[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 44 (Monday, March 6, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11751-11754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-5354]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2000-6994]
RIN 2127-AH84


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; School Bus Body Joint 
Strength

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

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment; response to petition to delay 
effective date.

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

SUMMARY: On November 5, 1998, NHTSA published a final rule that amended 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint 
Strength (49 CFR 571.221), and announced an effective date of May 5, 
2000 for those amendments. This document delays the effective date of 
that final rule until May 5, 2001. This document also makes a technical 
amendment by correcting a technical error in that final rule.

DATES: This rule is effective April 5, 2000. Any petitions for 
reconsideration of this final rule must be received by NHTSA no later 
than April 20, 2000. The effective day of May 5, 2000 for the final 
rule published at 63 FR 59732, Nov. 5, 1998 amending Sec. 571.221 is 
delayed until May 5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket 
number for this action and be submitted to: Administrator, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, 
DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues you may call: Mr. 
Charles Hott, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at (202) 366-0247. 
Mr. Hott's FAX number is: (202) 493-2739.
    For legal issues, you may call Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the 
Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-2992. Her FAX number is: (202) 366-3820.
    You may send mail to both of these officials at the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, (49 CFR 571.221) 
(Standard No. 221), is to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from the 
structural collapse of school bus bodies during crashes. Standard No. 
221 establishes requirements for the strength of the ``body panel 
joints'' in school bus bodies.

Final Rule of November 5, 1998

    In a final rule published on November 5, 1998 (63 FR 59732), NHTSA 
enhanced the applicability of Standard No. 221 and made a number of 
other changes. At present, Standard No. 221 applies only to school 
buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) more than 4536 kg 
(10,000 pounds). The standard also specifies strength requirements for 
each ``body panel joint,'' currently defined as the area of contact or 
close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body 
component, excluding spaces designed for ventilation or another 
functional purpose, and excluding doors, windows, and maintenance 
access panels (MAPs).
    The November 5, 1998 final rule extended the applicability of 
Standard No. 221 to school buses with a GVWR of 4536 kg (10,000 pounds) 
or less \1\ and narrowed the exclusion of MAPs from the joint strength 
requirements. Except as noted below, the final rule also required 
panels to be attached at least at every 203 millimeters (8 inches) and 
required body panel joints to withstand a tensile strength of 60 
percent of the tensile strength of the weakest joined body panel. The 
final rule excluded two groups of MAPs from these requirements: MAPs 
outside of the passenger area; and MAPs smaller than a specified size 
inside the passenger area. The final rule also excluded certain joints 
from the standard's tensile strength requirements, i.e., joints from 
which a test sample cannot be obtained because of the joint's size or 
the curvature of the panels comprising the joint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Referred to below as small school buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule also simplified the definition of ``maintenance 
access panel'' and adopted a definition of ``passenger compartment'' 
based on the definition in Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and 
Window Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217). In determining minimum 
allowable joint strength, the final rule (reversing a 1978 
interpretation letter) included a new S6.2(c) specifying that the 
cross-sectional area of material removed to facilitate the installation 
of fasteners shall be considered in determining the tensile strength of 
the weakest joined body panel.
    NHTSA specified that the final rule would take effect 18 months 
after Federal Register publication. The agency had proposed the 18 
month lead time in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). No 
commenter addressed the lead time issue. In the final rule, NHTSA 
explained why 18 months was believed to provide sufficient lead time 
for manufacturers to accomplish any necessary redesign, retooling, 
testing, and marketing strategy to meet the requirements established in 
the final rule. NHTSA noted many manufacturers of small school buses 
already offer their customers the option of buying those buses with 
body panel joints that meet Standard No. 221. NHTSA stated its belief 
that at least some of the tooling needed to meet the changes mandated 
by the final rule were already in place but that some additional 
tooling may be required for all small school buses to be produced in 
compliance with Standard No. 221. The agency also stated that 
maintenance access panels in both large and small school buses might 
need to be redesigned and tested (that could be accomplished in 18 
months) in order to meet the new requirements.

Petitions for Reconsideration

    NHTSA received petitions for reconsideration of the final rule from 
AmTran Corporation, Blue Bird Body Company, and Thomas Built Buses. The 
petitioners asked for reconsideration of decisions regarding issues 
such as whether the standard would apply to joints from which a test 
sample cannot be made; the number of fasteners for curved and complex 
joints; whether the term ``automotive'' type joints should be defined; 
whether the term ``bus body'' should exclude structures forward of the

[[Page 11752]]

passenger compartment; and the degrees of tolerance that should be 
permitted in a test machine's grip.
    The manufacturers stated the greatest cost effect would result from 
the final rule's rescinding a November 28, 1978 interpretation letter 
that addressed the issue of how to compute the area of a sample of a 
body panel when testing for Standard No. 221 compliance. In the letter, 
NHTSA stated that in its compliance testing, it would determine the net 
cross-sectional area of a body panel sample by multiplying the width of 
the sample by its thickness and then subtracting the area of each 
``discreet fastener hole.'' Rescinding the letter means that when 
testing for compliance with Standard No. 221, NHTSA would no longer 
subtract the area of each discreet fastener hole when determining the 
net cross-sectional area of the sample. The practical effect of that 
change is that school bus manufacturers would have to use more 
fasteners in order to meet the standard. The final rule included a new 
provision, S6.2(c), making it clear that the cross-sectional area of 
material removed to facilitate the installation of fasteners shall be 
considered in determining the tensile strength of the weakest joined 
body panel.
    All three petitioners asked that S6.2(c) be removed, and the 
November 28, 1978 interpretation letter be reinstated. Blue Bird stated 
that the interpretation letter has been the basis for determining 
minimum allowable tensile strength for FMVSS certification and NHTSA 
compliance purposes since it was issued. Blue Bird informed the agency 
that approximately half of the joint designs used in manufacturing Blue 
Bird school buses use discrete fasteners, the majority of which will 
require redesign and retesting. Other school bus manufacturers may use 
non-discrete fasteners such as welds and adhesives, which may also have 
to be redesigned and retested. If the November 28, 1978 interpretation 
letter is not reinstated and if S6.2(c) takes effect, Blue Bird 
estimated that there will be an increase of 12 to 25 percent in the 
number of required fasteners. Blue Bird indicated that the new method 
of calculating joint strength would result in hard tooling (i.e., dies, 
which are tools for manufacturing materials) with long lead times, and 
increased material and labor costs. Blue Bird did not provide dollar 
estimates of the increased costs.
    Thomas Built stated that most of its cost increases would be 
incurred when providing the extra fasteners needed when the change in 
the joint strength calculation procedure (in S6.2(c)) becomes 
effective. Thomas estimated that the increase in costs for a school bus 
to meet the final rule's maintenance access panel changes only, 
(including labor, fasteners, tooling and fixtures), would be $157. The 
cost per school bus of meeting maintenance access panel changes and 
S6.2(c) would be $352. Thomas also estimated that the total cost to 
modify its plant (which would be necessary to meet the new final rule) 
would be $313,000 if the maintenance access panel changes only take 
effect and $1,388,000 if the maintenance access panel changes and 
S6.2(c) take effect.

Petition for Extension of Effective Date

    In a letter dated September 28, 1999, Blue Bird asked that NHTSA 
extend the effective date of its November 5, 1998, final rule to ``a 
minimum of 18 months following publication of an amended final rule, or 
to May 5, 2002, whichever is later.'' Blue Bird cited the expense 
involved in pursuing redesign, testing, tooling and manufacturing 
changes that would result when the final rule takes effect. Blue Bird 
noted that these retooling and other changes would not be necessary if 
the changes requested by the petitioners are made to the November 5, 
1998 final rule. Blue Bird asked that if granted, the petition for 
extension of the effective date be issued as soon as possible. Blue 
Bird said that it and other school bus manufacturers already have had 
to make preparations with tooling and die manufacturers to produce 
machining that would enable the production (in May 2000) of school 
buses that meet the November 5, 1998 final rule.

Agency Decision To Grant Petition for Extension

    We are carefully reviewing the petitions for reconsideration of the 
November 1998 final rule. One possible outcome of that review would be 
a decision to grant the petitioners' request to remove S6.2(c) and 
reinstate the November 28, 1978, interpretation letter permitting 
subtraction of holes in calculating joint strength. If we were to 
remove S6.2(c) and reinstate the letter, the expensive die and tooling 
changes cited by school bus manufacturers in their petitions for 
reconsideration would be unnecessary. Therefore, while we are deciding 
whether to grant the petitions for reconsideration, we are preserving 
the status quo by extending the effective date for the November 1998 
final rule until May 5, 2001. We expect to issue a new document 
addressing the issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration well 
before May 5, 2001. If additional time is needed, we will issue an 
additional extension.

Technical Amendment

    This document also corrects an error in S5.2.1(a) of the November 
5, 1998 final rule. The preamble of the final rule stated that the rule 
excluded certain maintenance access panels (MAPs) from the joint 
tensile strength requirements. Excluded were MAPs with openings of less 
than 305 mm. Specifically, we stated in the preamble:

    To be excluded, the MAP must either: (1) * * * ; or (2) be 
located within the passenger seating area but have an opening that 
does not exceed 305 mm (12 inches) when measured across any two 
points diametrically on opposite sides of the opening.

(See 63 FR 59732 at 59735)

    The language quoted above makes explicit NHTSA's intent to exclude 
MAPs with openings of less than 305 mm from joint tensile strength 
requirements. However, as drafted, S5.2.1(a) of the final rule states 
that MAPs which exceed 305 mm are excluded. So that the regulatory 
language meets NHTSA's intent, we amend S5.2.1(a) to exclude from the 
joint tensile strength requirements any MAP with an opening that does 
not exceed 305 mm (12 inches) when measured across any two points 
diametrically on opposite sides of the opening.

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 
51735; October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' 
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local or Tribal governments or communities:
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.

[[Page 11753]]

    We have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed 
under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' Further, we have 
determined that this action is not ``significant'' within the meaning 
of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and 
procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).
    In its Final Regulatory Evaluation for the November 5, 1998 final 
rule, NHTSA estimated that the total cost for implementing the final 
rule would be approximately $8,500,000 per year. This rule delays the 
effective date of that final rule for one year, i.e., to May 5, 2001. 
Thus, it delays the incurring of those costs. During that one-year 
period, manufacturers will continue to meet the same requirements (and 
incur the same costs) resulting from the existing rule.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 
1996) provides that 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). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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.
    In the November 5, 1998 final rule, the agency certified that that 
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Accordingly, I certify that this final rule, 
which delays the implementation of that earlier final rule, will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    As noted in the November 5, 1998 final rule, the SBA defines a 
motor vehicle retailer with less than $11,500,000 in annual receipts as 
a small business. There are approximately 465 school bus dealers and 
distributors in the United States. The average sales of school buses 
from 1995 to 1999 was about 40,000 per year, representing an average of 
less than 100 buses per dealer. In order to reach the threshold of 
$11,500,000 in annual sales receipts, the average dealer would have to 
sell a much larger number (270) of large school buses annually, 
assuming a cost of $45,280 per unit. Thus, most school bus dealers are 
probably small businesses. Because of the negligible cost impact on 
manufacturers, the agency also anticipates little measurable impact on 
retailers' revenue levels, profitability, or employment.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.), we note that there are no collection of information requirements 
associated with this final rule.

D. National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act. We have determined that implementation of 
this action will not have any significant impact on the quality of the 
human environment.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 requires us to develop an accountable process 
to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in 
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism 
implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' are 
defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have 
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, we may not issue a regulation with Federalism 
implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and 
that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides 
the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by 
State and local governments, or unless we consult with State and local 
officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. 
We also may not issue a regulation with Federalism implications and 
that preempts State law unless we consult with State and local 
officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
    This final 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 responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. 
The reason is that this final rule applies to manufacturers of school 
buses and to school buses, and not to the States or local governments. 
Thus, the requirements of Section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply 
to this rule.

F. Civil Justice Reform

    This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 
U.S.C. 30103(b), whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in 
effect, a state or political subdivision may prescribe or continue in 
effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a 
motor vehicle only if the standard is identical to the Federal 
standard. However, the United States Government, a state or political 
subdivision of a state may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or 
motor vehicle equipment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher 
performance requirement than that required by the Federal standard. 49 
U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial review of final rules 
establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards. A petition for reconsideration or other administrative 
proceedings is not required before parties may file suit in court.

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
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 in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base 
year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written 
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to 
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives 
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of 
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable 
law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
if we publish with the final rule an explanation why that alternative 
was not adopted.

[[Page 11754]]

    This final rule will not result in costs of $100 million or more to 
either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the 
private sector. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the 
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

H. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or 
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental, health or safety 
effects of the rule on children, and explain why the regulation is 
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives considered by us.
    This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not 
economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866. It does not involve 
decisions based on health risks that disproportionately affect 
children.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 571.221 is amended 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; 
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


    2. Section 571.221 is amended by revising S5.2.1(a) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 571.221  Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.

* * * * *
    S5.2.1  The requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2 do not apply to--
    (a) Any interior maintenance access panel which lies forward of the 
passenger compartment, or which is less than 305 mm when measured 
across any two points diametrically on opposite sides of the opening.
* * * * *

    Issued on: February 29, 2000.
Rosalyn Millman,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-5354 Filed 3-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P