAVY-                                              Points:          0.0   0.4
                                                                                                  DUTY MOTOR VEHICLES
                                                                                                                                                                         Grams/mi:        2      0
                                                                       Nitrogen Oxides
                                                (All emissions
                                                                       (NOx)
                                                categories scored)                                                                                                       Points:         0.0    0.4

                                                                                                                                                                         Grams/mi:       0.1     0
                                                                       Particulate Matter
                                                                       (PM)
                                                                                                                                                                         Points:         0.0    0.4

                                                                       Interior-                                                                                         dB(A):           80    30
                                                                       acceleration              No greater than 80 decibels (dB(A))                          0.5
                                                                       0-35 mph                                                                                          Points:         0.0    3.0
                                                Noise
                                                (7 pts.)               Exterior-                                                                                         dB(A):           83     50
                                                                       acceleration              No greater than 83 decibels (dB(A))                          0.5
                                                                       0-35 mph                                                                                          Points:         0.0    3.0

                                                                                                  Time from 0-30 mph no greater
                                                                        Acceleration                                                                          1.5
                                                                                                  than 18 sec

                                                Performance                                       Sustained speed on 2.5% grade no less
                                                                                                                                                              1.5
                                                (5 pts.)                                          than 40 mph
                                                                        Gradeability
                                                                                                  Sustained speed on 10% grade no less
                                                                                                                                                              2.0
                                                                                                  than 10 mph



                                                Overall Result                                                                                               60               +           0     40

                                                                                                            Maximum Aggregate Score                                                100
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES




                                                                                                                                                                                                        ER01AU16.001</GPH>




                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:30 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00111   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 9990   E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM   01AUR1


                                              50394              Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

                                              Carolyn Flowers,                                         warranted for 24 of the species and 3 of              the timing of when a species may be in
                                              Acting Administrator.                                    the subpopulations and announced the                  danger of extinction, either presently
                                              [FR Doc. 2016–17889 Filed 7–29–16; 8:45 am]              initiation of status reviews for each of              (endangered) or in the foreseeable future
                                              BILLING CODE C                                           the 24 species and 3 subpopulations (78               (threatened).
                                                                                                       FR 63941, October 25, 2013; 78 FR                        Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires us
                                                                                                       66675, November 6, 2013; 78 FR 69376,                 to determine whether any species is
                                              DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE                                   November 19, 2013; 79 FR 9880,                        endangered or threatened due to any
                                                                                                       February 21, 2014; and 79 FR 10104,                   one or a combination of the following
                                              National Oceanic and Atmospheric                         February 24, 2014). On July 14, 2015,
                                                                                                                                                             five threat factors: The present or
                                              Administration                                           we published a proposed rule to list the
                                                                                                                                                             threatened destruction, modification, or
                                                                                                       sawback angelshark (Squatina
                                                                                                                                                             curtailment of its habitat or range;
                                              50 CFR Part 224                                          aculeata), smoothback angelshark
                                                                                                                                                             overutilization for commercial,
                                                                                                       (Squatina oculata), and the common
                                              [Docket No. 150506424–6642–02]                           angelshark (Squatina squatina) as                     recreational, scientific, or educational
                                                                                                       endangered species (80 FR 40969). We                  purposes; disease or predation; the
                                              RIN 0648–XD940
                                                                                                       requested public comment on                           inadequacy of existing regulatory
                                              Endangered and Threatened Wildlife                       information in the draft status review                mechanisms; or other natural or
                                              and Plants; Listing Three Angelshark                     and proposed rule, and the comment                    manmade factors affecting its continued
                                              Species as Endangered Under the                          period was open through September 14,                 existence. We are also required to make
                                              Endangered Species Act                                   2015. This final rule provides a                      listing determinations based solely on
                                                                                                       discussion of the information we                      the best scientific and commercial data
                                              AGENCY:  National Marine Fisheries                       received during the public comment                    available, after conducting a review of
                                              Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and                     period and our final determination on                 the species’ status and after taking into
                                              Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),                       the petition to list the sawback                      account efforts being made by any State
                                              Commerce.                                                angelshark, smoothback angelshark, and                or foreign nation to protect the species.
                                              ACTION: Final rule.                                      common angelshark under the ESA. The                     In making a listing determination, we
                                                                                                       status of the findings and relevant                   first determine whether a petitioned
                                              SUMMARY:    We, NMFS, issue a final rule                 Federal Register notices for the other 21
                                              to list three foreign marine angelshark                                                                        species meets the ESA definition of a
                                                                                                       species and 3 subpopulations can be                   ‘‘species.’’ Next, using the best available
                                              species under the Endangered Species                     found on our Web site at http://
                                              Act (ESA). We considered comments                                                                              information gathered during the status
                                                                                                       www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/                         review for the species, we complete a
                                              submitted on the proposed listing rule                   petition81.htm.
                                              and have determined that the sawback                                                                           status and extinction risk assessment. In
                                              angelshark (Squatina aculeata),                          Listing Species Under the Endangered                  assessing extinction risk for these three
                                              smoothback angelshark (Squatina                          Species Act                                           angelshark species, we considered the
                                              oculata), and common angelshark                                                                                demographic viability factors developed
                                                                                                          We are responsible for determining                 by McElhany et al. (2000). The approach
                                              (Squatina squatina) warrant listing as                   whether species are threatened or
                                              endangered species. We will not                                                                                of considering demographic risk factors
                                                                                                       endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C.                   to help frame the consideration of
                                              designate critical habitat for any of these              1531 et seq.). To make this
                                              species because the geographical areas                                                                         extinction risk has been used in many
                                                                                                       determination, we first consider                      of our status reviews, including for
                                              occupied by these species are entirely                   whether a group of organisms
                                              outside U.S. jurisdiction, and we have                                                                         Pacific salmonids, Pacific hake, walleye
                                                                                                       constitutes a ‘‘species’’ under the ESA,
                                              not identified any unoccupied areas                                                                            pollock, Pacific cod, Puget Sound
                                                                                                       then whether the status of the species
                                              within U.S. jurisdiction that are                                                                              rockfishes, Pacific herring, scalloped
                                                                                                       qualifies it for listing as either
                                              currently essential to the conservation                                                                        hammerhead sharks, and black abalone
                                                                                                       threatened or endangered. Section 3 of
                                              of any of these species.                                                                                       (see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
                                                                                                       the ESA defines a ‘‘species’’ to include
                                                                                                                                                             species/ for links to these reviews). In
                                              DATES: This final rule is effective August               ‘‘any subspecies of fish or wildlife or
                                                                                                                                                             this approach, the collective condition
                                              31, 2016.                                                plants, and any distinct population
                                                                                                                                                             of individual populations is considered
                                              ADDRESSES: Chief, Endangered Species                     segment of any species of vertebrate fish
                                                                                                                                                             at the species level according to four
                                              Division, NMFS Office of Protected                       or wildlife which interbreeds when
                                                                                                                                                             viable population descriptors:
                                              Resources (F/PR3), 1315 East West                        mature.’’
                                                                                                          Section 3 of the ESA defines an                    Abundance, growth rate/productivity,
                                              Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.                                                                              spatial structure/connectivity, and
                                                                                                       endangered species as ‘‘any species
                                              FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:                         which is in danger of extinction                      diversity. These viable population
                                              Maggie Miller, NMFS, Office of                           throughout all or a significant portion of            descriptors reflect concepts that are
                                              Protected Resources (OPR), (301) 427–                    its range’’ and a threatened species as               well-founded in conservation biology
                                              8403.                                                    one ‘‘which is likely to become an                    and that individually and collectively
                                              SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:                               endangered species within the                         provide strong indicators of extinction
                                                                                                       foreseeable future throughout all or a                risk (NMFS 2015).
                                              Background                                               significant portion of its range.’’ We                   We then assess efforts being made to
                                                 On July 15, 2013, we received a                       interpret an ‘‘endangered species’’ to be             protect the species to determine if these
                                              petition from WildEarth Guardians to                     one that is presently in danger of                    conservation efforts are adequate to
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES




                                              list 81 marine species or subpopulations                 extinction. A ‘‘threatened species,’’ on              mitigate the existing threats. Section
                                              as threatened or endangered under the                    the other hand, is not presently in                   4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the
                                              ESA. This petition included species                      danger of extinction, but is likely to                Secretary, when making a listing
                                              from many different taxonomic groups,                    become so in the foreseeable future (that             determination for a species, to take into
                                              and we prepared our 90-day findings in                   is, at a later time). In other words, the             consideration those efforts, if any, being
                                              batches by taxonomic group. We found                     primary statutory difference between a                made by any State or foreign nation to
                                              that the petitioned actions may be                       threatened and endangered species is                  protect the species.


                                         VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:30 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00112   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM   01AUR1



Document Created: 2016-07-30 06:25:47
Document Modified: 2016-07-30 06:25:47
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionRules and Regulations
ActionFinal rule.
DatesThe effective date of this rule is October 31, 2016.
ContactFor technical information, Michael Baltes, Director, Office of Infrastructure and Asset Innovation, Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation (TRI), (202) 366-2182, [email protected] For legal information, Richard Wong, Office of the Chief Counsel (TCC), (202) 366-4011, [email protected]
FR Citation81 FR 50367 
RIN Number2132-AB11
CFR AssociatedBuses; Grant Programs-Transportation; Public Transportation; Motor Vehicle Safety and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR