Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 191 / Monday, October 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 51083 

prohibits flood insurance coverage 

unless an appropriate public body 

adopts adequate floodplain management 

measures with effective enforcement 

measures. The communities listed no 

longer comply with the statutory 

requirements, and after the effective 

date, flood insurance will no longer be 

available in the communities unless 

remedial action takes place. 

Regulatory Classification. This final 

rule is not a significant regulatory action 

under the criteria of section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 

1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 

58 FR 51735. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. 

This rule involves no policies that have 

federalism implications under Executive 

Order 13132. 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This rule meets the applicable 

standards of Executive Order 12988. 

Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule 

does not involve any collection of 

information for purposes of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. 

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64 

Flood insurance, Floodplains. 

■ Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 64—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 64 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; 

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 

1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 

3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376. 

§ 64.6 [Amended] 

■ 2. The tables published under the 

authority of § 64.6 are amended as 

follows: 

State and location Community 

No. 

Effective date authorization/cancellation of 

sale of flood insurance in community 

Current effective 

map date 

Date certain 

Federal assistance no longer 

available in 

SFHAs 

Region III 

Virginia: 

Farmville, Town of, Prince Edward and 

Cumberland Counties.

510118 November 9, 1973, Emerg; September 1, 

1978, Reg; October 2, 2009, Susp.

Oct. 2, 2009 ...... Oct. 2, 2009. 

Prince Edward County, Unincorporated 

Areas.

510239 April 11, 1974, Emerg; September 1, 1978, 

Reg; October 2, 2009, Susp.

......do* .............. do. 

Region IV 

North Carolina: 

Brevard, City of, Transylvania County .. 370231 January 17, 1974, Emerg; September 29, 

1978, Reg; October 2, 2009, Susp.

......do ............... do. 

Rosman, Town of, Transylvania County 375358 December 30, 1971, Emerg; June 2, 1972, 

Reg; October 2, 2009, Susp.

......do ............... do. 

Transylvania County, Unincorporated 

Areas.

370230 January 21, 1974, Emerg; January 2, 1980, 

Reg; October 2, 2009, Susp.

......do ............... do. 

Region V 

Wisconsin: 

Delavan, City of, Walworth County ....... 550463 October 18, 1974, Emerg; September 1, 

1983, Reg; October 2, 2009, Susp.

......do ............... do. 

East Troy, Village of, Walworth County 550464 December 12, 1975, Emerg; December 1, 

1982, Reg; October 2, 2009, Susp.

......do ............... do. 

Fontana-on-Geneva Lake, Village of, 

Walworth County.

550592 NA, Emerg; March 23, 2006, Reg; October 

2, 2009, Susp.

......do ............... do. 

Mukwonago, Village of, Walworth and 

Waukesha Counties.

550485 February 18, 1975, Emerg; July 5, 1982, 

Reg; October 2, 2009, Susp.

......do ............... do. 

Walworth County, Unincorporated Areas ..... 550462 June 10, 1975, Emerg; August 15, 1983, 

Reg; October 2, 2009, Susp.

......do ............... do. 

*do = Ditto. 

Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension. 

Dated: September 22, 2009. 

Edward L. Connor, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, Mitigation 

Directorate, Department of Homeland 

Security, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency. 

[FR Doc. E9–23960 Filed 10–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

49 CFR Part 665 

[Docket No. FTA–2007–0011] 

RIN 2132–AA95 

Bus Testing; Phase-In of Brake 

Performance and Emissions Testing, 

and Program Updates 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the 

Federal Transit Administration’s 

(FTA’s) bus testing regulation to 

incorporate brake performance and 

emissions tests into FTA’s bus testing 

program to comply with statutory 

changes. To improve the program, this 

final rule also republishes the existing 

regulation to incorporate several 

updates that will enhance the program’s 

value and respond to changes in the bus 

manufacturing industry and to bring it 

into conformity with statutory language. 

DATES: This rule is effective January 1, 

2010. 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
51084 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 191 / Monday, October 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information, Marcel Belanger, 

Bus Testing Program Manager, Office of 

Research, Demonstration, and 

Innovation (TRI), (202) 366–0725, 

marcel.belanger@dot.gov. For legal 

information, Richard Wong, Office of 

the Chief Counsel (TCC), (202) 366– 

0675, richard.wong@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 30, 2008, the Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) published 

a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) in the Federal Register (73 FR 

56781) that discussed proposals to 

incorporate brake performance and 

emissions tests into FTA’s bus testing 

program as required by 49 U.S.C. 

Section 5318, as amended by the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Equitable 

Transportation Efficiency Act: a Legacy 

for Users (SAFETEA–LU) (Pub. L. 109– 

59). These changes required by statute 

included a brake performance test 

procedure and an emissions test 

procedure. 

The NPRM also sought comments on 

a number of other proposed ways to 

update the regulation to improve the 

functioning of the program, enhance its 

value, and clarify possible ambiguities 

in the existing regulation. These 

proposed changes, which were not 

required by statute, but were intended 

to improve the program, addressed 

issues related to: (1) The determination 

of service life category; (2) testing of 

buses that exceed weight limits when 

fully loaded; (3) clarification of FTA’s 

‘‘Family of Vehicles’’ policy; (4) 

separate reporting of third-party chassis 

test results; and, (5) the inclusion of an 

FTA evaluation or recommendation of 

bus models in bus testing reports. 

Comments Received 

FTA received a total of five 

comments—one from a major industry 

trade association consisting of more 

than 1,500 public and private members, 

one from a large public transit agency, 

a third from a manufacturer trade 

association representing almost 700 

companies making motor vehicle 

components, the fourth from a 

manufacturer of large heavy-duty transit 

buses, and the fifth from an engineering 

consulting firm that provides consulting 

and test equipment for heavy-duty 

vehicles and brake systems. 

Section-by-Section Analysis of Specific 

Comments 

1. Brake Performance Test Procedure 

FTA proposed that a test bus would 

be subjected to a series of brake stops 

from 20, 30, 40, and 45 mph on a highfriction surface; from 20 mph on a lowfriction surface; and up to 45 mph on a 

split-coefficient surface. The parking 

brake would be evaluated facing uphill 

and downhill on a ramp with a 20 

percent grade. FTA also sought 

comments on whether, and, if so, how, 

the maintainability and noise tests 

should be modified to capture useful 

data related to the brake system and 

whether any such changes should be 

done within the regulation itself or 

through non-regulatory testing protocols 

and procedures. 

FTA proposed to incorporate the 

brake performance test within the 

existing performance test category, as 

specified by SAFETEA–LU. The 

proposed test procedure specified that 

all brake performance tests would be 

performed with the bus loaded to gross 

vehicle weight, for which a definition 

would be provided in the revised 49 

CFR Section 665.5. 

A. Comments Received 

FTA received comments on the 

proposed braking performance test from 

all respondents. Most of the comments 

received pertained to details of the subregulatory test procedures that would be 

used to conduct the braking 

performance test; for example, 

recommending that FTA measure brake 

system temperatures by the installation 

of thermocouples in the brake linings 

rather than the proposed use of a noncontacting digital thermometer. 

A few comments referred to 

differences between the draft FTA test 

procedures and the procedures specified 

in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) 121. For example, 

FTA’s proposed test procedure assumes 

that the brakes would be adequately 

burnished following completion of the 

gross-vehicle-weight portion of the 

structural durability test, while FMVSS 

121 specifies a detailed brake 

burnishing procedure. Another 

comment noted that some buses may 

not be able to climb the 20 percent slope 

parking brake testing hill or may not be 

able to clear the hill’s transition ramps, 

and questioned what the testing options 

would be in such situations. This 

commenter also asked who would be 

responsible if a bus is damaged on the 

brake testing slope. 

B. FTA Response 

Since the regulation is only intended 

to outline the tests that would be 

performed in general terms, specific 

details of the sub-regulatory test 

procedures are not appropriate to 

address in the regulation itself. Instead, 

FTA will consider each of the comments 

received as we work with the facility 

operator to finalize the brake testing 

procedures. 

With regard to consistency between 

FMVSS 121 certification and the bus 

testing program, FTA reiterates that its 

bus testing program is not a certification 

test. Rather, its purpose is to provide 

data that can facilitate grantees’ 

comparisons of various transit bus 

models and provide indications of 

whether the contemplated bus model is 

suitable for a grantee’s intended 

application. Therefore, it is not 

necessary for the bus testing program to 

replicate the test procedures in FMVSS 

121. FTA believes that the operation on 

the test track and occasional operation 

on roadways between the Altoona Bus 

Testing Center and the Test Track 

Facility in State College should be 

adequate to produce a realistic realworld level of brake burnishing prior to 

conducting the brake performance tests. 

However, because this aspect of the test 

procedure will not be established by 

regulation, FTA will work with the bus 

testing facility operator to verify that its 

proposed burnishing procedure is 

adequate, or add additional steps to the 

procedure if that is determined to be 

necessary. 

With regard to the concerns that buses 

may have difficulty navigating the test 

slope, the slope was designed to 

replicate conditions that could be 

encountered in a transit bus 

environment, so most if not all buses 

should be able to negotiate it without 

difficulty. In rare cases where clearance 

is inadequate, the operator can likely 

devise a workaround, perhaps such as 

filling in the concave transition at the 

bottom of the slope with temporary 

ramps or gravel. In the unlikely event 

that a bus has inadequate torque at the 

driving wheels to climb the 20 percent 

slope, then potential customers will 

likely want to know that limitation. If a 

bus is unable to navigate the ascent in 

order to complete the brake test, a bus 

could be assisted into position using a 

tow truck. 

The operator has existing procedures 

in place to address damages that may 

occur to buses at the testing facility. 

These procedures will apply to any 

damages that may occur on the brake 

testing slope. 

2. Emissions Test Procedure 

FTA proposed a draft emissions test 

procedure based on 40 CFR part 86— 

‘‘Emissions Regulations for New OttoCycle and Diesel Heavy-Duty Engines; 

Gaseous and Particulate Exhaust Test 

Procedures’’ and 40 CFR part 1065— 

‘‘Engine Testing Procedures,’’ as well as 

the Society of Automotive Engineers 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 191 / Monday, October 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 51085 

(SAE) Recommended Practice, SAE 

J2711. 

FTA proposed using an emissions 

testing laboratory equipped with a 

chassis dynamometer capable of both 

absorbing and applying power. FTA 

proposed measuring the emissions of 

exhaust constituents regulated by the 

United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) for transit buses, plus 

carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane 

(CH4), as the bus is operated over 

industry-standard driving cycles 

specified in the test procedure. FTA 

proposed that mileage accumulated by a 

bus while operating on the 

dynamometer during emissions testing 

would be counted toward the ‘‘other’’ 

miles that must be accumulated during 

durability testing. Under the proposed 

test procedure, the dynamometer would 

be set to simulate curb weight plus onehalf of the fully seated load for the 

particular bus being tested. This 

approach would be consistent with the 

above-cited industry standard emissions 

measurement protocols and will 

facilitate direct comparisons with 

emissions measurements collected 

outside the bus testing program. FTA 

also sought comments on the merits of 

performing the emissions tests with the 

chassis dynamometer set to simulate 

gross vehicle weight, which would 

generally be expected to represent the 

‘‘worst case’’ for emissions, seated load 

weight, which may result in emissions 

measurements closer to a typical case 

(and which would be consistent with 

the Performance and Fuel Economy 

tests, which are currently performed at 

seated load weight), or a different 

weight. FTA also sought comments on 

whether, and if so, how, the 

maintainability test should be modified 

to capture useful data related to the 

emissions control system and whether 

any such changes should be made 

within the regulation itself or in nonregulatory testing policies and 

procedures administered by the testing 

facility. FTA proposed to add the 

emissions test as a separate, eighth, test 

category. 

A. Comments Received 

The transit operator and the transit 

industry association both suggested that 

FTA test emissions at gross vehicle 

weight in order to shed light on the 

‘‘worst case’’ emissions that might be 

produced by a bus model. These 

commenters also recommended that 

FTA measure emissions at a bus’s 

tailpipe rather than at its engine. The 

bus manufacturer suggested that FTA’s 

emissions testing procedure should be 

consistent with other accepted 

methodologies in order to facilitate 

comparisons with other sources of 

emissions data. 

B. FTA Response 

FTA considered testing emissions at 

gross vehicle weight, but decided to test 

buses at curb weight plus one-half of the 

seated load weight in order to achieve 

greater consistency with industrystandard methods for emissions testing. 

FTA initially proposed to, and still 

intends to, measure bus emissions at the 

tailpipe exit rather than at the engine 

exhaust ports. Any confusion regarding 

the measurement site probably arose 

from the NPRM’s proposed new 

definition of ‘‘Engine-Out Emissions,’’ 

which will not be used in the final rule, 

and, therefore, has been removed. 

3. Applicability and Phase-In 

FTA proposed that the date on which 

a bus testing contract was signed would 

determine the applicability of the brake 

performance and emissions tests. 

Models whose testing contracts were 

signed before the effective date of this 

regulation and that continue to be 

produced without major changes in any 

structure or systems would not be 

required to return to the Bus Testing 

Center to undergo brake performance 

and emissions testing. Buses for which 

full or partial testing contracts are 

signed on or after the effective date of 

this regulation would be subject to brake 

performance and emissions testing (in 

addition to the other testing 

requirements). 

FTA also sought comments on 

whether the emissions test should apply 

to all vehicles subject to FTA’s bus 

testing regulation or whether any classes 

of buses should be exempted. In 

addition, we asked for comments on 

whether the emissions testing program 

should begin on the effective date of this 

rule for all bus types subject to testing 

or whether the emissions test 

requirement should be gradually 

phased-in for various classes of bus 

(e.g., small or large buses), similar to the 

phase-in process used in the initial 

start-up of FTA’s bus testing program. 

A. Comments Received 

The large transit operator agreed with 

FTA’s proposal that emissions testing 

should begin on the effective date of the 

final rule, and any new buses should be 

required to meet the regulations in effect 

at the time of manufacture. The bus 

manufacturer stated that a single-stage 

bus manufacturer certifying to FMVSS 

121 should not be required to undergo 

additional testing, and adding 

additional performance tests not 

consistent with FMVSS 121 could raise 

suspicions of non-compliance without 

adding to safety or reliability. The bus 

manufacturer also expressed concerns 

that partial testing evaluations could 

subject a bus model to an undue number 

of additional tests, particularly when it 

may impact bus delivery schedules. 

B. FTA Response 

Because none of the commenters 

directly responded to FTA’s inquiries 

whether a categorical exemption for 

certain classes of vehicles and whether 

a gradual phase-in period was 

necessary, FTA will proceed with the 

plan outlined in the NPRM: Every bus 

model for which a full or partial bus 

testing contract is signed after the 

effective date of this final rule will be 

subject to brake performance and 

emissions testing, without a phase-in 

period or exemptions for specific 

categories of vehicles. 

With regard to the suggestion that 

certification with FMVSS 121 exempt a 

vehicle from additional brake testing, 

FTA believes that a simple certification 

of compliance with FMVSS 121 does 

not exempt a vehicle from the braking 

test. Although aware that every vehicle 

operating on public roads must certify 

compliance with FMVSS, Congress 

nevertheless mandated that FTA 

establish the bus testing program, 

specifically adding a braking 

performance test, while giving FTA no 

statutory authority to exempt vehicles 

that certified compliance with FMVSS 

121 or any other FMVSS requirement. 

Moreover, FTA’s bus testing program 

consists of actual tests, while FMVSS 

compliance is met by the signing of a 

certificate of compliance. 

FTA does not believe that the 

addition of braking performance and 

emissions testing will unduly delay 

delivery schedules. Under the existing 

regulation a bus subject to testing as a 

new model bus or as a modified model 

bus must be physically delivered to 

Altoona and must spend a predictable 

number of days at the testing facility. 

The addition of braking and emissions 

testing would add a maximum of 24 

working hours to the time presently 

required at the test facility. When 

contrasted to the 60 or more days a 

heavy-duty model bus would spend at 

the test facility for a full test, an 

additional three business days would 

not significantly delay delivery 

schedules and perhaps could even be 

accounted for in a manufacturer’s 

proposed delivery schedule. 

4. Partial Testing 

Under the current rule, partial testing 

is permitted when a previously-tested 

bus model undergoes changes in 

configuration or components that are 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
51086 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 191 / Monday, October 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

expected to produce significantly 

different data from that previously 

obtained at the Bus Testing Facility. 

These partial testing determinations are 

made on a case-by-case basis, using 

criteria set forth in the June 28, 1992, 

final rule that established partial testing 

(57 FR 33394). FTA sought comment on 

changes that could trigger partial testing 

for the brake performance and emissions 

tests. 

A. Comments Received 

The only commenter, a large bus 

manufacturer, did not address FTA’s 

request for substantive comments. This 

commenter only stated that FTA needed 

to implement a policy that would 

provide faster responses to partial 

testing determinations. 

B. FTA Response 

Without substantive input from 

commenters, FTA will continue to make 

requests for partial testing 

determinations on a case-by-case basis. 

To provide additional guidance to 

purchasers, manufacturers, and vendors, 

FTA has posted its partial testing 

guidelines on its bus testing Web site. 

Manufacturers seeking formal letters of 

determination must wait for FTA to 

conduct its case-by-case analysis. 

5. Reporting Procedures 

FTA sought comment on how to 

better present data collected from the 

brake performance and emissions tests 

in the bus testing reports as well as in 

the bus testing database. FTA also 

welcomed comments on how to present 

more effectively the data from any of the 

eight test categories. 

A. Comments Received 

None of the commenters provided 

comment on this request. 

B. FTA Response 

FTA will continue using the standard 

test report procedure, adding braking 

performance and emissions as 

additional categories to the test reports. 

FTA may make changes to the test 

report format and/or emphasis in the 

future in order to present bus testing 

data more clearly and effectively. 

Other Changes 

6. Service Life Category 

FTA sought comments on whether it 

should maintain its current requirement 

of allowing manufacturers to determine 

the useful life category in which their 

buses would be tested. In addition, FTA 

asked for comment on whether it should 

continue to expect grantees to evaluate 

the bus testing reports carefully to 

assess whether the bus will in fact 

adequately meet its service life 

requirements. 

FTA also sought comments on 

alternative policies for determining the 

service life category in which a 

particular bus model would be tested, 

such as (1) redefining the characteristics 

of buses in each service life category, 

and if that approach is taken, what those 

characteristics should be; (2) requiring 

manufacturers to request an official 

determination from FTA of a vehicle’s 

service life category; or (3) providing 

guidance on the standard useful life 

based on type of construction but 

allowing manufacturers to test and sell 

in higher service life categories if they 

post a ‘‘durability assurance’’ bond or 

similar instrument. 

A. Comments Received 

All three commenters on this subject 

supported the retention of the current 

FTA requirement. The manufacturer of 

large buses stated that it is the 

purchaser’s responsibility to review the 

test report and determine whether the 

vehicle is adequate to meet their needs. 

The trade association and transit 

operator also supported this approach 

and added that manufacturers should 

provide proof to the operator that the 

bus will meet the standards of the 

higher service life category. The transit 

operator proposed additional language 

that would provide the customer a 

‘‘durability assurance bond’’ or similar 

instrument that would cover the 

vehicle’s advertised useful standard life. 

B. FTA Response 

Based on the response from 

commenters, FTA does not believe that 

altering the current procedures is 

warranted. Although manufacturers may 

continue to select the appropriate 

service life category for testing, FTA 

believes that well-informed purchasers 

are the best safeguard—to that point, 

bus purchasers are advised to seek 

adequate assurances from the vendor in 

the form of extended warranties or 

contractual assurances that the vehicle 

will meet its advertised service life. 

7. Buses That Exceed Weight Limits 

When Fully Loaded 

In the NPRM, FTA made note of the 

fact that a number of buses tested at the 

Bus Testing Center have not been tested 

in their fully loaded condition (i.e., with 

all seats and standee positions 

occupied), since doing so would have 

caused their actual weight to exceed 

either their gross vehicle weight ratings 

(GVWR) or a front or rear gross axle 

weight rating (GAWR). 

FTA noted that the test data might not 

reflect the actual performance of these 

buses in real-life service, where 

operators frequently allow all seats and 

aisles to be filled without regard to the 

GVWR or GAWR to avoid leaving 

passengers behind at a stop. FTA sought 

comments on the following three 

approaches for addressing these 

situations: 

1. Require that any tests specified in 

the test procedures be performed at 

gross vehicle weight (GVW) on the test 

track (which is not a public roadway) 

with all seats and standee positions 

ballasted, and require any tests specified 

in the test procedures be performed at 

seated load weight (SLW) on the test 

track with all seats ballasted. Although 

the bus would be overloaded, the test 

data may be more representative of the 

conditions the bus will face in actual 

service. This approach would help to 

‘‘flag’’ buses that are not adequately able 

to withstand the rigors of transit service. 

2. Continue the current practice of 

deleting ballast until the bus is within 

its GVWR/GAWR, but place a more 

prominent notice in the bus testing 

report stating that the bus will exceed 

its maximum GVWR/GAWR with all 

passenger positions occupied, and alert 

readers that the test data may not be 

representative of the vehicle’s actual inservice durability. 

3. Decline to test a bus that exceeds 

its GAWR or GVWR when loaded to full 

capacity. 

A. Comments Received 

Three commenters—the large industry 

trade association, the large transit 

agency, and the large bus 

manufacturer—supported continuing 

with the current practice outlined under 

Option 2, noting its practicability. The 

transit operator suggested testing a 

vehicle at its GVW on the test track, 

regardless of the vehicle’s GVWR. The 

manufacturers’ association supported 

Option 3, proposing that FTA decline to 

test any vehicle that exceeded its 

GVWR. 

FTA also received unsolicited 

suggestions from two commenters, 

recommending that FTA increase the 

simulated ballast weight from the 

currently-used 150 pounds per 

passenger cited in the new definitions of 

‘‘gross vehicle weight’’ and ‘‘seated load 

weight’’ proposed in the NPRM, to 170 

pounds per passenger to reflect the 

increasing average weight of Americans 

over the last several decades. 

B. FTA Response 

FTA finds that declining to test a 

vehicle whose GVW exceeds its GVWR 

is impractical, noting that the entire 

purposes of the bus testing program is 

to carry out the legislative mission of 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 191 / Monday, October 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 51087 

verifying that the bus can withstand the 

rigors of regular transit service. 

Similarly, testing a bus up to its GVWR 

but no higher, despite the inability to 

embark the equivalent of a full 

complement of passengers, is unrealistic 

and contrary to the intent of Congress in 

establishing the program. Buses 

frequently fill every available seat 

during rush-hour, and commonly allow 

‘‘crush loads’’ of standees in the aisle. 

Therefore, the final rule will require 

buses to be ballasted with a fully loaded 

passenger complement of seated and 

standee passengers during the gross 

vehicle weight portion and with all 

seats filled during the seated load 

weight portion of the testing. If the 

vehicle exceeds its GVWR, the bus will 

be tested in that condition only on the 

operator’s non-public testing facilities 

unless and until the operator receives an 

exemption to operate the vehicle on 

public roads. Data on how a bus 

performs under full load conditions is 

essential to the purchaser, to support 

acquisition decisions, development of 

preventive maintenance schedules, and 

budgeting for unscheduled 

maintenance. 

The suggestion to increase the average 

passenger weight is well taken, and 

currently, the U.S. Department of 

Transportation is considering this 

subject in the context of all modes of 

transportation: air, surface, and water. It 

is quite possible the Department will 

seek to establish higher value for 

average passenger weight. If so, FTA 

would initiate a new rulemaking to 

amend Part 665 accordingly. FTA will 

consult with the Department on this 

subject in the very near future. 

8. Family of Vehicles 

FTA sought comments on whether it 

would be appropriate to expand its 

existing ‘‘Family of Vehicles’’ policy to 

the 7-year or higher service life 

categories. The existing Family of 

Vehicles policy is limited to buses in 

the 4-year and 5-year service life 

categories only, and allows 

manufacturers that have tested a 

complete bus built on one third-party 

chassis to offer closely-related variants 

(such as different lengths) of that bus 

body on the same or different (but 

similar) mass-produced chassis that has 

been tested at the Bus Testing Center on 

any similar bus by any bus 

manufacturer. FTA sought comments on 

the desirability and ramifications of 

extending the Family of Vehicles policy 

to all buses built on third-party chassis 

A. Comments Received 

The large industry trade association 

opposed the proposal, stating that the 4- 

and 5-year buses are used differently 

than the larger vehicles, and that such 

a proposal would increase prices 

without increasing the quality of the 

vehicles. The large transit agency also 

recommended that FTA keep its current 

requirement, noting that the 4- and 5- 

year buses are not used in standard 

transit service. 

B. FTA Response 

Given the lack of support among 

commenters for the proposed expansion 

of the concept, FTA is retaining its 

Family of Vehicles policy for 4- and 5- 

year buses and will not expand it to 

include buses used in higher service life 

categories. 

9. Separate Reporting of Third-Part 

Chassis Test Results 

Although Section 5318 directs that 

buses are to be tested as an integrated 

system, FTA’s Family of Vehicles policy 

described in the previous paragraphs 

would be easier to implement and 

understand if the Bus Testing Center 

were able to produce separate testing 

reports for third-party chassis. These 

reports could be prepared by 

identifying, separating out, and 

summarizing only the chassis-related 

data during tests of buses built on thirdparty chassis. The Bus Testing Center 

operator expressed concern that in past 

experience, a significant number of 

buses are tested on modified third-party 

chassis, and these modifications, even if 

performed in strict compliance with the 

manufacturer’s guidelines, would 

frustrate comparisons of data on thirdparty chassis. Therefore, FTA sought 

comments on the feasibility of preparing 

separate test reports for third-party 

chassis that are tested in the course of 

testing complete buses built on those 

chassis. FTA also sought comments on 

any practical considerations that may 

need to be addressed or difficulties that 

may be presented, as well as the best 

ways to separate and report data on 

third-party chassis. Finally, FTA sought 

comments on how the costs of this 

additional reporting would be borne. 

A. Comments Received 

FTA received two comments on this 

proposal—one from the large trade 

association, another from the large 

transit agency. The transit agency 

recommended preparation of separate 

third-party test reports, with costs to be 

negotiated between the chassis maker 

and purchasers. The trade association 

similarly commented that the costs 

should be negotiated, but did not 

address whether separate chassis reports 

are desirable. 

B. FTA Response 

Because the design, engineering, and 

manufacturing, and quality control of 

third-party chassis are the same 

regardless of the final customer, there 

may be little differentiation in test data 

when a particular third-party chassis is 

used on similar buses built by multiple 

bus manufacturers. FTA believes that 

some of the test data obtained from 

testing a vehicle using a third-party 

chassis already can be extrapolated to 

similar buses built on the same chassis 

through the partial testing process. 

The regulation’s existing partial 

testing provisions permit partial testing 

of previously tested bus models that are 

subsequently produced with changes in 

configuration or components, requiring 

additional testing only where significant 

changes in data are expected, including 

changes in chassis components, such as 

engines, axles, suspensions, and 

powertrains. Under these partial testing 

procedures, if a manufacturer of a fullytested vehicle wants to offer that same 

vehicle using a different but alreadytested third-party chassis, FTA will 

require only those tests where 

significant changes in data are 

expected—expecting that data intrinsic 

to the chassis can be extrapolated from 

the previous bus testing report using 

that chassis. The current process 

reduces the costs and testing 

requirements; however, to increase 

convenience and clarity for bus 

purchasers, FTA will continue to 

explore the feasibility of issuing 

separate test reports for third-party 

chassis. 

10. FTA Evaluation/Recommendation of 

Bus Models 

In response to a number of informal 

suggestions received in the past that 

FTA issue ‘‘pass/fail’’ determinations 

for buses in the bus testing reports, FTA 

sought comments in the NPRM on 

whether the bus testing reports should 

include a ‘‘pass/fail’’ criterion or a 

‘‘recommended/not-recommended’’ 

determination, and if so, how thresholds 

for such determinations should be 

established. Alternatively, FTA sought 

comments on improved ways to 

enhance the presentation of data in the 

reports (e.g., by presenting data 

graphically) so that information for 

decision-making is more readily 

apparent and better informs local 

decision-making. 

A. Comments Received 

FTA received two comments on this 

subject—one from a bus manufacturer, 

and one from an equipment 

manufacturers association. The bus 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
51088 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 191 / Monday, October 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

manufacturer stated that FTA should 

not make pass/fail determinations, 

noting that it should be the customer’s 

prerogative and responsibility. The 

equipment manufacturer association 

stated that FTA should establish pass/ 

fail criteria, at least for braking criteria. 

B. FTA Response 

FTA found the dearth of comments 

regarding the establishment of pass/fail 

criteria disappointing, based on prerulemaking comments from the 

presumed beneficiaries of pass/fail 

criteria, namely, the transit agencies that 

purchase the vehicles. FTA sought 

substantive comments on possible 

criteria and thresholds. In the absence of 

comments supporting such an approach, 

FTA will not proceed with establishing 

pass/fail criteria at this time. FMVSS 

121 already includes pass/fail criteria 

for braking performance, so a separate 

criterion in the bus testing reports is not 

necessary and could be confusing. 

11. Scope 

Paragraph 665.3 is being amended to 

bring it into statutory conformity. 

Section 317 of the Surface 

Transportation and Uniform Relocation 

Assistance Act of 1987 initially limited 

applicability of the bus testing program 

to recipients of FTA funding under the 

former sections 3, 9, 16(b)(2), and 18 

programs. Paragraph 3023(c) of the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users amended 49 USC 5318, paragraph 

(e), to extend the bus testing 

requirement to all new bus models 

acquired with funds under 49 USC 

Chapter 53. The statutory change is not 

significant, as practically all buses 

subject to the testing requirements are 

acquired with funds authorized under 

one of those four programs. 

Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

All comments received are available 

for examination in the docket at http: 

//www.regulations.gov. All comments 

have been fully considered in this final 

rule. 

A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This 

Rulemaking 

This rulemaking is issued under the 

authority of 49 U.S.C. 5318, as amended 

by section 3020 of SAFETEA–LU (Pub. 

L. 109–59). 

B. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 requires 

agencies to assure meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that may have a substantial, 

direct effect on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. This final action 

has been analyzed in accordance with 

the principles and criteria contained in 

Executive Order 13132, and FTA has 

determined that this final action will 

not have sufficient federalism 

implications to warrant additional 

consultation. FTA has also determined 

that this final action will not preempt 

any State law or State regulation or 

affect the States’ ability to discharge 

traditional governmental functions. 

C. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175 requires 

agencies to assure meaningful and 

timely input from Indian tribal 

government representatives in the 

development of rules that ‘‘significantly 

or uniquely affect’’ Indian communities 

and that impose ‘‘substantial and direct 

compliance costs’’ on such 

communities. FTA has analyzed this 

final rule under Executive Order 13175 

and believes that this final action will 

not have substantial, direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes; will not 

impose substantial direct compliance 

costs on Indian tribal governments; and 

will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, 

a tribal impact statement is not required. 

FTA received no comments on the 

NPRM from Indian tribal governments. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act and 

Executive Order 13272: Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and 

Executive Order 13272, FTA must 

consider whether a proposed rule would 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

‘‘Small entities’’ include small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

that are independently owned and 

operated and are not dominant in their 

fields, and governmental jurisdictions 

with populations under 50,000. FTA 

certifies that this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on 

substantial number of small entities. 

E. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

FTA has determined that this action 

is not considered a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866 and the Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures of the Department of 

Transportation (44 FR 11032). Executive 

Order 12866 requires agencies to 

regulate in the ‘‘most cost-effective 

manner,’’ to make a ‘‘reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs,’’ 

and to develop regulations that ‘‘impose 

the least burden on society.’’ Although 

some of the changes made by this rule 

are statutorily mandated, FTA 

anticipates that the direct economic 

impact of this rulemaking will be 

minimal and has actively sought to 

minimize the bus testing burden, 

including the continued availability of 

partial testing procedures. 

This final rule also clarifies existing 

regulatory requirements that will not 

adversely affect, in any material way, 

any sector of the economy. In addition, 

these changes will not interfere with 

any action taken or planned by another 

agency and will not materially alter the 

budgetary impact of any entitlements, 

grants, user fees, or loan programs. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This final rule will not impose 

unfunded mandates as defined by the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4, 109 Stat. 48). This final 

rule will not result in the expenditure 

by State, local, and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or by the private sector, 

of $128.1 million or more in any one 

year (2 U.S.C. 1532). 

G. Executive Order 13211: Energy 

Effects 

FTA has analyzed this action under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use dated May 18, 2001, 

and determined that this is not a 

significant energy action under that 

order, because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, 

a Statement of Energy Effects is not 

required. 

H. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, no person is required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a valid OMB control 

number. This final rule does not 

propose any new information collection 

burdens. 

I. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

The U.S. DOT assigns a regulation 

identifier number (RIN) to each 

regulatory action listed in the Unified 

Agenda of Federal Regulations. The 

Regulatory Information Service Center 

publishes the Unified Agenda in April 

and October of each year. The RIN 

number contained in the heading of this 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 191 / Monday, October 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 51089 

document may be used to crossreference this action with the Unified 

Agenda. 

J. Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form for all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comments (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

view the U.S. DOT Privacy Act 

Statement by visiting http:// 

docketsinfo.dot.gov/ or at 65 FR 19477 

(April 11, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 665 

Buses, Grant programs— 

transportation, Motor vehicle safety, 

Public transportation, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

the Federal Transit Administration 

revises 49 CFR part 665 to read as 

follows: 

PART 665—BUS TESTING 

Subpart A—General 

665.1 Purpose. 

665.3 Scope. 

665.5 Definitions. 

665.7 Grantee certification of compliance. 

Subpart B—Bus Testing Procedures 

665.11 Testing requirements. 

665.13 Test report and manufacturer 

certification. 

Subpart C—Operations 

665.21 Scheduling. 

665.23 Fees. 

665.25 Transportation of vehicle. 

665.27 Procedures during testing. 

Appendix A to Part 665—Tests To Be 

Performed at the Bus Testing Facility 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5318 and 49 CFR 1.51. 

Subpart A—General 

§ 665.1 Purpose. 

An applicant for Federal financial 

assistance under the Federal Transit Act 

for the purchase or lease of buses with 

funds obligated by the FTA shall certify 

to the FTA that any new bus model 

acquired with such assistance has been 

tested in accordance with this part. This 

part contains the information necessary 

for a recipient to ensure compliance 

with this provision. 

§ 665.3 Scope. 

This part shall apply to an entity 

receiving Federal financial assistance 

under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. 

§ 665.5 Definitions. 

As used in this part— 

Administrator means the 

Administrator of the Federal Transit 

Administration or the Administrator’s 

designee. 

Automotive means that the bus is not 

continuously dependent on external 

power or guidance for normal operation. 

Intermittent use of external power or 

guidance shall not automatically relieve 

a bus of its automotive character or 

requirement for bus testing. 

Bus means a rubber-tired automotive 

vehicle used for the provision of public 

transportation service by or for a 

recipient. 

Bus model means a bus design or 

variation of a bus design usually 

designated by the manufacturer by a 

specific name and/or model number. 

Bus testing facility means the bus 

testing facility established by the 

Secretary of Transportation, and 

includes test track facilities operated in 

connection with the facility. 

Bus testing report, also full bus testing 

report, means a complete test report for 

a bus model, documenting the results of 

performing the complete set of bus tests 

on that bus model. 

Curb weight means the weight of the 

empty, ready-to-operate bus plus driver 

and fuel. 

Emissions means the components of 

the engine tailpipe exhaust that are 

regulated by the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), plus carbon dioxide (CO2) and 

methane (CH4). 

Emissions control system means the 

components on a bus whose primary 

purpose is to minimize regulated 

emissions before they reach the tailpipe 

exit. This definition does not include 

components that contribute to low 

emissions as a side effect of the manner 

in which they perform their primary 

function (e.g., fuel injectors or 

combustion chambers). 

Final acceptance means that a 

recipient has released the FTA-provided 

funds to a bus manufacturer or dealer in 

connection with bus procurement. 

Gross weight, also gross vehicle 

weight, means the curb weight of the 

bus plus passengers simulated by 

adding 150 pounds of ballast to each 

seating position and 150 pounds for 

each standing position (assumed to be 

each 1.5 square feet of free floor space). 

Hybrid means a propulsion system 

that combines two power sources, at 

least one of which is capable of 

capturing, storing, and re-using energy. 

Major change in chassis design 

means, for vehicles manufactured on a 

third-party chassis, a change in frame 

structure, material or configuration, or a 

change in chassis suspension type. 

Major change in components means: 

(1) For those vehicles that are not 

manufactured on a third-party chassis, a 

change in a vehicle’s engine, axle, 

transmission, suspension, or steering 

components; 

(2) For those that are manufactured on 

a third-party chassis, a change in the 

vehicle’s chassis from one major design 

to another. 

Major change in configuration means 

a change that is expected to have a 

significant impact on vehicle handling 

and stability or structural integrity. 

Modified third-party chassis or van 

means a vehicle that is manufactured 

from an incomplete, partially assembled 

third-party chassis or van as provided 

by an OEM to a small bus manufacturer. 

This includes vehicles whose chassis 

structure has been modified to include: 

a tandem or tag axle; a drop or lowered 

floor; changes to the GVWR from the 

OEM rating; or other modifications that 

are not made in strict conformance with 

the OEM’s modifications guidelines. 

New bus model means a bus model 

that— 

(1) Has not been used in public 

transportation service in the United 

States before October 1, 1988; or 

(2) Has been used in such service but 

which after September 30, 1988, is being 

produced with a major change in 

configuration or a major change in 

components. 

Operator means the operator of the 

bus testing facility. 

Original equipment manufacturer 

(OEM) means the original manufacturer 

of a chassis or van supplied as a 

complete or incomplete vehicle to a bus 

manufacturer. 

Parking brake means a system that 

prevents the bus from moving when 

parked by preventing the wheels from 

rotating. 

Partial testing means the performance 

of only that subset of the complete set 

of bus tests in which significantly 

different data would reasonably be 

expected compared to the data obtained 

in previous full testing of the baseline 

bus model at the bus testing facility. 

Partial testing report, also partial test 

report, means a report documenting, for 

a previously-tested bus model that is 

produced with major changes, the 

results of performing only that subset of 

the complete set of bus tests in which 

significantly different data would 

reasonably be expected as a result of the 

changes made to the bus from the 

configuration documented in the 

original full bus testing report. A partial 

testing report is not valid unless 

accompanied by the full bus testing 

report for the corresponding baseline 

bus configuration. 

Public transportation service means 

the operation of a vehicle that provides 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
51090 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 191 / Monday, October 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

general or special service to the public 

on a regular and continuing basis. 

Recipient means an entity that 

receives funds under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 

53, either directly from FTA or through 

a State administering agency. 

Regenerative braking system means a 

system that decelerates a bus by 

recovering its kinetic energy for onboard storage and subsequent use. 

Retarder means a system other than 

the service brakes that slows a bus by 

dissipating kinetic energy. 

Seated load weight means the weight 

of the bus plus driver, fuel, and seated 

passengers simulated by adding 150 

pounds of ballast to each seating 

position. 

Service brake(s) means the primary 

system used by the driver during normal 

operation to reduce the speed of a 

moving bus and to allow the driver to 

bring the bus to a controlled stop and 

hold it there. Service brakes may be 

supplemented by retarders or by 

regenerative braking systems. 

Small bus manufacturer means a 

secondary market assembler that 

acquires a chassis or van from an 

original equipment manufacturer for 

subsequent modification or assembly 

and sale as 5-year/150,000-mile or 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. 

§ 665.7 Grantee certification of 

compliance. 

(a) In each application to FTA for the 

purchase or lease of any new bus model, 

or any bus model with a major change 

in configuration or components to be 

acquired or leased with funds obligated 

by the FTA, the recipient shall certify 

that the bus was tested at the bus testing 

facility. The recipient shall receive the 

appropriate full bus testing report and 

any applicable partial testing report(s) 

before final acceptance of the first 

vehicle by the recipient. 

(b) In dealing with a bus manufacturer 

or dealer, the recipient shall be 

responsible for determining whether a 

vehicle to be acquired requires full 

testing or partial testing or has already 

satisfied the requirements of this part. 

Subpart B—Bus Testing Procedures 

§ 665.11 Testing requirements. 

(a) A new bus model to be tested at 

the bus testing facility shall— 

(1) Be a single model; 

(2) Meet all applicable Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standards, as defined by 

the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration in Part 571 of this title; 

and 

(3) Be substantially fabricated and 

assembled using the techniques, tooling, 

and materials that will be used in 

production of subsequent buses of that 

model. 

(b) If the new bus model has not 

previously been tested at the bus testing 

facility, then the new bus model shall 

undergo the full tests requirements for 

Maintainability, Reliability, Safety, 

Performance including braking 

performance, Structural Integrity, Fuel 

Economy, Noise, and Emissions; 

(c) If the new bus model has not 

previously been tested at the bus testing 

facility and is being produced on a 

third-party chassis that has been 

previously tested on another bus model 

at the bus testing facility, then the new 

bus model may undergo partial testing 

requirements; 

(d) If the new bus model has 

previously been tested at the bus testing 

facility, but is subsequently 

manufactured with a major change in 

chassis or components, then the new 

bus model may undergo partial testing. 

(e) The following vehicle types shall 

be tested: 

(1) Large-size, heavy-duty transit 

buses (approximately 35′–40′ in length, 

as well as articulated buses) with a 

minimum service life of 12 years or 

500,000 miles; 

(2) Medium-size, heavy-duty transit 

buses (approximately 30′ in length) with 

a minimum service life of ten years or 

350,000 miles; 

(3) Medium-size, medium duty transit 

buses (approximately 30′ in length) with 

a minimum service life of seven years or 

200,000 miles; 

(4) Medium-size, light duty transit 

buses (approximately 25′–35′ in length) 

with a minimum service life of five 

years or 150,000 miles; and 

(5) Other light duty vehicles such as 

small buses and regular and specialized 

vans with a minimum service life of 

four years or 100,000 miles. 

(f) Tests performed in a higher service 

life category (i.e., longer service life) 

need not be repeated when the same bus 

model is used in lesser service life 

applications. 

(g) The operator of the bus testing 

facility shall develop a test plan for the 

testing of vehicles at the facility. The 

test plan shall follow the guidelines set 

forth in the appendix to this part. 

§ 665.13 Test report and manufacturer 

certification. 

(a) Upon completion of testing, the 

operator of the facility shall provide the 

resulting test report to the entity that 

submitted the bus for testing. 

(b)(1) A manufacturer or dealer of a 

new bus model or a bus produced with 

a major change in component or 

configuration shall provide a copy of the 

corresponding full bus testing report 

and any applicable partial testing 

report(s) to a recipient during the point 

in the procurement process specified by 

the recipient, but in all cases before 

final acceptance of the first bus by the 

recipient. 

(2) A manufacturer who releases a 

report under paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section also shall provide notice to the 

operator of the facility that the report is 

available to the public. 

(c) If a bus model subject to a bus 

testing report has a change that is not a 

major change under this Part, the 

manufacturer or dealer shall advise the 

recipient during the procurement 

process and shall include a description 

of the change and the manufacturer’s 

basis for concluding that it is not a 

major change. 

(d) A bus testing report shall be 

available publicly once the bus 

manufacturer makes it available during 

a recipient’s procurement process. The 

operator of the facility shall have copies 

of all the publicly available reports 

available for distribution. 

(e) The bus testing report is the only 

information or documentation that shall 

be made publicly available in 

connection with any bus model tested at 

the bus testing facility. 

Subpart C—Operations 

§ 665.21 Scheduling. 

(a) To schedule a bus for testing, a 

manufacturer shall contact the operator 

of FTA’s bus testing program. Contact 

information and procedures are 

available on the operator’s bus testing 

Web site, http:// 

www.altoonabustest.com. 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 191 / Monday, October 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 51091 

(b) Upon contacting the operator, the 

operator shall provide the manufacturer 

with the following: 

(1) A draft contract for the testing; 

(2) A fee schedule; and 

(3) The draft test procedures that will 

be conducted on the vehicle. 

(c) The operator shall provide final 

test procedures to be conducted on the 

vehicle at the time of contract 

execution. 

(d) The operator shall process 

vehicles for testing in the order in 

which the contracts are signed. 

§ 665.23 Fees. 

(a) The operator shall charge fees in 

accordance with a schedule approved 

by FTA, which shall include prorated 

fees for partial testing. 

(b) Fees shall be prorated for a vehicle 

withdrawn from the bus testing facility 

before the completion of testing. 

§ 665.25 Transportation of vehicle. 

A manufacturer shall be responsible 

for transporting its vehicle to and from 

the bus testing facility at the beginning 

and completion of the testing at the 

manufacturer’s own risk and expense. 

§ 665.27 Procedures during testing. 

(a) The operator shall perform all 

maintenance and repairs on the test 

vehicle, consistent with the 

manufacturer’s specifications, unless 

the operator determines that the nature 

of the maintenance or repair is best 

performed by the manufacturer under 

the operator’s supervision. 

(b) The manufacturer shall be 

permitted to observe all tests. The 

manufacturer shall not provide 

maintenance or service unless requested 

to do so by the operator. 

Appendix A to Part 665—Tests To Be 

Performed at the Bus Testing Facility 

The eight tests to be performed on each 

vehicle are required by SAFETEA–LU and 

are based in part on tests described in the 

FTA report ‘‘First Article Transit Bus Test 

Plan,’’ which is mentioned in the legislative 

history of section 317 of STURAA. When 

appropriate, Society of Automotive Engineers 

(SAE) test procedures and other procedures 

accepted by the transit industry will be used. 

The eight tests are described in general terms 

in the following paragraphs. 

1. Maintainability 

The maintainability test should include 

bus servicing, preventive maintenance, 

inspection, and repair. It also should include 

the removal and reinstallation of the engine 

and drive train components that would be 

expected to require replacement during the 

bus’s normal life cycle. Much of the 

maintainability data should be obtained 

during the bus durability test at the test track. 

Up to twenty-five percent of the bus life 

should be simulated and servicing, 

preventive maintenance, and repair actions 

should be recorded and reported. These 

actions should be performed by test facility 

staff, although manufacturers should be 

allowed to maintain a representative on site 

during the testing. Test facility staff may 

require a manufacturer to provide vehicle 

servicing or repair, under the supervision of 

the facility staff. Because the operator will 

not become familiar with the detailed design 

of all new bus models that are tested, tests 

to determine the time and skill required to 

remove and reinstall an engine, a 

transmission, or other major propulsion 

system components may require advice from 

the bus manufacturer. All routine and 

corrective maintenance should be carried out 

by the test operator in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s specifications. 

The maintainability test report should 

include the frequency, personnel hours, and 

replacement parts or supplies required for 

each action during the test. The accessibility 

of selected components and other 

observations that could be important to a bus 

user should be included in the report. 

2. Reliability 

Reliability should not be a separate test, 

but should be addressed by recording all bus 

failures and breakdowns during testing. It is 

recognized that with one test bus it is not 

feasible to conduct statistical reliability tests. 

The detected bus failures, repair time, and 

the actions required to return the bus to 

operation should be recorded in the report. 

3. Safety 

The safety test should consist of a handling 

and stability test. The handling and stability 

test should be an obstacle avoidance or 

double-lane change test performed at the test 

track. Bus speed should be held constant 

throughout a given test run. Individual test 

runs should be made at increasing speeds up 

to a specified maximum or until the bus can 

no longer be operated safely over the course, 

whichever speed is lower. Both left- and 

right-hand lane changes should be tested. 

4. Performance 

The performance test should be performed 

on the test track and should measure 

acceleration, maximum speed attained, 

gradeability, and braking. The bus should be 

accelerated at full throttle from a full stop to 

maximum safe speed on the track. The 

gradeability capabilities should be measured 

when starting from a full stop on a steep 

grade, and supplemented by calculating 

gradeability based on the acceleration data. 

The functionality and performance of the 

service, regenerative (if applicable), and 

parking brake systems should be evaluated at 

the test track. The test bus should be 

subjected to a series of brake stops from 

specified speeds on high, low, and splitfriction surfaces. The parking brake should 

be evaluated with the bus parked facing both 

up and down a steep grade. 

5. Structural Integrity 

Two complementary structural integrity 

tests should be performed. Structural 

strength and distortion tests should be 

performed at the Bus Testing Center, and the 

structural durability test should be performed 

at the test track. 

a. Structural Strength and Distortion Tests 

(1) A shakedown of the bus structure 

should be conducted by loading and 

unloading the bus with a distributed load 

equal to 2.5 times the load applied for the 

gross weight portions of testing. The bus 

should then be unloaded and inspected for 

any permanent deformation on the floor or 

coach structure. This test should be repeated 

a second time, and should be repeated up to 

one more time if the permanent deflections 

vary significantly between the first and 

second tests. 

(2) The bus should be loaded to gross 

vehicle weight, with one wheel on top of a 

curb and then in a pothole. This test should 

be repeated for all four wheels. The test 

verifies: normal operation of the steering 

mechanism; and operability of all passenger 

doors, passenger escape mechanisms, 

windows, and service doors. A water leak 

test should be conducted in each suspension 

travel condition. 

