[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 217 (Monday, November 13, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 77523-77532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24381]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2023-0043]
RIN 2127-AM58


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Bus Rollover Structural 
Integrity

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; partial grant of petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants parts of petitions for reconsideration of 
a December 29, 2021, final rule that established Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 227, ``Bus Rollover Structural Integrity.'' 
The standard is intended to enhance rollover structural integrity and 
reduce the likelihood of ejection from over-the-road buses 
(motorcoaches), and other buses with a gross vehicle weight rating 
(GVWR) greater than 11,793 kilograms (kg) (26,000 pounds (lb)). This 
final rule adjusts the definition of ``transit bus'' and revises the 
maximum allowable weight of objects intruding into the survival space 
during the rollover test. This document denies other requests in the 
petitions, including petitions to expand the applicability of the 
standard to other bus types and extend the compliance date by 2 years.

DATES: 
    Effective date: This final rule is effective December 30, 2024.
    Compliance date: The compliance date of this final rule is December 
30, 2024. Optional early compliance is permitted.
    Petitions for reconsideration: If you wish to petition for 
reconsideration of this rule, your petition must be received by 
December 28, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Correspondence related to this rule, should refer to the 
docket number in the heading of this document and be submitted to: 
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Washington, DC 20590. The petition 
will be placed in the docket. Anyone is able to search the electronic 
form of all documents received into any of our dockets by the name of 
the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if 
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). 
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit 
https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact 
Mr. Dow Shelnutt, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone 
number is 202-366-8779). For legal issues, you may call Mr. Matthew 
Filpi, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel (telephone 202-366-2992) (fax 202-
366-3820). You may send mail to these officials at the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, 
DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
    a. Applicable Buses
    b. Seating Systems and Floor Strength
    c. Limitations on Objects Entering Survival Space
    d. Defining the Ballasting Process During Testing
    e. Lead Time
III. Responses to Petitions
    a. Applicability of the Standard
    1. Application to Transit Buses
    2. Application to Medium-Size Buses and School Buses
    3. Application to Tour Buses
    b. Requirements of Seating Systems and Floor Strength
    c. Limitations on Objects Entering Survival Space
    d. Defining the Ballasting Process During Testing
    e. Implementation Lead Time
IV. Correction
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background

    On December 29, 2021, NHTSA published a final rule that established 
FMVSS No. 227, ``Bus Rollover Structural Integrity,'' (86 FR 74270, 
Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0088). The purpose of this safety standard is to 
enhance the rollover structural integrity of over-the-road buses 
(motorcoaches) regardless of GVWR, and other buses with a GVWR greater 
than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). Issued pursuant to the Moving Ahead for 
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), this final rule requires 
covered buses to provide a ``survival space'' in a rollover test to 
protect the occupants from possible collapse of the bus structure 
around them. This final rule also prohibits emergency exits from 
opening in the rollover test to reduce the likelihood of ejection and 
requires no part of the vehicle originally outside the survival space 
pretest to enter the survival space during testing.

[[Page 77524]]

    The test adopted in FMVSS No. 227 by the December 2021 final rule 
is based on the complete vehicle rollover test of United Nations 
Economic Commission for Europe Regulation 66 (ECE R.66), ``Uniform 
Technical Prescriptions Concerning the Approval for Large Passenger 
Vehicles with Regard to the Strength of their Superstructure,'' ECE 
R.66.\1\ The test simulates a real-world rollover crash of a large bus. 
The test bus is placed on a tilting platform that is 800 mm (24 inches) 
above a smooth and level concrete surface. One side of the tilting 
platform along the length of the bus is raised at a steady rate of not 
more than 5 degrees/second until the vehicle becomes unstable, rolls 
off the platform, and impacts the concrete surface below. During this 
rollover test, FMVSS No. 227 requires there be no intrusion into the 
``survival space'' by any part of the vehicle outside the survival 
space, except for minute objects weighing less than 15.0 grams, such as 
pebbles of glazing, bolts, or screws, which do not pose an unreasonable 
risk to safety for occupants. Additionally, emergency exits must not 
open during the movement of the tilting platform or as a result of the 
impact of the vehicle on the impact surface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Dated February 2006, https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/r066r1e.pdf . ECE R.66 defines ``superstructure'' 
as ``the load-bearing components of the bodywork as defined by the 
manufacturer, containing those coherent parts and elements which 
contribute to the strength and energy absorbing capability of the 
bodywork, and preserve the residual space in the rollover test.'' 
``Bodywork'' means ``the complete structure of the vehicle in 
running order, including all the structural elements which form the 
passenger compartment, driver's compartment, baggage compartment and 
spaces for the mechanical units and components.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule applies to high-occupancy vehicles, which was 
Congress's focus in the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, part of MAP-
21,\2\ due to an unreasonably high involvement in fatal rollovers. 
After accounting for Electronic Stability Control and seat belt use in 
these bus types, we estimate this rule will save 2-3 lives per year. 
The material and fuel costs per vehicle range from approximately $2,200 
to $5,400. The cost per equivalent life saved is estimated to range 
from $2.48 million (15 percent seat belt usage) to $6.38 million (90 
percent seat belt usage).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ MAP-21 Subtitle G, the ``Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of 
2012,'' defined ``motorcoach'' as having the meaning given the term 
``over-the-road bus'' in section 3038(a)(3) of TEA-21 (49 U.S.C. 
5310 note) but did not include a transit bus or a school bus. Under 
MAP-21, an over-the-road bus is a bus characterized by an elevated 
passenger deck located over a baggage compartment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Petitions for Reconsideration

    The agency received petitions for reconsideration of the December 
29, 2021, final rule from five respondents: Van Hool, New Flyer of 
America Inc. (NFA), ABC Companies (ABC), School Bus Safety Advocates 
(SBSA), and DEVCO Design and Development (DEVCO). The issues raised by 
the petitioners are summarized below.

a. Applicable Buses

    The final rule applies to over-the-road buses (OTRBs) regardless of 
GVWR and buses other than OTRBs (non-OTRBs) with a GVWR greater than 
11,793 kg (26,000 lb) with the following exceptions: school buses, 
school bus derivative buses, transit buses, prison buses, and perimeter 
seating buses. Several commenters petitioned NHTSA to reconsider the 
types of buses that are subject to this final rule. SBSA requested that 
the rule include all medium-size buses (buses with a GVWR greater than 
4,536 kg (10,000 lb) and less than or equal to 11,793 kg (26,000 
lb)).\3\ DEVCO also requested that tour buses be included, since it 
believes most tour buses are less than 26,000 lb and would therefore be 
excluded from the final rule. NFA requested NHTSA to clarify and refine 
the definition of transit bus to include physically identical buses 
designed, built, and marketed as transit buses, but sold to private 
entities or Federal agencies. Van Hool and ABC requested NHTSA to 
exclude privately owned non-OTRB that are equivalent in design to 
transit buses (with low floor construction and allowance for standing 
passengers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ SBSA specifically requested NHTSA amend the applicability of 
the final rule by changing the minimum GVWR of non-OTRBs from 11,793 
kg (26,000 lb) to 4,535 kg (10,000 lb). This change would have the 
effect of including all medium-size buses to the applicability of 
the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Seating Systems and Floor Strength

    The final rule does not expressly specify requirements related to 
floor or seating system strength. SBSA petitioned NHTSA to include 
floor strength requirements in FMVSS No. 227 and DEVCO requested 
including seating system strength to further control the survival 
space.

c. Limitations on Objects Entering Survival Space

    The final rule requires that no part of the vehicle which is 
originally outside the survival space shall intrude into the survival 
space during the movement of the tilting platform or resulting from 
impact of the vehicle on the impact surface, except for items separated 
from the bus with a mass less than 15.0 grams. Van Hool and ABC 
petitioned that this mass limit is too low and should be increased. Van 
Hool and ABC also requested permitting laminated glazing to enter into 
the survival space, regardless of its mass.

d. Defining the Ballasting Process During Testing

    The final rule outlines the ballasting procedure to prepare the bus 
for the rollover test in section S6.2.5. Van Hool and ABC petitioned 
that this procedure is not well-defined and should include more details 
such as where load packages will be placed, how much the load packages 
will weigh, where the center of gravity of each load package will be 
positioned, and whether any of the load packages will be restrained.

e. Lead Time

    The final rule specifies a compliance date of 3 years after 
publication of the final rule for FMVSS No. 227 as per MAP-21.\4\ Van 
Hool and ABC requested a lead time of 5 years, which, they stated, 
would allow the industry to cope with financial hardship and supply 
chain delays resulting from the COVID pandemic. Van Hool and ABC also 
argued that the additional lead time would allow them to synchronize 
with traditional development cycles of new OTRBs to avoid excessive 
development peaks as the industry recovers from the pandemic driven 
economic downturn in the next few years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Section 32703(e) of MAP-21 directs that any regulation 
prescribed in accordance with subsections 32703(a), (b), (c), or (d) 
shall apply to all motorcoaches manufactured more than 3 years after 
the date on which the regulation is published as a final rule. NHTSA 
issued FMVSS No. 227 in accordance with Sec.  32703(b)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Responses to Petitions

a. Applicability of the Standard

1. Application to Transit Buses
    Three respondents petitioned NHTSA to adjust the applicability of 
the final rule, specifically regarding the definition of transit buses. 
Van Hool, ABC, and NFA pointed out that under the current definition, 
buses that are manufactured as transit buses but sold to entities that 
are not State or local governments (or operated on behalf of State or 
local governments) are not considered transit buses. In this document, 
``transit-type buses'' means buses that have features of transit buses 
but that are sold to entities that are not State or local governments 
(or operated on behalf of State or local governments). Some examples 
provided by NFA of transit-type buses that would not be excluded from 
the final rule are

[[Page 77525]]

National Park Service buses, private campus buses,\5\ and buses sold to 
the General Services Administration for use on military bases. NFA 
stated these bus types do not fit the definition for transit bus 
because they are not used ``for public transportation provided by, or 
on behalf of, a State or local government . . . .'' Van Hool added that 
``(d)ue to the low floor construction of these non-OTRBs and the fact 
that many passengers are standing inside the vehicle . . . we see a lot 
of complications in order to have FMVSS No. 227 fulfilled.'' NFA 
petitioned NHTSA to adjust the definition of transit bus to include 
buses purchased by these entities. Further, NFA noted these buses are 
often the same bus models purchased by State and local government 
agencies for public transportation, and are being used for similar 
fixed route, low speed service. NFA stated their ``low speed, and 
frequent stop duty cycle'' usage means they should be held to the same 
rollover standards as transit buses purchased by State and local 
government agencies for public transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The petitioner also lists airport rental car shuttles. NHTSA 
notes that buses with 7 or fewer designated seating positions 
rearward of the driver's seating position that are forward-facing or 
can convert to forward-facing without the use of tools are excluded 
from the standard (S3(b)(2), FMVSS No. 227). These buses can include 
airport rental car shuttles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NFA noted that NHTSA calculated compliance costs in the August 6, 
2014, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (79 FR 46090) and final rule 
under the assumption that some bus manufacturers are already building 
their buses to conform to ECE R.66, which results in reduced costs to 
comply with FMVSS No. 227 due to their similar testing methods. NFA 
stated there is no reason to believe any transit bus manufacturer would 
be manufacturing transit-type buses to comply with ECE R.66. Since they 
would need to develop a new design, the petitioners stated this would 
result in a significant cost increase for the manufacturers of transit 
buses to comply with FMVSS No. 227, compared to the calculations in the 
Final Regulatory Evaluation (FRE) and final rule.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NFA submitted a subsequent memorandum (dated March 16, 2023) 
after calculating estimated engineering compliance costs. NFA states 
this information was not available to them at the time their 
original petition was filed in February 2022. In brief, NFA 
forecasted that the non-recurring engineering costs for non-exempt 
transit buses would be so large that they would stop offering such 
transit buses to private entities and to the federal government. 
NHTSA has placed a copy of the memorandum in the docket for the 
December 29, 2021 final rule (Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0088). This 
topic is discussed later in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: Based on the reasons outlined in the paragraphs 
below, the agency agrees in part with the requests of NFA, Van Hool, 
and ABC. Transit buses operated by or on behalf of Federal agencies 
such as the U.S National Park Service (NPS) and the General Services 
Administration (GSA) are likely to be operated in similar low risk 
driving patterns when compared to transit buses operated by or on 
behalf of State or local governments. The agency does not have enough 
data to conclude whether privately owned or operated transit-type buses 
operate under these same low risk driving patterns. Therefore, NHTSA 
will amend the transit bus definition to additionally include only 
buses that are operated by or on behalf of the Federal government. Any 
transit-type bus that is sold to operators not affiliated with a 
Federal, State, or local government will still need to comply with 
FMVSS No. 227.
    NHTSA's proposal to apply FMVSS No. 227 to high-occupancy vehicles 
was based on NHTSA's and Congress's concern about the involvement of 
high-occupancy vehicles in fatal rollover crashes. Furthermore, NHTSA 
generally intended the final rule to cover the same buses covered in 
the agency's November 25, 2013, final rule that required lap/shoulder 
seat belts for each passenger seating position in over-the-road buses 
(FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' 78 FR 70416). The 
agency's general view in the FMVSS No. 227 final rule was that FMVSS 
No. 227 should apply to those buses with seat belts, so that a survival 
space could be provided to belted occupants. Transit buses were 
excluded from FMVSS No. 227 for the same reason they were excluded from 
the belt requirement. Based on the agency's analysis of the Fatality 
Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data, the bus type with the lowest 
percentage of fatalities for all buses with a GVWR greater than 26,000 
lb was the transit bus.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 78 FR 70437.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in the final rule, FMVSS No. 227 will ensure that belted 
passengers will be significantly protected against unreasonable risk of 
injury in frontal crashes and significantly protected against the risk 
of ejection in rollovers. Hand-in-hand with the seat belt rule, FMVSS 
No. 227 enhances the safety of these belted passengers by providing a 
``survival space'' in a rollover, a space where the belted occupants 
are protected from intruding structures such as a collapsing roof or a 
detached luggage rack. The benefits of FMVSS No. 227 are maximized when 
implemented in the same buses that are equipped with seat belts. The 
seat belt requirements in FMVSS No. 208 for large buses provided a 
means for belted bus occupants to remain within the survival space in a 
crash. Transit buses are not required to be equipped with seat belts in 
the absence of a safety need for the belts, and they are likewise not 
required to comply with the structural integrity requirements of FMVSS 
No. 227 in the absence of a safety need warranting coverage by the 
standard.
    The definition of ``transit bus'' in the FMVSS No. 227 final rule 
is ``a bus that is equipped with a stop-request system sold for public 
transportation provided by, or on behalf of, a State or local 
government and that is not an over-the-road bus.'' This definition is 
also used in both FMVSS Nos. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' and 
FMVSS No. 136, ``Electronic stability control systems for heavy 
vehicles.''
    NHTSA is denying the petition based on available use information 
and crash data. The exclusion of transit buses from FMVSS No. 227 is 
based on the safety record of buses used as transit buses. NHTSA 
acknowledges that there are private entities operating the same style 
buses that are used by public transit agencies, but ``transit buses'' 
are excluded because of data reflecting the lower risk of involvement 
in rollovers given, among other matters, the fixed-route nature of 
their use and how their travel is characterized by frequent bus stops. 
Based on the information the agency has received from manufacturers,\8\ 
private entities make up approximately 10 percent of large transit-type 
bus sales, meaning the vast majority of transit-type buses on American 
roads are operated by or on behalf of State or local governments. The 
data the agency possesses indicate that the number of fatalities 
resulting from transit-type bus rollover crashes is lower than the 
number of fatalities from OTRBs. After analyzing these data and 
researching a number of State and local transit bus routes, the agency 
concluded in the final rule that public transit agencies typically 
operate transit buses in urban areas at low speeds over fixed routes 
with frequent stops, which likely explains why fatalities are lower 
relative to other large bus types as observed over the past 20 years. 
Additionally, the fact that State and local governments operate a vast 
majority of transit-type buses further explains why the risk of fatal 
rollover crashes is generally low for transit-type buses, as an 
overwhelming majority of transit-type buses are

[[Page 77526]]

operated on low speed, fixed route, frequent stop service by trained 
drivers familiar with the routes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ New Flyer Response to NHTSA Questions.pdf, NHTSA has placed 
a copy of the document in the docket for this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the other hand, privately owned or operated bus services may use 
transit-type buses for higher risk driving practices that deviate from 
the typical low speed, fixed route, frequent stop service. When 
analyzing use by State and local governments, the agency accessed and 
analyzed route descriptions on local and State transit authorities' 
websites. The agency simply does not have access to that kind of 
information for buses used by private entities. Without sufficient data 
about typical operating practices of private operators, NHTSA cannot 
confirm whether the risk of a fatal rollover crash is as low as it is 
for the operating environment of public transportation provided by or 
on behalf of State or local governments. Excluding all transit-type 
vehicles from compliance with FMVSS No. 227 would not be in the best 
interest of safety since these private operators may use the buses for 
higher risk driving than the typical public transportation service 
provided by or on behalf of State or local governments.
    Based on sound inferences made from the data, the agency can say 
with confidence that the rollover fatality risk is low when a transit-
type bus is being operated by or on behalf of a State or local 
government. Without sufficient, specific use-based data, the agency 
cannot say the same about transit-type buses operated by private 
entities. If sufficient data were provided to the agency showing 
private transit-type bus operators use the buses in the same low-risk 
manner, the agency would take it under consideration for future updates 
to FMVSS No. 227.
    Conversely, there are data about transit-type bus use in National 
Parks that support NHTSA's partial granting of the request to consider 
buses sold to the Federal government as transit buses. NPS offers 
public transportation in the form of shuttle buses at many National 
Parks. These buses are often used to transport passengers throughout 
the parks and to neighboring park-and-ride locations or visitor 
centers.<SUP>9 10 11 12 13</SUP> These applications are typically on 
fixed routes at low speeds. Buses operated by the NPS are not likely to 
be used for any purposes other than their intended shuttle routes. 
Further, NHTSA would consider transportation provided to patrons of a 
National Park to be public transportation as National Parks are open to 
the general public. However, buses operated by NPS, which is a Federal 
agency, or its contractors, are not operated ``by, or on behalf of, a 
State or local government.'' These buses are often operated by 
contractors on behalf of the NPS, so an amendment to include 
``Federal'' in the transit bus definition is warranted to include these 
NPS buses as transit buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``Yosemite--Public Transportation.'' National Parks Service, 
U.S. Department of the Interior, https://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/publictransportation.htm, Last accessed January 12, 
2023.
    \10\ ``Grand Canyon--South Rim Shuttle Bus Routes: Winter 2022-
23.'' National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 
https://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/shuttle-buses.htm, Last 
accessed January 12, 2023.
    \11\ ``Zion--Zion Canyon Shuttle System.'' National Parks 
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, https://www.nps.gov/zion/planyourvisit/zion-canyon-shuttle-system.htm, Last accessed January 
12, 2023.
    \12\ ``Rocky Mountain--Shuttle Buses and Public Transit.'' 
National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, https://www.nps.gov/romo/planyourvisit/shuttle-buses-and-public-transit.htm, 
Last accessed January 12, 2023.
    \13\ ``Acadia--Island Explorer.'' National Parks Service, U.S. 
Department of the Interior, https://www.nps.gov/acad/planyourvisit/island-explorer.htm, Last accessed January 12, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned by petitioner NFA, GSA purchases buses for various 
uses, including transit-type buses for use on military bases. The GSA's 
Ground Transportation Services provide time-definite pickup and 
delivery of government personnel in a variety of applications.\14\ 
According to NFA, they expect to sell transit-type buses to the GSA 
``for lease to various federal agencies, as on military bases or 
national parks.'' The most likely use for a transit-type bus on a 
military base would be operating a bus on fixed routes at low speeds 
with frequent stops, which is similar to the use by public 
transportation agencies in other urban areas. The agency acknowledges 
that it is possible that the military may use transit-type buses for 
purposes other than the fixed route style service listed above, but the 
agency did not uncover any data indicating higher rates of rollover 
crashes for military operated transit-type buses. Additionally, NHTSA 
explicitly states that no standard applies to a vehicle manufactured 
for, and sold directly to, the Armed forces of the United States in 
conformity with contractual specification.\15\ Because the regulations 
are clear when it comes to regulating vehicles produced for use by the 
military, the agency believes including Federal government in the 
transit bus definition is consistent with NHTSA's regulations and the 
Safety Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ ``Ground Transportation Services.'' U.S. General Services 
Administration, GSA, https://www.gsa.gov/buy-through-us/products-services/transportation-logistics-services/transportation/transportation-and-logistics-services-schedule/ground-transportation-services, Last accessed January 12, 2023.
    \15\ 49 CFR 571.7(c)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In their petition for reconsideration, NFA challenged NHTSA's cost 
estimates in the FRE based on the number of ``non-exempt transit 
buses.'' Specifically, NFA stated that NHTSA underestimated the costs 
to comply with FMVSS No. 227 because the FRE did not include costs 
incurred by transit bus manufacturers to update their ``non-exempt 
transit buses'' to meet the structural integrity requirements.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Based on the information provided by OTRB manufacturers, 
the FRE estimated approximately 30 percent of the large bus market 
consists of buses with superstructures that currently comply with 
ECE R.66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA developed the cost estimations in the FRE to determine the 
costs that would result from updating the applicable buses to comply 
with the requirements of FMVSS No. 227. Since transit buses are 
excluded from compliance with FMVSS No. 227, they were not included in 
the cost estimations. NHTSA did not include cost estimations in the FRE 
for updating bus types other than the bus types that are required to 
comply with FMVSS No. 227. As discussed in the FRE, NHTSA estimated a 
market size of 2,200 buses sold annually that are applicable to FMVSS 
No. 227. These buses include all OTRBs and other large buses operated 
by both public and private entities. NFA estimated there are 
approximately 80 to 120 ``non-exempt transit buses'' per year that are 
sold to private entities or the Federal Government that would not fit 
the definition of transit buses. After revising the transit bus 
definition to include buses operated by or on behalf of the Federal 
Government, there are even fewer ``non-exempt transit buses,'' 
representing less than 3 to 5 percent of the estimated 2,200 applicable 
buses sold annually. Therefore, the cost estimations in the FRE do not 
need to be adjusted to account for transit buses as requested by NFA.
    NFA stated in their March 16, 2023, memo, they estimate it would be 
cost-prohibitive for them to manufacture transit buses that comply with 
FMVSS No. 227 due in part to the small market size of ``non-exempt 
transit buses.'' Further, NFA stated that if their petition is not 
granted, they will not sell transit buses to private parties due to 
high engineering and tooling costs, and ``[t]here is no reason to 
believe that other manufacturers will reach a different conclusion.'' 
In response, if bus manufacturers decide not to reconfigure transit 
buses to comply with FMVSS No. 227, the buses would be noncomplying and 
could not be sold to

[[Page 77527]]

private bus operators as currently configured. The buses do not provide 
the requisite level of safety that is needed to protect occupants of 
high occupancy vehicles from unreasonable risks of injury and fatality 
in crashes. When the buses are subject to non-transit use, the standard 
ensures the occupants are protected from risks associated with such 
use. However, there are alternative bus options for private entities 
seeking to purchase a high occupancy bus, such as a school bus 
derivative bus,\17\ an over-the-road bus, or a bus type with a GVWR 
less than or equal to 26,000 lb. Additionally, it is possible that a 
transit-style bus manufacturer may decide to produce a new complying 
bus in the future, as meeting the standard is practicable. Given the 
safety need for FMVSS No. 227, NHTSA believes it is consistent with the 
Safety Act and the public interest for the agency not to establish a 
carve-out that could potentially exclude every non-OTRB as a ``transit 
bus,'' regardless of the party to whom the bus is sold. Therefore, 
NHTSA will not further adjust the definition of transit bus to include 
private operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ A school bus derivative bus means a bus that meets the 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for school bus emergency 
exits, rollover protection, bus body joint strength, and fuel system 
integrity. (S4, FMVSS No. 227).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Application to Medium-Size Buses and School Buses
    SBSA requested NHTSA to increase the scope of applicability of the 
final rule to include all buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg 
(10,000 lb). This increase in scope would result in the inclusion of 
all buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb), without any 
exclusion for school buses, transit buses, and prison buses. The 
agency's response to including transit buses is discussed above. SBSA's 
request was specifically to adjust the discussion in the summary of the 
final rule, without mentioning any of the details to be altered in the 
remainder of the preamble or the regulatory text. SBSA did not provide 
any data to support their request.
    Agency Response: NHTSA's proposal to apply FMVSS No. 227 to high-
occupancy vehicles was based on NHTSA's and Congress's concern about 
the involvement of high-occupancy vehicles in fatal rollover crashes. 
Furthermore, NHTSA intended the final rule to cover the same buses 
covered in the agency's November 25, 2013, final rule, which required 
lap/shoulder seat belts for each passenger seating position in over-
the-road buses. The agency's view in the NPRM and final rule was that 
FMVSS No. 227 should apply to those buses with seat belts, so that a 
survival space could be provided to belted occupants.
    In the final rule, NHTSA stated FMVSS No. 227 shall not be 
applicable to medium-size non-OTRB buses. NHTSA based the decision on 
an analysis of crash data for medium-size buses. Examining FARS data 
from 2006-2019, there were 136 occupant fatalities in non-OTRBs with a 
GVWR between 4,536-11,793 kg (10,000-26,000 lb), of which 50 fatalities 
were a result of 24 rollover crashes. Over the 14-year period between 
2006-2019, medium-size buses were associated with an average of 1.7 
rollover crashes per year and 3.6 fatalities due to rollover crashes 
per year. These numbers are small when compared to large buses. 
Comparing to large buses and OTRBs, data from FARS 2006-2019 shows 
there was an annual average of 3.7 fatal rollover crashes involving 
large buses (GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)) (including 
OTRBs), resulting in an average of 11.9 occupant fatalities per year. 
Additionally, there are an estimated 2,200 large buses (including 
OTRBs) produced annually, compared to an estimated 16,000 medium-size 
buses produced annually.\18\ Table 1 below summarizes these data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Medium-Size Bus Roadway Departure, Return, and Rollover 
Bryce Canyon City, Utah September 20, 2019. Accident Report NTSB/
HAR-21/01 PB2021-100917. Last accessed October 26, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SBSA did not provide any data or information with their petition 
requesting that new medium-size buses meet the rollover structural 
requirements of FMVSS No. 227. Therefore, the agency reiterates the 
conclusion stated in the final rule that the data do not support a 
finding of a safety need to warrant application of FMVSS No. 227 to 
medium-size buses.\19\ For the reasons above and in the final rule, 
NHTSA denies the petition to extend FMVSS No. 227 to medium-size buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 86 FR 74282-74284.

Table 1--Summary Statistics for Fatal Rollover Crashes and Occupant Fatalities for Large Buses (Including OTRBs)
                                              and Medium-Size Buses
                                                [FARS 2006-2019]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Average annual
                        Bus size                           Average annual        rollover        Average annual
                                                          rollover crashes      fatalities        fleet sales
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Bus (greater than 26,000 lb GVWR) and all OTRBs..                3.7               11.9              2,200
Medium-Size Bus (GVWR of 10,000-26,000 lb).............                1.7                3.6             16,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although not specifically stated in their petition, SBSA implied 
that school buses also be included in the scope of FMVSS No. 227. 
School buses are already required to meet roof strength requirements 
stated in FMVSS No. 220, ``School bus rollover protection'' (49 CFR 
571.220 \20\). NHTSA stated in the final rule for FMVSS No. 227 that 
since school bus derivative buses already meet the roof crush 
resistance requirements in FMVSS No. 220, it would be redundant to 
require those buses to also meet FMVSS No. 227.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-V/part-571/subpart-B/section-571.220, Last accessed January 17, 2023.
    \21\ 86 FR 74286-74287.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Application to Tour Buses
    DEVCO stated that only including buses with a GVWR greater than 
26,000 lb excludes most tour buses from this rule. DEVCO requested 
NHTSA include these bus types in the applicability of FMVSS No. 227, 
but did not provide any data to support its request.
    Agency Response: FMVSS No. 227 is applicable to all over-the-road 
buses, regardless of GVWR, as well as all large buses with a GVWR 
greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb), except school buses, school bus 
derivative buses, transit buses, and prison buses. Also excluded from 
FMVSS No. 227 are buses with 7 or fewer designated seating positions 
rearward of the driver's seating position that are forward-facing or 
can convert to forward-facing without the use of tools. The FARS 
database does not define or use the term ``tour bus'' in reference to

[[Page 77528]]

a bus body type.\22\ However, the FARS database does include a bus use 
category for ``Charter/Tour.'' The term ``tour bus'' is not explicitly 
defined and could be described as different types of buses in different 
contexts. An internet search for ``tour buses'' includes results of 
traditional motorcoaches, double decker buses, and open-top buses for 
sight-seeing tours. Traditional motorcoaches would be included within 
the scope of FMVSS No. 227 due to their categorization as an OTRB. 
Double decker buses are generally much heavier than standard buses. 
Listed GVWRs for Volvo,\23\ Wright Bus,\24\ and Guleryuz \25\ double 
decker buses range from 18,100 kg to 26,300 kg (40,000 lb to 58,000 
lb). Therefore, these would be included within the scope of FMVSS No. 
227 due to their GVWR being greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). As 
stated in the final rule, ``(t)he standard would not apply to a level 
of a bus that does not have a permanent roof over the level, such as 
the upper level of a double-decker bus that does not have a permanent 
roof over the upper level.'' However, any portion of an open-top bus 
that does have a permanent roof, for example, the lower level of a 
double-decker open-top bus, is subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 
227.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ FARS body types related to buses include ``large van'', 
``school bus'', ``cross country/intercity bus'', ``transit bus (city 
bus)'', ``van-based bus'', ``other bus'', and ``unknown bus''.
    \23\ ``Specifications.'' 9700 Double Decker Specifications 
[verbar] Volvo Buses, AB Volvo, https://www.volvobuses.com/en/coaches/coaches/volvo-9700-dd/specifications.html, last accessed May 
13, 2022.
    \24\ ``Meet the UK's Favourite Bus.'' StreetDeck Ultroliner EU6 
[verbar] Wrightbus, https://wrightbus.com/en-gb/diesel-bus-streetdeck-ultrolinerEU6, last accessed May 13, 2022.
    \25\ ``Dynabus Top Open Double Decker Low Floor.'' Guleryuz 
Technical Specification of Top Open Double Decker Bus, https://www.dynabus.gr/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/460069777.pdf, last 
accessed May 13, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The other type of bus that could be described as a tour bus is a 
van-based bus or body-on-frame bus that is less than 26,000 lb. These 
bus types are not included in the scope of this final rule because they 
are neither OTRBs nor with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb). 
Due to the reasons discussed above, there is not a safety need to 
extend applicability to medium-size buses. Therefore, NHTSA does not 
find any need to adjust any criteria of applicability for bus types 
based on DEVCO's suggestions.

b. Requirements for Floor Strength and Seating Systems

    SBSA requested that FMVSS No. 227 include requirements for 
increased floor strength to improve safety. They stated that ``[s]ince 
roof and wall strength is also applicable to floor strength for 
controlling the survival space, improved floor strength should be 
added.'' SBSA did not provide any minimum strength requirements, 
suggested procedures, or data to justify their request. DEVCO requested 
that NHTSA modernize the seating systems in buses in order to control 
survival space not only during rollovers, but also in other types of 
bus crashes. To specify the recommended updates, DEVCO suggested 
adjustments to FMVSS No. 207, ``Seating Systems,'' to increase the 
scope of applicability to include all buses and seating orientations.
    Agency Response: NHTSA is denying these requests. The agency agrees 
that both floor strength and seating system strength are an integral 
part of protecting occupants within a bus. However, the rulemaking did 
not include specific floor strength requirements in FMVSS No. 227, so 
SBSA's suggestion to add specific floor strength requirements appears 
beyond the scope of the issues appropriate for a petition for 
reconsideration. In any event, NHTSA believes there is no need for 
specific floor strength requirements as the current standard accounts 
for floor strength. Under the requirements of FMVSS No. 227 the entire 
bus shell must have sufficient strength to keep the sidewall and roof 
from intruding into the survival space during the rollover test. 
Specifically, this means the lower corners where the sidewall connects 
to the floor, the upper corners where the sidewall meets the roof, the 
floor, and the roof itself will contribute to the survival space of the 
bus during vehicle rollovers. Thus, as a practical matter, the test of 
FMVSS No. 227 addresses floor strength, and bus designers will have to 
ensure the floor is sufficiently strong to work with the strengthened 
bus roofs and side wall panels to provide the survival space required 
by the standard.
    Regarding the request to strengthen seating systems, as stated in 
the final rule notice promulgating FMVSS No. 227, ``NHTSA has decided 
that the primary purpose of this rulemaking is to establish a roof 
strength and crush resistance standard that improves the resistance of 
roofs to deformation and intrusion, i.e., by providing a survival space 
to occupants in rollovers.'' \26\ With that determination, the agency 
decided not to adopt proposed requirements that each anchorage of the 
seats not completely separate from its mounting structure in the test. 
DEVCO did not provide any data in its petition to argue against this 
determination. With regard to seatbacks, DEVCO's request to modify 
seating systems by requiring strengthened seatbacks for all buses and 
seat belts for school buses is not within the scope of the rulemaking. 
For these reasons, NHTSA is denying the request to adjust the final 
rule to further account for floor strength and seating systems based on 
SBSA's and DEVCO's comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 86 FR 74272.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Limitations on Objects Entering Survival Space

    Van Hool and ABC requested that NHTSA revisit the mass of an object 
that is allowed to enter the survival space during the rollover test. 
Van Hool commented that the fact that something as small as a plastic 
cap weighing 20 grams would cause a rollover test to fail is out of 
balance with the consequences of the failure. Additionally, Van Hool 
and ABC expressed that the 15-gram criterion is too severe and 
unbalanced with real life situations, due to the fact that small items 
weighing 15 grams or more ``will cause no or minimal bodily harm to 
occupants.'' Van Hool also stated that ``(d)ue to the deformation of 
the upper body (of the vehicle) at impact, the glazing at the front and 
end of the vehicle cracks diagonally due to shear forces, often 
ejecting greater parts of glass than allowed by the 15-gram 
criterium.'' Therefore, they requested NHTSA exclude laminated glass 
from the 15-gram criterion, increase the maximum allowed weight up to a 
``more realistic level,'' and consider a separate test methodology to 
determine whether intrusion into the survival space causes a failure.
    Agency Response: The ECE R.66 rollover test, the standard on which 
this final rule is based, specifies that no part of the vehicle that is 
outside the survival space at the start of the test shall enter the 
survival space during the test. There is no specification for minimum 
size, which implies any object entering the survival space, regardless 
of mass, would cause a bus to fail the minimum survival zone 
requirements of the test. NHTSA believes such would not be a practical 
requirement, since it is likely for the bus to have small broken pieces 
of glazing, nuts, bolts, screws, etc., entering the survival space 
during a bus rollover. Further, none of the aforementioned objects 
would be likely to cause serious injury to passengers during a rollover 
unless they were sufficiently heavy. Therefore, in the final rule, 
NHTSA adopted a test procedure that permitted objects to enter the 
survival space if each object weighs an amount that is not likely to 
cause injury to passengers.

[[Page 77529]]

    The 15-gram criterion stemmed from the maximum allowable mass of 
glazing to be separated from the laminate during the 227 g (0.5 lb), 
9.14 m (30 feet) ball drop impact test as defined in ANSI Z26.1-
1996.\27\ Referring to ANSI Z26.1 provided a method to quantify the 
weight of small pieces of glazing material that could be expected to 
separate after an impact. However, as Van Hool mentions in its 
petition, there are objects other than small fasteners and pieces of 
glazing that may enter the survival space which ought not result in the 
failure of the rollover test. These objects may have a greater mass 
than the 15.0 grams calculated based on shards of glass, but still 
would not present a risk of injury to the occupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ ANSI/SAE Z26.1 is incorporated by reference into FMVSS No. 
205, ``Glazing materials.'' ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 permits pieces of 
laminated glazing of 1935 mm\2\ (3 in\2\) to separate (break off) in 
the 227 g (0.5 lb) 9.14 m ball drop impact test. We estimate that 
laminated glazing has a glass thickness of approximately 2.5 mm for 
each glass layer, and a glass density of about 0.00251 g/mm\3\ 
(1.445 ounce (oz)/in\3\). Thus, a piece of laminated glazing of 1935 
mm\2\ (3 in\2\) has a mass of approximately 12 grams (g) (0.43 oz). 
Factoring in a 3 g (0.11 oz) tolerance, this is the origin of the 
15.0 gram (0.53 oz) mass limit that is prohibited to intrude into 
the survival space as stated in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the requirement is to not allow items large enough 
to injure occupants, such as glazing panels, handrails, or luggage 
racks, or a sufficiently heavy portion of these items, to enter the 
survival space.\28\ NHTSA has estimated the approximate mass of 
fasteners and plastic trim pieces, such as end caps, that are likely to 
be used in areas of a motorcoach subjected to the impact force during 
the rollover test. Most plastic end caps are constructed of low-density 
polyethylene (LDPE) and are offered in a wide range of sizes and 
styles. Based on the common offerings of online end cap manufacturers 
and the sizes and styles of handrails, luggage racks, or seat frames 
likely to require use of plastic end caps, NHTSA has determined that 
the largest end caps are generally 30 grams or less. Most non-
structural bolts and screws used on the interior of a bus would be 
small and would have to shear off in order to enter the survival space. 
NHTSA estimates a large, unbroken bolt likely to be used in a bus 
interior to be no more than 45 grams.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 86 FR 74290. Another purpose to the requirement that 
prevents bus components from intruding into the survival space is to 
better ensure the glazing is retained as an ejection mitigation 
countermeasure. ``FMVSS No. 227's survival space requirement would 
improve the structural integrity around window frames and prevent 
glazing from popping out or otherwise detaching from its window 
mount in a rollover.'' Id. at 74292.
    \29\ A hex head fully threaded M10 x 60mm bolt weighs 53.59 
grams, including the nut, which weighs approximately 10 grams. 
https://itafasteners.com/weight-chart.php Last accessed March 6, 
2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, a hard object greater than this mass has the potential 
to harm bus occupants if it impacts them at sufficient velocity, which 
is foreseeable in a bus rollover event. Further, metal fittings or 
brackets are typically used to anchor sizable components such as 
handrails or stanchions to the bus structure. These fittings, depending 
on geometry and manufacturer, can have a mass from approximately 55 
grams \30\ to over 200 grams. If a heavier bracket or fitting such as 
this breaks off the bus structure, not only can it injure an occupant, 
but its failure significantly increases the risk of the more massive 
component, which the bracket or fitting secured, intruding into the 
survival space. Factoring in a 5-gram tolerance due to the variability 
in weights and the use of different brackets and fittings by bus 
manufacturers, NHTSA is amending the test procedure adopted in the 
final rule, and the amended test procedure will permit individual 
objects with a mass less than 60 grams (0.13 lb) to enter the survival 
space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The lightest such bracket readily available has a product 
weight of 0.12 lb (55 grams). https://www.austinhardware.com/fitting-fixed-base-no-insert.html. Last accessed March 9, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the purposes of this rule is to prevent injurious objects 
from entering the survival space. Objects less than 60 grams (e.g., 
fasteners, small glazing pieces, broken pieces of plastic trim, plastic 
caps) that separate from the bus are not likely to cause injury to the 
bus occupants. Objects with a mass greater than or equal to 60 grams 
(e.g., handrail securement brackets, metal fittings, large sections of 
glazing panels) that break away from the bus are much more likely to 
result in occupant injury, either by striking an occupant or by failing 
to keep the more massive component from entering the survival space. 
Thus, for the reasons stated above, NHTSA will adjust the regulatory 
text of the final rule to increase the mass limit from 15 grams to 60 
grams.
    We disagree with the request to exempt large pieces of laminated 
glazing from the small object weight limit for items entering the 
survival space. First, as explained above, the large pieces of 
laminated glazing are massive and would likely injure an occupant when 
they fell into the survival space. Second, a purpose of FMVSS No. 227 
is to ensure that buses maintain their structural integrity in a 
rollover to better retain ejection mitigation glazing in a 
rollover.\31\ Under Van Hool and ABC's petition, a manufacturer 
choosing to use laminated glazing for side or roof windows would not be 
required to keep those large heavy panes of glazing from entering the 
survival space or from popping out. Accordingly, NHTSA is denying this 
request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 86 FR 74271, col. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Defining the Ballasting Process During Testing

    Van Hool and ABC state ``(t)he final rule has no unambiguous 
definition of the installation of additional loads inside a vehicle to 
bring the vehicle weight up to its GVWR . . . .'' They request details 
for the ballasting during the rollover test procedure such as specific 
locations where load packages will be placed, how much the load 
packages will weigh, where the center of gravity of each load package 
will be positioned, and whether any of the load packages will be 
restrained. They requested that NHTSA add a more precise procedure for 
the loading of the bus up to its GVWR prior to performing the rollover 
test. Van Hool also requested load package weight be reduced to 20 
percent of its original mass to compensate for the fixation of load 
packages.
    Agency Response: Section S6.2 of the regulatory text contains the 
preparations and procedures for the bus prior to NHTSA performing the 
rollover test. Section S6.2.5 describes the ballasting procedure, 
including where the load packages are placed in the bus, how much each 
load package weighs, and how they are restrained to the seats and bus 
frame. This section answers each of the questions Van Hool and ABC 
presented about the ballasting procedure, except the precise location 
of the center of gravity for each load package. Under the current 
procedure's terminology, the physical sizes of the load packages are 
not defined. For example, the load packages could be steel plates 
placed horizontally in the seat, resulting in a lower center of 
gravity, or they could be weighted anthropomorphic ballasts 
(commercially available ``water dummies''), resulting in a higher 
center of gravity. NHTSA indicated in both the final rule and NPRM that 
the method of ballasting or type of ballast used are not of importance, 
as those factors will not markedly alter the forces imposed on the 
vehicle structure or the seat anchorages during compliance testing, so 
long as the ballast is 68 kg (150 lb) at each designated seating 
position (DSP). Additionally, in other Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards, such as FMVSS No. 214 ``Side impact protection,'' NHTSA does 
not specify the type of ballast that must be used in the applicable 
test. Therefore, NHTSA is

[[Page 77530]]

remaining consistent with other standards and testing procedures by not 
specifying the type of ballast that must be used in the compliance 
test, as the type of ballast used does not affect test outcome.
    Van Hool and ABC expressed specific concerns that if the ballasts 
are not restrained to the bus structure during testing, the tests would 
be non-reproducible due to many uncertainties.\32\ As described in the 
final rule regulatory text and preamble,\33\ all ballasts must be 
securely attached to the seat frames in order to replicate the forces 
imparted to the seat anchorages during a crash. The ballasts should be 
restrained to the seat frames regardless of the type of ballast used, 
so long as the ballast weight, including any attachment mechanisms, is 
68 kg (150 lb) at each DSP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The uncertainties that Van Hool listed in their petition 
include coefficient of friction between load packages and vehicle 
construction, coefficient of friction between load packages, load 
package storage conditions, stability of stacked load packages, 
impact uncertainties of load packages during the test, and size/
form/hardness of the load packages.
    \33\ 86 FR 74293.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding Van Hool's request to reduce the ballast weight to 20 
percent of its original mass, NHTSA is denying this request. NHTSA 
responded to similar requests in the final rule (86 FR 74293-74294). 
NHTSA explained that, as discussed in the NPRM (79 FR 46106), an 
Australian study that utilized bus section testing and computer 
simulations estimated that 93 percent of a lap/shoulder belt-restrained 
occupant mass, 75 percent of a lap belt-restrained occupant mass, and 
18 percent of an unrestrained occupant mass are effectively coupled to 
the vehicle structure during a rollover. Further, a European Commission 
sponsored study in 2003 found that the percentage of occupant mass 
coupled to the vehicle structure during a rollover is 90 percent for 
lap/shoulder belted occupants and 70 percent for lap belted occupants. 
Available studies now uniformly agree that more than 90 percent of the 
occupant mass is coupled with the bus during a rollover crash. 
Therefore, we do not find any need to adjust the final rule or 
ballasting procedure based on Van Hool's petitions for reconsideration.

e. Implementation Lead Time

    NHTSA adopted a compliance date of 3 years after publication of the 
final rule for FMVSS No. 227. Van Hool and ABC requested a lead time up 
to 5 years to adjust their developmental processes to account for a 
more stringent set of requirements than the ECE R.66 rollover 
requirements, align design improvement times with existing 
developmental cycles for their buses, and avoid unnecessary development 
peaks. Van Hool and ABC believed that a longer lead time was needed due 
to financial hardship, supply chain delays, and increase in material 
cost during the pandemic.
    Agency Response: NHTSA is denying this request. The 2021 final rule 
adopted the 3-year compliance date as required by MAP-21. MAP-21 (in 
section 32703(e)) directs that the rulemaking shall apply to all 
motorcoaches manufactured more than 3 years after the date on which the 
regulation is published as a final rule. NHTSA evaluated and proposed a 
3-year compliance date in the October 2014 NPRM and adopted it in the 
December 2021 final rule. To enable manufacturers to certify to the new 
requirements as early as possible, optional early compliance with the 
standard is permitted.
    NHTSA believes that manufacturers whose buses do not already meet 
ECE R.66 will need to make structural design changes to their large bus 
models either by changing the strength of the sidewall and glazing 
frame material or the material's physical properties or dimensions 
(i.e., thickness or width). Per the results of our test program 
conducted in support of this rulemaking, newer buses may need stronger 
side pillars to meet the glazing retention requirements, and redesigned 
latch mechanisms on roof exits and side window exits to ensure that 
they do not release during the impact. However, Van Hool already 
manufactures buses for the European market, therefore Van Hool should 
already have a good foundation for the ECE R.66 requirements. Research 
and development time should be less for manufacturers who already have 
a solution developed for the ECE R.66 requirements. No other bus 
manufacturer requested an extension for the compliance date, including 
manufacturers who do not currently produce buses for the European 
market or comply with ECE R.66. NHTSA is not convinced by ABC and Van 
Hool's argument for a later compliance date due to financial hardship 
and supply chain delays during the COVID pandemic because no other 
manufacturer requested such an extension in the compliance date, even 
though they were also affected by the pandemic. We believe that any 
design and manufacturing changes to comply with FMVSS No. 227 can be 
done within 3 years. Therefore, NHTSA declines to extend the lead time 
for the final rule.

IV. Correction

    While reviewing the final rule, NHTSA noticed a section reference 
in the regulatory text that needs to be updated. During development of 
the final rule, paragraph S6.3 of the regulatory text was renamed S7. 
Subsequently, S6.3.1 through S6.3.6 were renamed S7(a) through S7(f). 
In S6.1.4, there is a reference to what was originally named S6.3.1 but 
was not updated to reference the newly named S7(a). The agency is 
correcting S6.1.4 to change a reference from S6.3.1 to S7(a).

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 
13563, and DOT Rulemaking Procedures

    The agency has considered the impact of this rulemaking action 
under E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, and the Department of Transportation's 
administrative rulemaking orders and procedures. This rulemaking was 
not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' The rulemaking action has also been 
determined to be not of ``special note to the Department'' under DOT 
Order 2100.6A.
    This document makes a minor adjustment to the definition of 
``transit bus,'' and slightly revises the maximum allowable weight of 
objects intruding into the survival space during the rollover test. The 
minimal impacts of today's amendment do not warrant preparation of a 
regulatory evaluation.

Executive Order 13609: Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation

    The policy statement in section 1 of E.O. 13609 provides, in part: 
The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ from 
those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar issues. In 
some cases, the differences between the regulatory approaches of U.S. 
agencies and those of their foreign counterparts might not be necessary 
and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and 
compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, 
safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international 
regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as 
protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such 
cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, 
eliminate, or prevent

[[Page 77531]]

unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.
    As mentioned in this preamble, the agency has considered regulatory 
approaches taken by foreign governments (namely, the European Union in 
ECE R.66) and decided to base FMVSS No. 227 on ECE R.66. In addition to 
the goal of reducing unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements 
between the U.S. and its trading partners, the agency has found the ECE 
R.66 test to be the most suitable test available for ensuring a minimum 
reasonable level of protection for passengers traveling in buses that 
are associated with the highest crash risk. While NHTSA has determined 
that it is not able to adopt the entirety of ECE R.66 and has adjusted 
the weight of objects allowed to enter the survival space, which is not 
in ECE R.66, the agency has explained its rationale for its decisions 
in the relevant sections of the December 29, 2021, final Rule (86 FR 
74270).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates 
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency 
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a 
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Per 13 CFR 121.201, the Small Business 
Administration's size standards regulations used to define small 
business concerns, manufacturers of the vehicles covered by this rule 
fall under North American Industry Classification System No. 336111, 
Automobile Manufacturing, which has a size standard of 1,000 employees 
or fewer. NHTSA estimates that there are 26 manufacturers of these 
types of vehicles in the United States (including manufacturers of 
motorcoaches, cutaway buses, second-stage motorcoaches, and other types 
of large buses covered by this rule). Using the size standard of 1,000 
employees or fewer, we estimate that approximately 10 of these 26 
manufacturers are considered small businesses.
    I certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on small entities. The amendments made to the original final 
rule do not directly result in any increased costs to the 
manufacturers. The amended transit bus definition results in fewer 
buses needing to comply with the final rule, but NHTSA believes the 
number of affected buses would be small. Increasing the mass limit of 
objects permitted to enter the survival space from 15 grams to 60 grams 
permits more fragments to enter the survival space, but the 60-gram 
limit still ensures that injurious items are not permitted in the 
survival space.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to E.O. 13132 (64 FR 
43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation 
with States, local governments, or their representatives is mandated 
beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the rule 
does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant either 
consultation with State and local officials or preparation of a 
federalism summary impact statement. The rule does not have 
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and the responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express 
preemption provision that when a motor vehicle safety standard is in 
effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a 
State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the 
same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle 
equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed 
under the chapter. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command 
by Congress that preempts any non-identical State legislative and 
administrative law addressing the same aspect of performance.
    The express preemption provision described above is subject to a 
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety 
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from 
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this 
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle 
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express 
preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme 
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied 
preemption of State common law tort causes of action by virtue of 
NHTSA's rules--even if not expressly preempted.
    This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon the 
existence of an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher 
standard that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle 
manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment 
against the manufacturer--notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance 
with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards established by an 
FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action 
that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers 
will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict 
does exist--for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum 
and a maximum standard--the State common law tort cause of action is 
impliedly preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 
861 (2000).
    Pursuant to E.O. 13132, NHTSA has considered whether this rule 
could or should preempt State common law causes of action. The agency's 
ability to announce its conclusion regarding the preemptive effect of 
one of its rules reduces the likelihood that preemption will be an 
issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
    To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language 
and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of this final rule 
and does not foresee any potential State requirements that might 
conflict with it. NHTSA does not intend that this final rule preempt 
state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor 
vehicle manufacturers than that established by this rule. Establishment 
of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not conflict with 
the standard issued by this final rule. Without any conflict, there 
could not be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of 
action.

[[Page 77532]]

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    The UMRA of 1995 requires Federal agencies to prepare a written 
assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or 
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the 
expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 
by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted 
annually for inflation, with base year of 1995). This final rule will 
not result in expenditures by State, local or Tribal Governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of $100 million 
annually.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    NHTSA has analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the NEPA. 
The agency has determined that implementation of this action will not 
have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, 
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR 4729, 
February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every 
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies 
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting 
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the 
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of 
preemption is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no 
requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or 
pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in 
court.

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    Under the PRA of 1995, a person is not required to respond to a 
collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection 
displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. 
This rulemaking action would not establish any new information 
collection requirements.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Under the NTTAA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113), all Federal agencies and 
departments shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted 
by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards 
as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by 
the agencies and departments.
    Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., 
materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies, such as the International Organization for 
Standardization and the Society of Automotive Engineers. The NTTAA 
directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when we 
decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    There are no voluntary consensus standards applicable to this final 
rule that have not been previously discussed in the December 29, 2021 
final rule.

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in 
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language 
includes consideration of the following questions:
    <bullet> Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
    <bullet> Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
    <bullet> Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that 
isn't clear?
    <bullet> Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, 
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
    <bullet> Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
    <bullet> Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or 
diagrams?
    <bullet> What else could we do to make the rule easier to 
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please write to us 
with your views.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Rubber and rubber products.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as 
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.


0
2. Section 571.227 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the definition of ``Transit bus'' in S4;
0
b. Revising S5.1(a); and
0
c. Revising the introductory text of S6.1.4.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  571.227  Standard No. 227; Bus rollover structural integrity.

* * * * *
    S4. * * *
    Transit bus means a bus that is equipped with a stop-request system 
sold for public transportation provided by, or on behalf of, a Federal, 
State, or local government and that is not an over-the-road bus.
* * * * *
    S5.1 * * *
    (a) Items separated from the vehicle and with a mass less than 60.0 
grams that enter the survival space will not be considered for this 
evaluation of survival space intrusion.
* * * * *
    S6.1.4 The tilting platform is equipped with rigid wheel supports 
on the top surface as illustrated in Figure 3 of this section (figure 
provided for illustration purposes only). At each vehicle axle, the 
wheel closest to the platform's axis of rotation is supported. The 
rigid wheel supports are positioned to make contact with the outboard 
tire sidewall of the supported wheels with the vehicle positioned as 
specified in S7(a) to prevent sliding of the vehicle during the test. 
Each rigid wheel support has the following dimensions:
* * * * *

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30122 and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

Ann Carlson,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-24381 Filed 11-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P