[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 12 (Friday, January 19, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2487-2488]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-654]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22061]
RIN 2127-AJ56


Identification Requirements for Buses Manufactured in Two or More 
Stages

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Termination of Rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: On August 18, 2005, NHTSA published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to amend our certification regulation to 
require that, in addition to the vehicle identification number (VIN), a 
suffix that identified attributes about the bus body be recorded on the 
certification label of each bus manufactured in two or more stages. The 
NPRM also proposed a new regulation to require manufacturers of buses 
manufactured in two or more stages to obtain a manufacturer's 
identifier and to submit information to NHTSA about the bus bodies 
manufactured.
    NHTSA has identified an alternative approach to obtain accurate bus 
accident data for analysis and safety improvement that it believes is 
more efficient and less burdensome. Therefore, we are terminating this 
rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Charles Hott, 
Office of Crashworthiness Standards, NVS-113, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. 
Telephone (202) 366-0247. Fax: (202) 366-4329. For legal issues: Edward 
Glancy, Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. 
Telephone: (202) 366-2992. Fax: (202) 366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On November 2, 1999, the National Transportation Safety Board 
(NTSB) issued safety recommendations to the Department of 
Transportation (DOT) to develop standard definitions and 
classifications for each of the different bus body types and to include 
these definitions and classifications in the Federal motor vehicle 
safety standards (FMVSSs). Specifically, NTSB recommended:

    In 1 year and in cooperation with the bus manufacturers, 
complete the development of standard definitions and classifications 
for each of the different bus body types, and include these 
definitions and classifications in the FMVSS. (NTSB Recommendation 
No. H-99-43)
    Once the standard definitions and classifications for each of 
the different bus types have been established in the Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards, in cooperation with the National 
Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives, amend the 
Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria's (MMUCC) bus configuration 
coding to incorporate the FMVSS definitions and standards. (NTSB 
Recommendation No. H-99-44).

    The recommendations were a result of an NTSB September 1999 bus 
safety study titled ``Bus Crashworthiness Issues.'' During that study, 
NTSB experienced difficulty in determining detailed descriptive 
characteristics of buses manufactured in two or more stages from the 
Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) database. Although bus body 
manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles meet the 
FMVSSs, they are not required to encode in the certification label 
affixed to the completed vehicle any descriptive information about the 
body they install.
    In June and August of 2000, meetings were held between the Office 
of the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, NHTSA, Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Federal Transit Administration, 
NTSB, bus manufacturers, and industry association representatives. At 
the meetings, the parties discussed whether bus configuration or bus 
use would be appropriate determining factors in devising a coding 
scheme for the final stage manufacturers' certification labels and 
police accident report forms. It was determined that in-service bus 
uses vary considerably and often change, and therefore, it would be 
impractical to develop bus definitions based on use. Instead, DOT 
determined that basic descriptive information such as length and 
seating configuration could be provided to better identify the type of 
bus body installed on the chassis. It was also determined that, in 
addition to the VIN, descriptive information could be encoded on the 
final stage manufacturer's certification label.
    When buses are involved in crashes, the VIN is recorded in FARS. 
The name of the manufacturer is required to be on the certification 
label, but this information is not typically recorded on the Police 
Accident Report (PAR). For vehicles manufactured in one stage, the type 
of vehicle and bus body information is already encoded into the VIN. 
However, for buses manufactured in more than one stage, the VIN only 
identifies the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. The final stage 
manufacturer's name and the bus model are not encoded in the VIN and 
are not recorded in the PAR.
    FARS records fatalities in the following bus type categories: 
intercity, transit, school, other, and unknown. Little is known about 
the types of buses involved in the fatalities that appear in ``other'' 
and ``unknown'' bus type categories. These buses are typically 
specialty type buses that are manufactured in two or more stages. They 
include, for example, buses that are used for shuttle services to and 
from airports, for transporting the medically fragile or mobility 
impaired, for transporting people to and from church events, and for 
shuttling people from one business location to another. These buses 
usually incorporate a cutaway chassis provided by an incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer. The bus body is usually manufactured and installed by a 
final stage manufacturer. The FARS data for the years 2000 through 2004 
revealed that there are about twelve fatalities per year that fall 
within the ``other'' or ``unknown'' bus type categories.
    The current system requires that the VIN be recorded on the PAR 
filed by the State. However, inaccurate transcription of the VIN on the 
PAR and subsequently into the FARS database has been a recurring 
problem. Although the final stage manufacturer's name must be recorded 
on the certification label, the current system does not require that 
the police record this information on the PAR.
    On August 18, 2005, NHTSA published an NPRM to address this issue 
in the Federal Register (70 FR 48507; Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22061). The 
NPRM proposed to amend Part 567--Certification, to require that a new 
ten-digit suffix be appended to the VIN on the certification label for 
buses manufactured in two or more stages. The new suffix would identify 
the bus body manufacturer and certain attributes about the type of bus, 
e.g., model number, seat configuration, and bus body length. The NPRM 
also proposed to add a new Part 584--Buses Manufactured in Two or More 
Stages, to require that bus body manufacturers of buses manufactured in 
two or more stages obtain a manufacturer's identifier and provide the 
descriptive information necessary to decode the suffix. The NPRM 
proposed that this information be available so that it could be 
collected

[[Page 2488]]

and used by researchers and others to better define safety improvements 
to reduce the number of fatalities and serious injuries in bus crashes.
    The NPRM also requested comments on the burden to State and local 
Governments, costs, reduction of transcription errors, and alternative 
approaches.

Summary of Comments

    The agency received eight comments in response to the NPRM. None of 
the commenters, except NTSB, supported the proposal. Comments were 
received from three manufacturers (International Truck and Engine 
Corporation, Blue Bird Body Company, and Freightliner), and one 
industry association (National Truck and Equipment Association). Those 
commenters generally opposed recording the proposed VIN suffix on the 
certification label and the submittal of information under the proposed 
Part 584. They alternatively suggested that the name of the bus 
manufacturer be recorded on the PAR so it could be captured in FARS. 
Researchers and others seeking more descriptive information about the 
bus body could then contact the bus body manufacturer for the 
information about the bus body. These commenters generally disagreed 
with the cost estimate that was provided in the NPRM and suggested that 
the real cost would be much higher; however, no estimates of actual 
costs were provided.
    The agency also received comments from two individuals, Mr. Jim 
Lawrence and Mr. Duane E. Bartels. Mr. Lawrence suggested that the 
proposed Part 584 information be specified in Part 565, ``Vehicle 
Identification Number Requirements.'' Mr. Lawrence also suggested that 
the agency require that manufacturers submit information on a quarterly 
basis and maintain a database of the manufactured-supplied information. 
He felt this would reduce transcription errors when recording the 
information at the crash scene and the burden on State and local 
Governments in collecting this information. However, Mr. Lawrence did 
not provide any information on how NHTSA could obtain the crash 
information without having it recorded on the PAR at the crash scene. 
Mr. Bartels suggested that buses be required to have the number of 
seating positions recorded on the certification label for the purposes 
of inspection so that inspectors could determine whether a commercial 
driver's license and drug and alcohol testing requirements needed to be 
met to operate the bus. The agency notes that Mr. Bartels' request is 
outside the scope of this rulemaking action.
    A comment was received from the European Commission, Enterprise and 
Industry Directorat-General which represents the European Union (EU). 
The European Commission stated, ``this new administrative procedure 
could represent an unnecessary trade obstacle for EU manufacturers.''
    NTSB stated that although the proposed regulation does not 
establish bus definitions for the FMVSSs, it does establish 
identification of bus bodies, and thus classification for the FARS 
database. NTSB also stated that while not defining bus bodies in the 
FMVSSs, the proposal would better identify the type of bus in the FARS 
system, and therefore would satisfy the intent of the NTSB safety 
recommendations to accurately collect vehicle accident data for 
analysis and safety improvement.
    The agency did not receive any comments from States or local 
jurisdictions on whether they would change the PAR so that the proposed 
VIN suffix could be captured at the crash scene and subsequently 
entered in the FARS database. No information was received from the 
States or local jurisdictions on the burden that this rulemaking action 
would place on them.

Agency Rationale for Terminating Rulemaking

    NHTSA has decided to terminate the proposed rulemaking because we 
have identified an alternative approach to obtain more accurate bus 
accident data for analysis and safety improvement that it believes is 
more efficient and less burdensome.
    FARS data and the majority of NHTSA's other data are derived from 
the PAR. There is no indication that states and local jurisdictions 
would change the PAR to capture the additional VIN information at the 
scene of the crash. The agency believes that continuing this rulemaking 
would not provide improvement to the existing information that is 
already recorded in the FARS database. It would also place an 
unnecessary burden on the bus manufacturers and likely cause greater 
transcription errors in the information collected at the scene of bus 
crashes. The agency believes that the best way to encourage states to 
consistently capture information on the PAR is through simplification 
of data collection at the crash scene, and that changing the MMUCC will 
accomplish the NTSB intent to improve information collected about bus 
crashes.
    The NTSB study leading to its recommendations was based on data in 
the FARS database for buses prior to the existence of MMUCC.\1\ NHTSA 
has made significant efforts to simplify the data collection techniques 
at the crash scene and enable the States to collect more accurate data. 
A 2005 agency review of compliance with the 1998 publication of MMUCC 
showed that 50 percent of the States had adopted the MMUCC. NHTSA 
expects even greater adoption in the future because of provisions in 
the SAFETEA-LU \2\ legislation providing grants for States that 
establish traffic safety information systems to improve the timeliness, 
accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration, and accessibility of 
the safety data collected. This will provide a greater incentive for 
states to adopt the MMUCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For more information regarding MMUCC, go to http://www.mmucc.us.
    \2\ Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 
Act: A Legacy for Users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The next edition of MMUCC is scheduled to be updated in 2007. NHTSA 
believes that changing the MMUCC to ensure more efficient and accurate 
coding of bus accident data at the crash scene will lead to better 
inclusion of the bus related information on the PAR and consequent 
improvement of the bus information in FARS and other NHTSA databases. 
Since this will be more efficient and less burdensome while still 
achieving the NTSB intent, we have decided to terminate this 
rulemaking.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 
1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8.

    Issued on: January 12, 2007.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
 [FR Doc. E7-654 Filed 1-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P