(3) Using a load-equalizing towing sling, a 

static tension load equal to 1.2 times the curb 

weight should be applied to the bus towing 

fixtures (front and rear). The load should be 

removed and the two eyes and adjoining 

structure inspected for damages or 

permanent deformations. 

(4) The bus should be towed at curb weight 

with a heavy wrecker truck for several miles 

and then inspected for structural damage or 

permanent deformation. 

(5) With the bus at curb weight probable 

damages and clearance issues due to tire 

deflating and jacking should be assessed. 

(6) With the bus at curb weight possible 

damages or deformation associated with 

lifting the bus on a two post hoist system or 

supporting it on jack stands should be 

assessed. 

b. Structural Durability 

The structural durability test should be 

performed on the durability course at the test 

track, simulating twenty-five percent of the 

vehicle’s normal service life. The bus 

structure should be inspected regularly 

during the test, and the mileage and 

identification of any structural anomalies and 

failures should be reported in the reliability 

test. 

6. Fuel Economy 

The fuel economy test should be 

conducted using duty cycles that simulate 

transit service. This test should measure the 

fuel economy of the bus in miles per gallon 

or other energy-equivalent units. 

The fuel economy test should be designed 

only to enable FTA recipients to compare the 

relative fuel economy of buses operating at a 

consistent loading condition on the same set 

of typical transit driving cycles. The results 

of this test are not directly comparable to fuel 

economy estimates by other agencies, such as 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) or for other purposes. 

7. Noise 

The noise test should measure interior 

noise and vibration while the bus is idling (or 

in a comparable operating mode) and driving, 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
51092 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 191 / Monday, October 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

and also should measure the transmission of 

exterior noise to the interior while the bus is 

not running. The exterior noise should be 

measured as the bus is operated past a 

stationary measurement instrument. 

8. Emissions 

The emissions test should measure tailpipe 

emissions of those exhaust constituents 

regulated by the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) for transit bus 

emissions, plus carbon dioxide (CO2) and 

methane (CH4), as the bus is operated over 

specified driving cycles. The emissions test 

should be conducted using an emissions 

testing laboratory equipped with a chassis 

dynamometer capable of both absorbing and 

applying power. 

The emissions test is not a certification 

test, and is designed only to enable FTA 

recipients to compare the relative emissions 

of buses operating on the same set of typical 

transit driving cycles. The results of this test 

are not directly comparable to emissions 

measurements obtained by other agencies, 

such as the EPA, which are used for other 

purposes. 

Peter M. Rogoff, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–23818 Filed 10–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 0909101271–91272–01] 

RIN 0648–AY23 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Black Sea Bass Recreational 

Fishery; Emergency Rule 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Emergency rule; emergency 

action; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is implementing, 

through this emergency rule, a closure 

of the recreational black sea bass fishery 

in the Federal waters of the Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ) from 3 to 200 

nautical miles offshore, north of Cape 

Hatteras, NC. This action is necessary 

because the best available information 

for black sea bass recreational landings 

indicates that the 2009 recreational 

harvest limit established for the black 

sea bass fishery is projected to have 

been exceeded. NMFS is effecting this 

closure to mitigate the magnitude of the 

recreational overage because the 

established mortality objective for 2009 

has been exceeded. 

DATES: Effective October 5, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 0648–AY23, by any 

one of the following methods: 

• Electronic submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Mail and hand delivery: Patricia A. 

Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, 

Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great 

Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. 

Mark the outside of the envelope: 

‘‘Comments on 2009 Black Sea Bass 

Recreational EEZ Closure.’’ 

• Fax: (978) 281–9135. Send the fax 

to the attention of the Sustainable 

Fisheries Division. Include ‘‘Comments 

on 2009 Black Sea Bass Recreational 

EEZ Closure’’ prominently on the fax. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments. Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Ruccio, Fishery Policy Analyst, 

(978) 281–9104. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A final 

rule to establish the recreational harvest 

limits for 2009 for the summer flounder, 

scup, and black sea bass fisheries was 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 2, 2009 (74 FR 29). The black 

sea bass recreational harvest limit for 

2009 is 1.14 million lb (517 mt). The 

2009 recreational management measures 

for Federal waters are a 12.5-inch 

(31.75-cm) minimum size, a 25-fish 

possession limit, and an open season of 

January 1 through December 31. Marine 

Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey 

(MRFSS) data through Wave 3 (JanuaryJune) indicate that 1,018,878 lb (462 mt) 

have been landed. Due to time 

constraints, this amount has not been 

stratified to exclude southern stock 

landings that occur south of Cape 

Hatteras, NC. The total North Carolina 

landings through Wave 3 are 71,059 lb 

(32 mt). Therefore, the landings through 

Wave 3 are at least 947,819 lb (430 mt). 

This means that between 83 and 89 

percent of the 2009 recreational harvest 

limit had been taken by the end of June. 

Data for Wave 4 (July-August) are not 

yet available; however, an average of 27 

percent of the annual landings has 

occurred during Wave 4 in the years 

2005–2008. On average, an additional 

24 percent of landings have occurred 

during Wave 5 (September-October) and 

4 percent during Wave 6 (NovemberDecember) for the same time period. 

Using these proportions of landings by 

wave (i.e., Waves 1–3 = 45 percent of 

annual landings) and applying the 

information to the actual landings data 

available through Wave 3 for 2009 

would result in approximately 611,000 

lb (277 mt) being landed through the 

end of August (end of Wave 4), with an 

additional 634,000 lb (288 mt) expected 

to be landed before the end of the year 

if the fishery remains open. 

Using MRFSS data in a variety of 

projection scenarios, NMFS, along with 

independent MRFSS queries made by 

staff of the Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission (Commission) 

and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council (Council) have concluded that 

the 2009 recreational harvest limit for 

black sea bass has been exceeded. 

Multiple projections utilizing the actual 

2009 MRFSS data through Wave 3 and 

projected landings for the remaining 

Waves 4–6 have indicated that the 

potential range of total 2009 landings is 

from 2.1 to 3.7 million lb (953 to 1,678 

mt). This would exceed the 2009 

recreational harvest limit by 84 to 225 

percent, respectively, if landings are left 

unchecked until the regulatory closure 

date of December 31, 2009. 

Regardless of the variability in the 

projection methods utilized, wherein 

average fish weight and multiple ranges 

of prior years are included to inform 

average landings in Waves 4–6 were 

modified in the different treatments, a 

substantial portion of the black sea bass 

recreational fishery clearly occurs 

during the months of July-October 

(MRFSS Waves 4 and 5). On average, 

Waves 4–6 have produced 55 percent of 

the total coastwide black sea bass 

landings in the years 2005–2008. Wave 

4 MRFSS information for 2009 will not 

be available until mid-October. 

However, the best information currently 

available indicates that the 2009 

recreational harvest level has been 

exceeded and that continued operation 

of the fishery will result in additional 

landings above the established harvest 

level. Even after a closure of the EEZ 

occurs, additional landings above the 

established recreational harvest level 

will occur in state waters, unless all 

states implement closures of their statewater recreational black sea bass 

fisheries. 

The Commission’s Black Sea Bass 

Management Board (Board) convened 

on September 8, 2009, to discuss 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES