Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 217 / Monday, November 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 77523 

Estimated Time per Response: 3.5 

hours for FCC Form 470 (3 hours for 

response; 0.5 hours for recordkeeping; 

4.5 hours for FCC Form 471 (4 hours for 

response; 0.5 hours for recordkeeping). 

Frequency of Response: On occasion 

and annual reporting requirements, and 

recordkeeping requirement. 

Obligation to Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. Statutory 

authority for this information collection 

is contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201– 

205, 214, 254, and 403 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–154, 201–205, 

218–220, 254, 303(r), 403 and 405. 

Total Annual Burden: 273,950 hours. 

Total Annual Cost: No Cost. 

Needs and Uses: The Commission 

received approval from OMB for this 

information collection. On July 21, 

2023, the Commission released the 

Schools and Libraries Universal Service 

Support Mechanism, Federal-State Joint 

Board on Universal Service, and 

Changes to the Board of Directors of the 

National Exchange Carrier Association, 

Inc. Report and Order in CC Docket Nos. 

02–6, 96–45, and 97–21; FCC 23–56 

(Order) amending E-Rate rules. This 

information collection addresses 

program certifications in the Schools 

and Libraries Universal Service 

Description of Services Requested and 

Certification Forms 470 (E-Rate FCC 

Form 470) and 471 (E-Rate FCC Form 

471), and makes other non-substantive 

changes to certain fields to the E-Rate 

FCC Form 471. Collection of the 

information on FCC Forms 470 and 471 

is necessary so that the Commission and 

USAC have sufficient information to 

determine if entities are eligible for 

funding pursuant to the schools and 

libraries support mechanism, to 

determine if entities are complying with 

the Commission’s rules, and to prevent 

waste, fraud, and abuse. In addition, the 

information is necessary for the 

Commission to evaluate the extent to 

which the E-Rate program is meeting the 

statutory objectives specified in section 

254(h) of the 1996 Act, and the 

Commission’s performance goals 

established in the E-Rate Modernization 

Order and Second E-Rate Modernization 

Order. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2023–24876 Filed 11–9–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

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-recordsnotices. 

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
77524 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 217 / Monday, November 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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.’’ 

2MAP–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. 

3SBSA 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. 

4Section 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 § 32703(b)(1) and (2). 

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. 

This final rule applies to highoccupancy 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). 

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). 

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. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 217 / Monday, November 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 77525 

5The 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. 

6NFA 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. 7 78 FR 70437. 

8New Flyer Response to NHTSA Questions.pdf, 

NHTSA has placed a copy of the document in the 

docket for this final rule. 

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 nonOTRBs 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. 

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

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 highoccupancy 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

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-theroad 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 fixedroute 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
77526 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 217 / Monday, November 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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/planyour

visit/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/islandexplorer.htm, Last accessed January 12, 2023. 

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) 

16Based 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. 

operated on low speed, fixed route, 

frequent stop service by trained drivers 

familiar with the routes. 

On the other hand, privately owned or 

operated bus services may use transittype 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 transittype 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 lowrisk 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.9 10 11 12 13

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. 

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 timedefinite 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. 

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 ‘‘nonexempt transit buses’’ to meet the 

structural integrity requirements.16

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 costprohibitive 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 217 / Monday, November 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 77527 

17A 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). 

18Medium-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. 

19 86 FR 74282–74284. 

20https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitleB/chapter-V/part-571/subpart-B/section-571.220, 

Last accessed January 17, 2023. 

21 86 FR 74286–74287. 

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 nontransit 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. 

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 highoccupancy 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. 

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. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR FATAL ROLLOVER CRASHES AND OCCUPANT FATALITIES FOR LARGE BUSES

(INCLUDING OTRBS) AND MEDIUM-SIZE BUSES

[FARS 2006–2019] 

Bus size Average annual 

rollover crashes 

Average annual 

rollover fatalities 

Average annual 

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

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
77528 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 217 / Monday, November 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

22FARS 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 | Volvo Buses, AB Volvo, https://

www.volvobuses.com/en/coaches/coaches/volvo9700-dd/specifications.html, last accessed May 13, 

2022. 

24 ‘‘Meet the UK’s Favourite Bus.’’ StreetDeck 

Ultroliner EU6 | 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. 26 86 FR 74272. 

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. 

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. 

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 217 / Monday, November 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 77529 

27ANSI/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 mm2 (3 in2) 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/mm3

(1.445 ounce (oz)/in3). Thus, a piece of laminated 

glazing of 1935 mm2 (3 in2) 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. 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. 

29A 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. 

30The lightest such bracket readily available has 

a product weight of 0.12 lb (55 grams). https://

www.austinhardware.com/fitting-fixed-base-noinsert.html. Last accessed March 9, 2023. 

31 86 FR 74271, col. 3. 

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. 

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

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. 

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. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
77530 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 217 / Monday, November 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

32The 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. 

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 nonreproducible 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. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 217 / Monday, November 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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 nonidentical 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
77532 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 217 / Monday, November 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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: 

• Have we organized the material to 

suit the public’s needs? 

• Are the requirements in the rule 

clearly stated? 

• Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that isn’t clear? 

• Would a different format (grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing) make the rule easier to 

understand? 

• Would more (but shorter) sections 

be better? 

• Could we improve clarity by adding 

tables, lists, or diagrams? 

• 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 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Section 571.227 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the definition of ‘‘Transit 

bus’’ in S4; 

■ b. Revising S5.1(a); and 

■ c. Revising the introductory text of 

S6.1.4. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 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 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 230316–0077; RTID 0648– 

XD519] 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; 2023 

Management Area 1A Possession Limit 

Adjustment 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES