[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 240 (Thursday, December 13, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64358-64367]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-30496]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-98-4662]
RIN 2127-AC19


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; School Bus Body Joint 
Strength

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

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: On November 5, 1998, NHTSA published a final rule that amended 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint 
Strength, with an effective date of May 5, 2000 for those amendments. 
The amendments extended the applicability of that standard to small 
school buses, narrowed the exclusion of maintenance access panels from 
the joint strength requirements, and made other changes to the 
standard. We delayed the effective date on two occasions, so that we 
would have time to analyze petitions for reconsideration. First, in a 
final rule published on March 6, 2000, we delayed the effective date to 
May 5, 2001, and corrected a typographical error. Second, in a final 
rule published on April 20, 2001, we delayed the effective date to June 
1, 2002. We have now completed our analysis of the petitions, and are 
taking the following actions: making it clearer that the standard 
applies to small, curved and complex joints; excluding joints that are 
forward of the passenger component; and making various other changes to 
the standard. For purposes of clarity, we are withdrawing the earlier 
amendments, and are republishing them today as modified by the changes 
we decided to make in response to the petitions for reconsideration. 
The amendments will become effective on January 1, 2003.

DATES: The final rule published on November 5, 1998 (63 FR 59732) and 
amended and delayed March 6, 2000 (65 FR 11751), and delayed again on 
April 20, 2001 until June 1, 2002 (66 FR 20199) is withdrawn as of 
January 14, 2002. The amendments in this final rule are effective 
January 1, 2003. Any petitions for reconsideration of this final rule 
must be received by NHTSA not later than January 28, 2002.

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 Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590. Copies of the Final Regulatory Evaluation for 
this rule can be obtained from: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20590, telephone: (202) 366-9324. 
Docket hours are 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. The Docket 
is closed on Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Mr. 
Charles R. Hott, Office of Crashworthiness Standards at (202) 366-0247. 
His 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 National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background
II. Final Rule of November 1998
    A. Applicability to Small School Buses
    B. Maintenance Access Panels
    1. Definition
    2. Criteria to be Excluded
    3. MAP Floor Panels
    C. Engine Access Panels, Ventilation Panels, and Perforated 
Panels
    1. Engine Panels
    2. Ventilation Panels
    3. Perforated Panels
    D. Test Procedures
    1. Small and Curved Joints
    2. Complex Joints
    3. ``Hour-Glass'' Shape of Specimens
    4. Discontinuing Deduction of Total Area of Material Removed for 
Installation of Fasteners
    E. Relative v. Minimum Body Joint Strength Requirements
III. Petitions for Reconsideration and Changes to Final Rule
    A. Exclusion of Small, Curved, and Complex Joints
    B. School Bus Joints Forward of the Passenger Compartment
    C. Removing Cross-Sectional Area of Material in Tensile Strength 
Calculation
    D. Degrees of Tolerance in the Testing Machine Grip Adjustment
    E. Additional School Bus Issues Raised by Blue Bird Body Company
    F. Effective Date of January 1, 2003
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
    A. EO 12866; DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. National Environmental Policy Act
    E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    F. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
    G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Executive Order 13045 (Economically Significant Rules 
Affecting Children)

[[Page 64359]]

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Plain Language
    K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

I. Background

    NHTSA is authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq., to issue Federal 
motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles, including school 
buses.\1\ In 1974, Congress enacted the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus 
Safety Amendments (Pub. L. 93-492), which directed NHTSA to issue 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards for various aspects of school 
bus safety, including interior protection for occupants, floor 
strength, and crashworthiness of body and frame. One of the actions 
that NHTSA took in response to that Congressional mandate was to issue 
Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 U.S.C. 30125(a)(1) defines a ``schoolbus'' as a passenger 
motor vehicle designed to carry a driver and more than ten 
passengers that the Secretary of Transportation determines ``is 
likely to be used significantly to transport preprimary, primary, 
and secondary school students to or from school or an event related 
to school.'' NHTSA further defines a school bus as a bus that is 
sold or introduced in interstate commerce for purposes that include 
carrying students to and from school and related events, but does 
not include a bus that is designed and sold for operation as a 
common carrier in urban transportation. 49 CFR 571.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Standard No. 221 requires the strengthening of school bus body 
panel joints to prevent them from separating during a crash, thereby 
exposing cutting edges that could cause serious injuries or allow 
passenger ejection through openings created by such panel separations. 
The Standard currently provides that each school bus body panel joint 
must be capable of holding the body panel to the member to which it is 
joined when subjected to a force of 60 percent of the tensile strength 
of the weakest body panel attached to the joint.
    Excluded from this requirement are doors, windows, spaces designed 
for ventilation or another functional purpose, and maintenance access 
panels (MAPs). MAPs were excluded because they involve areas on the 
vehicle requiring frequent maintenance and thus needing easy 
accessibility. Although MAPs were not defined in the Standard, it was 
NHTSA's intent that manufacturers would limit MAPs to panels providing 
access to areas requiring routine maintenance.

II. Final Rule of November 1998

    On November 5, 1998, NHTSA published in the Federal Register a 
final rule (63 FR 59732) (DMS Docket No. NHTSA-98-4662) that was 
intended to ``enhance the applicability and objectivity of Standard No. 
221's school bus joint strength requirements.'' Before issuing this 
final rule, NHTSA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (52 
FR 23314, June 19, 1987) (No DMS Docket No.) and a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (56 FR 11142, March 15, 1991) (No DMS Docket No.). NHTSA 
received 37 comments in response to the ANPRM and 18 comments in 
response to the NPRM. Each comment was carefully considered before the 
final rule was issued.
    Until the November 1998 final rule takes effect, Standard No. 221 
will apply to only school buses over 4536 kg (10,000 lbs) gross vehicle 
weight rating (GVWR). In the November 1998 final rule, NHTSA extended 
the applicability of Standard No. 221 to small school buses (GVWR of 
4536 kg or less), narrowed the exclusion of MAPs from the joint 
strength requirements, and made other changes to the Standard. The 
following summarizes the November 1998 final rule changes to Standard 
No. 221.

A. Applicability to Small School Buses

    In the November 1998 final rule, NHTSA extended the applicability 
of Standard No. 221 to small school buses (GVWR of 4536 kg or less), 
after concluding that there is a safety need to extend the Standard to 
small school buses. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) was 
concerned that small school buses experience higher crash forces in a 
crash than do large school buses, since size and mass are important 
factors in crash severity. NTSB studies on the crashworthiness of large 
and small school buses found that 6 of 19 small school bus crashes 
resulted in body panel joint separation (32 percent of the cases 
studied). In contrast, joint separations in large school buses occurred 
in MAPs and floor joints, while body panel joints maintained structural 
integrity very well, even in severe crash forces. These results 
indicate that the requirements of Standard 221 are very effective (see 
NTSB Safety Study: Crashworthiness of Small Poststandard School Buses, 
October 11, 1989). Further, these results led NHTSA to conclude that 
the structural integrity of small buses would be enhanced by extending 
the joint strength requirement of Standard 221 to those vehicles. NHTSA 
concluded that small school buses should at least be subject to the 
same joint strength requirements as large school buses. This will 
better help achieve the goal of providing children with equivalent 
levels of protection against injuries from joint separation, regardless 
of the GVWR of the vehicle transporting them.
    Small school buses are becoming an increasingly larger part of the 
school bus fleet. From 1988 to 1993, the percentage of small school 
buses in the total school bus sales for rose from about 13 percent to 
about 19 percent (an increase of almost 50 percent in market share). 
From 1994 to 1998, the percentage of small school bus sales held steady 
at about 16 percent. This rise in sales concerns us because it 
indicates that crashes and resultant injuries involving small school 
buses are likely to increase.

B. Maintenance Access Panels

    In the November 1998 final rule, NHTSA defined ``maintenance access 
panel'' to limit a manufacturer's latitude to designate panels as MAPs 
and thus have them excluded from the strength requirements of the 
standard. NHTSA determined that there was a safety need to restrict 
MAPs. After reviewing NTSB studies and recent NTSB school bus crash 
investigation reports, NHTSA found that 7 out of 80 crashes studied 
involved MAP separations, causing head laceration injuries in two of 
the cases. In 4 of the 20 crashes involving small school buses, body 
joint separations occurred, resulting in one occupant with multiple leg 
fractures. Further, NHTSA's own tests had shown that MAP joints were 
not strong and could separate easily. In order to be excluded from the 
requirements of Standard No. 221 as a ``maintenance access panel'' 
under this rule, a panel must meet the definition of a MAP, and must 
also meet certain criteria.
1. Definition
    The final rule defined ``maintenance access panel'' as ``a body 
panel which must be moved or removed to provide access to one or more 
serviceable component(s).'' The rule also defined ``serviceable 
component'' as a part of the bus which is identified by the body or 
chassis manufacturer in the owners' or service manuals as requiring 
routine maintenance at least once each year. The definition specifies 
that ``serviceable component'' includes pneumatic and hydraulic 
devices, wiring harnesses, and tubing only at their attachments.
2. Criteria To Be Excluded
    The final rule set criteria that a MAP must meet to be excluded 
from the requirements of Standard No. 221. To be excluded, the MAP must 
either: (1) Be located forward of the passenger seating area (the MAP 
must not lie between a vertical transverse plane located 762 mm (30 
inches) in front of the forwardmost passenger seating reference point 
and a vertical transverse plane

[[Page 64360]]

tangent to the rear interior wall of the bus at the vehicle's 
centerline); or (2) be located within the passenger seating area and 
have an opening that does not exceed 305 mm (12 inches) when measured 
across any two points diametrically on opposite sides of the opening.
    The 305 mm measurement is independent of the serviceable 
component's perimeter and location. By adopting this restriction, NHTSA 
sought to ensure that each MAP is no larger than needed to provide 
access to the serviceable component(s) covered by the MAP.
3. MAP Floor Panels
    MAPs that expose the bus interior to areas below the bus floor or 
within the engine compartment are excluded from Standard No. 221's 
requirements if the MAP meets the restrictions on either MAP location 
or size described above. In the November 1998 final rule, NHTSA 
determined that there is insufficient fire-related reason to require 
any MAP, regardless of its location outside the bus occupant space or 
insignificant size, to meet the joint strength requirement if it is on 
the floor.

C. Engine Access Panels, Ventilation Panels, and Perforated Panels

1. Engine Panels
    In the November 1998 final rule, NHTSA excluded engine access 
panels from the requirements of the Standard. NHTSA believed that 
engine covers on most front engine buses are located outside the 
passenger compartment area and that maintenance on rear engine buses is 
routinely accomplished from the outside. The agency agreed with 
commenters that direct and often-recurring engine maintenance should be 
quickly and easily accomplished. This requires easy accessibility to 
the engine compartment by the driver who may not have an extensive 
array of tools available.
2. Ventilation Panels
    Ventilation panels are used for heater housings, heater air 
diffusers, heater ducts, heater hose covers, and air conditioning ducts 
and diffusers. One commenter argued that all those components serve 
important functional purposes, that the components enclose no occupant 
air space, and are typically supported by panels that must meet 
Standard No. 221. After being persuaded that the ventilated panel 
exclusion is being utilized and that ventilation panels do serve 
important functional purposes, in the November 1998 final rule, NHTSA 
determined that ventilation panels should continue to be excluded from 
the joint strength requirements of Standard 221. Further, due to their 
size and location, ventilation panels are not so likely as first 
thought to cause occupant injuries in an accident. NHTSA expressed its 
belief that extending the joint strength requirements to these panels 
would result in increased costs for redesign and additional fasteners, 
as well as decreased serviceability for the end user, without a 
commensurate safety benefit.
3. Perforated Panels
    A commenter stated that perforated metal sheets are widely used in 
the interior linings of school buses to reduce interior noise, and that 
the perforations do not extend into the joint area, making the joints 
stronger than the perforated portions of the panels. NHTSA stated that 
it was aware that perforated material is often used in school bus 
ceilings for noise reduction. The agency is unaware of any problems 
with perforated panels, such as instances in which perforations 
contributed to the failure of a joint or in which panels separated due 
to torn perforations. In the November 1998 final rule, NHTSA stated it 
will monitor the use of perforated panels and their performance in 
school buses to determine whether there is a safety need to limit or 
otherwise regulate their use.

D. Test Procedures

    The November 1998 final rule made a number of revisions to Standard 
No. 221's test procedures, including excluding curved, small and 
complex joints from testing; adopting a provision that support members 
must remain attached to the specimen during testing; and deleting the 
term ``approximately perpendicular'' from S6.3.2 and replacing it by a 
provision stating that the joint be in stress at 90 degrees plus or 
minus 3 degrees from the joint centerline.
1. Curved and Small Joints
    The November 1998 final rule excluded from the joint tensile 
strength requirement joints from which a test sample cannot be obtained 
because of the small size of the joint or the curvature of the panels 
comprising the joint.
    In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed a procedure for testing curved joints, 
such as those found in roof or ceiling joints. The procedure would have 
specified that the test specimen be prepared by selecting a joint 
segment where the radius of curvature is at least 508 mm (20 inches). 
One commenter, Thomas Built Buses, suggested a method of testing a 
curved joint, but stated that in order to prevent distortion of the 
test results, the gripping devices must be able to grip the sample in 
the same radius as the sample curvature. To avoid such complex test 
procedures, Thomas strongly recommended that NHTSA approve the use of 
surrogate joints.
    NHTSA recognized that the curved shape of such joints poses 
difficulty in obtaining accurate test results. The application of force 
on a curved surface would cause the surface to flatten, thus 
misrepresenting the actual force loading on the panel. Although NHTSA 
believes that it is possible to design and fabricate test fixtures and 
procedures capable of testing curved joints, such fixtures would 
involve additional certification costs for manufacturers and additional 
cost for NHTSA in the agency's compliance testing. In the November 1998 
final rule, NHTSA stated that since it is not aware of any data 
indicating that injuries have been caused disproportionately by curved 
joint separation, NHTSA believes that the potential costs and technical 
difficulty of testing curved joints more than outweigh any potential 
safety benefits. However, the agency stated that it will continue to 
monitor this issue and initiate rulemaking should curved joint 
separation become a safety problem.
2. Complex Joints
    Two commenters addressed NHTSA's proposals to test small and 
complex joints such as those taken from door, window, and other small 
or inaccessible body panel joints. General Motors Corporation (GM) 
stated that NHTSA's proposals regarding the testing of these joints did 
not fully clarify specimen preparation procedures for such joints found 
in passenger vans or van cutaways. The commenters contended that many 
of the joints in those vehicles cannot be tested under either current 
or proposed testing procedures. GM suggested that NHTSA further study 
such types of joints and either further clarify pertinent test 
procedures or exclude such joints from the requirements of Standard 221 
as being nontestable. Thomas Built Buses asserted that the testing of 
very short pieces of frame that would require fittings would violate 
ASTM test principles. Thomas further argued that tests need not be 
performed in this manner if NHTSA would approve the use of surrogate 
sampling.
    NHTSA agreed that it would be difficult to test complex joints such 
as those found in body panels configured to join two or more panels in 
a single plane in any manner other than linear,

[[Page 64361]]

as well as other small joints under either current or proposed testing 
procedures. Therefore, in the November 1998 final rule, NHTSA decided 
that test specimens from joints with discrete fasteners will be taken 
from 305 mm (12 inch) segments (203 mm (8 inches) at the neck) of flat 
body panels only. Small and complex joints, as well as trim, decorative 
parts, floor coverings, and molding strips will not be tested. The 
agency stated that it has no data indicating that any injuries have 
been caused by failure of those small and complex joints or components. 
NHTSA stated further that it believed the potential cost of trying to 
test them would far outweigh any potential safety benefits.
    While curved, small and complex joints are excluded from the 
tensile test requirement because they cannot be accommodated in the 
test apparatus, they are nevertheless subject to the requirement in 
S5.1.1 that no body panel, when joined to another body panel, shall 
have an unattached segment at the joint longer than 203 mm (8 inches). 
Presumably, rivets or other fasteners will be used. In the November 
1998 final rule, NHTSA indicated its belief that this requirement will 
increase the likelihood that the joints will maintain their integrity 
in a crash.
3. ``Hourglass'' Shape of Specimens
    NHTSA had proposed that the existing ``hourglass'' shape of test 
specimens be eliminated in favor of straight sides because it believed 
that, with a simple rectangular shape, more joints could potentially be 
tested. A commenter stated that use of a straight-sided test specimen 
was contrary to the shape principles set forth in the ASTM sample 
testing procedures. Those principles were designed to ``even-out'' the 
force distortions induced by the testing device. Another commenter 
stated that the proposal to eliminate the hour glass shape was 
unacceptable, arguing that the test specimens need to be wider at the 
grips than at the joint section being tested. It said that this width 
is needed to allow for proper attachment of the specimen to the test 
grips and to ensure that adequate loading can be properly applied to 
the joint portion of the specimen.
    In the November 1998 final rule, NHTSA said that it was persuaded 
by the comments and decided to retain the hourglass shape of test 
specimens. The ASTM Standards call for the shape of the test specimen 
to be narrower at the sample's longitudinal centerline than at the ends 
of the specimen where the grips are attached. That shape concentrates 
the load exerted by the grips in the center of the specimen rather than 
at the edges as in the case of a straight-sided specimen.
4. Discontinuing Deduction of Total Area of Material Removed for 
Installation of Fasteners
    NHTSA had proposed to discontinue deduction of the total area of 
material removed for installation of fasteners (i.e., holes drilled for 
installation of rivets or screws) in calculating the tensile strength 
of each joined component. In a letter to Blue Bird Body Company dated 
November 28, 1978, NHTSA stated that subtracting the fastener holes was 
the proper procedure for calculating the correct area of the sample, 
but did not explain the basis for that conclusion.
    NHTSA carefully considered the issue in light of public comments. 
NHTSA determined it is easier for a sample joint to meet the standard's 
tensile strength requirement when the deduction is made for fastener 
holes. The required strength of a given joint is based on the tensile 
strength of the weakest body panel attached at that joint. If the area 
for fastener holes were deducted from the total area of the test 
specimen when calculating the strength of the test specimen, the 
tensile strength of a sample joint could appear higher than the actual 
tensile strength of that joint. As a result, a given joint could meet 
the 60 percent tensile requirement of Standard 221 using fewer 
fasteners than those that would be necessary if the deduction were not 
made. In setting the 60 percent tensile requirement, the agency 
determined that minimum value met the need for motor vehicle safety. 
Since deducting for fastener holes can result in a joint being actually 
weaker than 60 percent of its weakest member, NHTSA determined that 
safety is better served if the deduction were not made. Accordingly, in 
the final rule, the letter of interpretation issued by NHTSA on 
November 28, 1978 that provided for the deduction was rescinded.

E. Relative vs. Minimum Body Joint Strength Requirements

    In response to NHTSA's ANPRM of June 19, 1987, several commenters 
suggested that NHTSA replace the present relative body joint strength 
requirement (60 percent of the tensile strength of the weakest joined 
body panel) with an absolute minimum strength requirement. NHTSA 
carefully considered the comments on this issue and was persuaded by 
the commenters who argued that body panel joint strength should be 
consistent with the bus manufacturers' choice of body panel materials. 
In the November 1998 final rule, NHTSA determined that specifying a 
minimum absolute strength requirement by specifying a minimum steel 
gauge would be design restrictive and require significant changes in 
current industry design practices and procedures. NHTSA also perceived 
no safety basis for changing the current relative strength standard in 
favor of an absolute minimum standard.

III. Petitions for Reconsideration and Changes to Final Rule

    In response to the November 5, 1998 final rule, NHTSA received 
petitions for reconsideration from three school bus manufacturers; 
American Transportation Corporation (AmTran), Blue Bird Body Co., and 
Thomas Built Buses. Each manufacturer raised similar concerns. The 
following summarizes each issue raised in the petitions for 
reconsideration and each manufacturers' arguments on the issue, and 
provides NHTSA's response:

A. Exclusion of Small, Curved, and Complex Joints

    As noted above, in the November 1998 final rule, NHTSA amended 
Standard No. 221's tensile strength requirements to exclude joints from 
which a test sample cannot be obtained because of the joint's small 
size or because curvature or complexity of the panels comprising the 
joint made it unable to fit into the test apparatus. All three 
petitioners opposed this change, saying that the effect would be to 
remove from Standard No. 221's coverage, many small, curved and complex 
joints that have been subject to Standard No. 221.
    AmTran asked that S5.1.2 be amended so that small, curved and 
complex joints must meet previous S5.1.2 requirements. AmTran noted 
that each of its school buses has over 100 joints that meet the 
previous S5.1.2 requirements, but changes in the November 5, 1998 final 
rule would permit AmTran to reduce to 14, the number of joints that 
must meet S5.1.2. AmTran also expressed concern that in the absence of 
Federal requirements, each State could specify its own joint strength 
requirements, adding to ``product complexity.'' Thomas Built argued 
that exclusion of such joints from S5.1.2 ``unnecessarily weakens the 
current standard strength requirement at curved, small and complex 
joints.'' Thomas Built asked that NHTSA consider an equipment standard 
to require fastener spacing on curved, small and complex joints equal 
to that used in the adjacent straight section of the same joint or 
basically a ``continuation of the spacing.''

[[Page 64362]]

    Blue Bird stated that although it agreed with the exclusion of 
small joints (less than 8 inches in length), it believed that curved 
and complex joints should be required to meet Standard No. 221 joint 
strength requirements. Blue Bird said that there were two separate 
issues in the exclusion of curved and complex joints: (1) ``Testing 
accommodation'' which would include the problems associated with 
obtaining, preparing, and tensile testing curved and complex joints; 
and (2) Exclusion of ``automotive'' type body joints (which are small, 
curved or complex) that occur in van and van cutaway buses so that 
manufacturers of these vehicles could continue to modify such vehicles 
into school buses.
    Addressing the first issue, Blue Bird asserted that allowing the 
manufacture of school buses without subjecting the curved and complex 
joints to joint strength testing would be ``a serious, albeit 
unintended, degradation of school bus safety.'' Blue Bird noted that 
since most joints in the passenger compartment area of school buses are 
either curved or complex, exclusion of such joints from joint strength 
requirements would allow the manufacture of school buses with only a 
few flat joints in the side walls required to meet the joint strength 
requirement. The school bus roof and ceiling joints are curved and 
would therefore be excluded. All the joints at the corners and the rear 
of the bus body are curved and/or complex, and most floor joints are 
complex and would be excluded.
    Blue Bird stated its belief that certification documentation for 
curved and complex joints can be handled by surrogate sample testing 
and/or design calculations and analysis. For enforcement purposes, Blue 
Bird suggested that NHTSA could inspect test buses, measure and inspect 
joints and require manufacturers to document compliance to what is 
found. Blue Bird further suggested that NHTSA could review surrogate 
sample testing data, design calculations and analysis and the results 
of NHTSA inspections as a means of monitoring a manufacturer's 
fastening methodology to determine if it constitutes the exercise of 
due care in complying with the joint strength requirements.
    As for the second issue regarding ``automotive-type'' body joints, 
Blue Bird suggested that exclusion of structures forward of the 
passenger compartment could resolve the problems that would arise from 
testing of automotive-type joints. Blue Bird stated that ``no safety 
problems have been documented'' that would justify automotive-type 
joints having to meet the joint strength requirements of Standard No. 
221.
    The petitioners expressed concern that the application of S5.2.2 
may decrease the effectiveness of the standard. In the November 1998 
final rule, S5.2.2 stated:

    S5.2.2  The requirements of S5.1.2 do not apply to joints from 
which a test specimen of the dimensions specified in Figure 1 can 
not be obtained.

The petitioners interpreted this section to exclude all joints that are 
curved and/or complex. The petitioners are aware that this is not the 
intent of the agency. Nevertheless, the agency agrees to remove S5.2.2 
from the standard to avoid this possibility of a manufacturer's 
arguing, in the event of a compliance test failure, that the standard 
does not apply to the joint tested. Figure 1 does not provide a side 
view of the test specimen, and therefore does not indicate a maximum or 
minimum curvature of the tested components.

B. School Bus Joints Forward of the Passenger Compartment

    In the November1998 final rule, NHTSA excluded from the joint test 
requirements, all interior maintenance access panels which lie forward 
of the passenger compartment. In doing so, NHTSA addressed MAPs only, 
not interior school bus joints forward of the passenger compartment.
    In their petitions for reconsideration, petitioners asked that 
joints forward of the passenger compartment be excluded from joint 
strength testing requirements. AmTran asked that the exclusion be 
extended to ``structures'' forward of the passenger compartment. AmTran 
did not explain what it meant by ``structures,'' but we believe that 
AmTran was seeking the exclusion of joints forward of the passenger 
compartment. AmTran recommended that S5.2 and S4 be harmonized to 
standardize the area of application within the school bus industry, 
stating that locations of the windshield in relationship to body panels 
or panels supplied by the chassis manufacturer vary by body style and 
by manufacturer.
    As explained in the previous section addressing the issue of small, 
curved and complex joints, Blue Bird asked that all joints that lie 
forward of the passenger compartment be excluded from the joint 
strength requirement in order to solve the problem of testing 
procedures for ``automotive-type'' joints. Blue Bird also recommended 
that ``bus body'' be redefined to exclude any structure forward of the 
passenger compartment. Blue Bird's rationale was that the redefinition 
``greatly simplifies'' the standard by excluding many ``controversial 
and problematic'' joints, removes the need to exclude MAPs in this area 
and provides the desired exclusion for all joints in a cutaway van and 
most joints in a van-type school bus.
    NHTSA agrees with petitioners that joints forward of the passenger 
compartment should be excluded from Standard No. 221's joint strength 
requirements. Over the years, we have had no information that 
``automotive-type'' or other joints forward of the passenger 
compartment have posed safety-related problems that would necessitate 
``automotive-type'' joints having to meet joint strength testing 
requirements. This is despite the fact that the smaller (4536 kg or 
less) school buses built on van and van cutaways (on which 
``automotive-type'' joints are found) were not subject to Standard No. 
221 until the November 5, 1998 final rule.

C. Removing Cross-Sectional Area of Material in Tensile Strength 
Calculation

    In the final rule, NHTSA discontinued the deduction of the total 
area of material removed for installation of fasteners (i.e., holes 
drilled for installation of rivets or screws) in calculating the 
tensile strength of each joined component. In discontinuing the 
deduction, NHTSA's rationale was that it is easier for a sample joint 
to meet the standard's tensile strength requirement when the deduction 
is made for fastener holes. In setting the 60 percent tensile 
requirement, the agency determined that that minimum value meet the 
need for motor vehicle safety. Since deducting for fastener holes can 
result in a joint being actually weaker than 60 percent of its weakest 
member, safety is better served if the deduction were not made. 
Therefore, a letter of interpretation issued by NHTSA on November 28, 
1978 that provided for the deduction was rescinded.
    All three petitioners opposed the change in the deduction for the 
area for fastener holes and rescission of the November 28, 1978 
interpretation letter. Both AmTran and Thomas Built cited an NTSB study 
that found that large school buses with body panel joints that met 
Standard No. 221 maintained structural integrity very well, even in 
severe crashes, thus providing effective protection to school bus 
occupants. Thomas Built added that this shows that current design 
practices have successfully maintained the integrity of body panel 
joints.

[[Page 64363]]

    Blue Bird stated that approximately half of the joint designs used 
in manufacturing Blue Bird school buses use discrete fasteners and the 
majority of these will require redesign and testing. Blue Bird 
estimated that the number of required fasteners will increase between 
12 and 25 percent. Blue Bird cited other negative factors resulting 
from the change in the calculation procedure as needing to change hard 
tooling with long lead times, increased material and labor costs, more 
noise and repetitive motion injuries in production, increased repair 
costs and little or no value added to the product. Thomas Built 
described the cost burden of the new calculation procedure as 
``staggering,'' providing estimates of the cost increases due to the 
new joint strength calculation procedure. Thomas Built estimated that 
the cost per new school bus of the new calculation procedure was $155 
extra for labor and fasteners and $40 extra for tooling and fixtures, 
totaling $195 more per school bus. Thomas Built also estimated that new 
calculation procedure also would result in additional costs of $25,000 
for plant modifications and $1,050,000 for tooling, a total of 
$1,075,000.
    Regarding Thomas Built's arguments, NHTSA does not agree with 
Thomas Built that deducting for holes in the test sample is the proper 
procedure for calculating joint efficiency. The references provided by 
Thomas are for calculating the tensile strength of the test sample, not 
joint efficiency. NHTSA notes the tensile strength of a lap joint with 
discrete fasteners is a function of the shear strength of the 
fasteners, hole spacing and edge distance on the base plates.
    Upon careful consideration of the petitioners' arguments, NHTSA 
agrees that the deduction for holes in the test sample should be 
maintained because this change in calculation procedure increases the 
cost of a school bus while providing little, if any, demonstrable 
safety benefits. The interpretation letter of November 28, 1978 is also 
reinstated.

D. Degrees of Tolerance in the Testing Machine Grip Adjustment

    Blue Bird Body Co. argued that the plus or minus 3 degrees of 
tolerance in S6.3.2 testing machine grip adjustment is too great in 
that it allows the direction of the applied force on the ends of the 
specimen to be more than one and one quarter inches from the specimen 
centerline. Stating that such a tolerance could result in inaccurate 
test results, Blue Bird recommended plus or minus 1 degree as an 
acceptable tolerance. NHTSA does not agree with Blue Bird, and does not 
believe that the plus or minus 3 degrees of tolerance would result in 
producing inaccurate test results. Therefore, S6.3.2 of the November 
1998 final rule will remain as issued.
    Blue Bird argued that there is an apparent oversight in S6.2(a) 
where the mechanical properties of materials are known. Blue Bird 
stated that S6.2(a) should address the minimum material thickness as 
well as the minimum tensile strength for calculating tensile force. The 
agency does not agree. The agency believes that it is relatively simple 
to make a thickness measurement from the test specimen. Unlike the 
other mechanical properties such as tensile strength, which involves 
cutting and testing a specimen, a thickness measurement can easily be 
obtained from the test specimen.

E. Additional School Bus Issues Raised by Blue Bird Body Company

    In its petition for reconsideration, Blue Bird also raised the 
following issues. Because none of them was raised in the notice of 
proposed rulemaking, NHTSA is unable to adopt them in this final rule; 
response to petitions for reconsideration. However, depending on 
whether NHTSA determines that adopting each recommendation would 
promote safety or would otherwise be justified, each issue may be a 
subject for future Standard No. 221 rulemaking.
    As its first issue, Blue Bird suggested that a design solution to 
providing maintenance access panels to wiring and other components 
could be ``non-metallic, non-hostile access panels.'' Blue Bird 
provided as an example the use of a continuous ``plastic'' extrusion 
above the window to replace existing wire molding. These access panels 
could be designed to provide needed access to wiring or other 
components that may require service, and yet would be light and 
flexible enough to not injure occupants in the event of a crash. Blue 
Bird asked NHTSA to consider the advantages of such designs and amend 
the final rule to permit their use. On a related issue, Blue Bird 
stated that in order to foster improvement in design and manufacture of 
school buses, Standard No. 221 should permit the use of plastic, fiber 
enforced resin, and other construction materials as well as the use of 
structural adhesives.
    NHTSA notes that nothing in Standard No. 221 prohibits use of 
plastic, fiber enforced resin or ``other construction materials'' in 
the manufacture of school bus joints. Standard No. 221 specifies test 
procedures for school bus joint strength of ``joint component 
material.'' (See S6.2(a).) Also, because the issue of permitting ``non-
metallic, non-hostile access panels'' was not raised in the notice of 
proposed rulemaking, it is outside the scope of the final rule. NHTSA 
agrees that the idea of access panels that are non-hostile to occupants 
in crashes is worthy of further investigation.
    Blue Bird also stated that if curved and/or complex joints are 
addressed in Standard No. 221, definitions must be provided, or Figure 
1 must show side and end views of the specimen with tolerances on 
critical dimensions. NHTSA agrees that if there are any unclear or 
unresolved areas in Standard No. 221, they should be addressed by 
notice and comment rulemaking, where the public will have an 
opportunity to present its views.

F. Effective Date of January 1, 2003

    In the November 5, 1998 final rule, NHTSA announced an effective 
date of May 5, 2000 for those amendments. In a final rule published on 
March 6, 2000, NHTSA delayed the effective date of the November 1998 
final rule to May 5, 2001, and corrected a typographical error in the 
November 1998 final rule. In a final rule published on April 20, 2001 
(66 FR 20199) (DOT DMS No. NHTSA-2001-9440), delayed again the 
effective date of the November 1998 final rule until June 1, 2002.
    June 1, 2002 will be less than a year away when this final rule; 
response to petitions for reconsideration is published. NHTSA seeks to 
ensure that the school bus industry has adequate notice of the changes 
in this document, and can make the die and tooling and other 
manufacturing changes necessary to meet this final rule. We also note 
that virtually all the changes to the November 1998 final rule were 
made because NHTSA was petitioned by industry to make these changes. 
Accordingly, in this final rule, we establish an effective date of 
January 1, 2003 for the November 1998 final rule, as amended by the 
changes made in today's final rule.
    As advised to do so by Federal Register editors, for purposes of 
clarity, in this document we are withdrawing the November 1998 final 
rule, and are republishing it today, as modified by the changes we 
decided to make in response to the petitions for reconsideration.

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866; DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making

[[Page 64364]]

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 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.
    NHTSA has evaluated the impacts of this final rule under Executive 
Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies 
and procedures. This rule is not considered a significant regulatory 
action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Consequently, it 
was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This final 
rule is also not considered to be significant under the Department's 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
    The agency prepared a Final Regulatory Evaluation (FRE) for the 
final rule that was published on November 5, 1998 (63 FR 59732) and has 
placed a copy of that FRE in the public docket. A copy of the FRE may 
be obtained by contacting the Department's Docket at the address given 
at the beginning of this document. For the reasons explained below, we 
believe this final rule will have no additional cost effects on school 
bus manufacturers above those resulting from the 1998 final rule.
    As explained in the FRE, for the November 1998 final rule, NHTSA 
estimated that the average consumer cost per vehicle affected by the 
November 1998 final rule is approximately $221 per large school bus and 
$343 per small school bus. Those retail price increases include 
variable costs, fixed factory overhead, tooling, and manufacturers' and 
dealers' profit margins. The difference in cost between large and small 
buses arises from the fact that large school buses, which already 
comply with the body panel joint strength standards of Standard 221, 
have only to bring their MAPs into compliance. Small school buses, on 
the other hand, which have heretofore been excluded from the joint 
strength requirements of Standard 221, must bring their body panel 
joints and their MAPs into compliance.
    Information available to NHTSA indicates that the average combined 
total of annual sales of large and small school buses is approximately 
35,000 units. Approximately 84 percent of those are large and 16 
percent are small.
    In the FRE for the November 1998 final rule, the estimated costs 
for small school buses were derived as follows. As discussed above, 21 
states and the District of Columbia currently require small school 
buses to comply with the joint strength requirements of Standard No. 
221. Sales within those jurisdictions represent 35 percent of small 
school bus sales. NHTSA estimates that the average cost of bringing 
body panel joints on 65 percent (@($414) joint strength upgrade) of the 
small school buses and MAPs on 100 percent (@($74) MAP redesign) of the 
small school buses into compliance with Standard No. 221 will be $343 
per vehicle. (0.65($414) + 1.00($74) = $343.) The total annual consumer 
cost for implementing the terms of this final rule for small school 
buses, therefore, is estimated to be $1,920,800. ($343  x  16% of 
35,000 school buses.) These costs are based on optional equipment costs 
and may be overstated when required on all vehicles.
    As noted above, the agency estimated that the average cost per 
large school bus resulting from the November 1998 final rule to be 
$222. Thus, the total annual consumer cost of limiting the MAP 
exclusion in large school buses would average approximately $6,526,800 
($222  x  84% of 35,000 school buses).
    In the FRE for the November 1998 final rule, the total annual 
consumer cost to implement the amendments promulgated by this final 
rule for both large and small school buses is estimated to be 
$8,447,600.
    NHTSA notes that the FRE for the November 1998 final rule did not 
factor into the calculation the costs (per bus or for the industry) 
involved in discontinuing the deduction of the total area of material 
removed for installation of fasteners (i.e., holes drilled for 
installation of rivets or screws) in calculating the tensile strength 
of each joined component. In this final rule, we have reinstated the 
deduction of the total area of material removed for installation of 
fasteners. Therefore, since, in this final rule, manufacturers may 
continue to deduct the total area of material removed, there is no 
change in the calculation of costs resulting from this final rule.
    In the FRE for the November 1998 final rule, NHTSA stated its 
belief that the provisions in the November 1998 final rule will reduce 
6 to 46 minor-to- serious injuries (AIS 1-3) annually. It is estimated 
that 5 to 33 AIS 1-3 laceration-type injuries will be reduced on large 
school buses due to the narrowing of the MAPs requirements. It is also 
estimated that the injury reduction for small school buses will be 0 to 
3 AIS 1-3 laceration-type injuries and 1 to 10 AIS-3 fracture-type 
injuries. The methodology used to obtain these benefits can be found in 
the Final Regulatory Evaluation available in the docket.
    This estimate of injury reduction is unchanged by the issuance of 
this final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this final rule under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. For the following reasons, I certify that 
the amendments will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires 
each agency to evaluate the potential effects of its rules on small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. 
The small businesses and organizations most likely to be affected by 
this final rule are: (1) School bus manufacturers; (2) school bus 
dealers and distributors; and (3) public and private school bus 
transportation owners and operators.
    The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a bus manufacturer 
with fewer than 500 employees as a small business (13 CFR part 121). 
Using that definition, the agency believes that many of the school bus 
manufacturers qualify as small businesses. As discussed above, most bus 
manufacturers known by NHTSA to build small school buses currently 
offer small school buses with complying body panel joints as an option. 
The manufacturers produce these vehicles to accommodate the 21 states 
and the District of Columbia which require that all school buses comply 
with Standard No. 221. NHTSA believes, therefore, that, as was the case 
for the November 1998 final rule, this final rule will not require new 
manufacturing techniques or tooling to be used by school bus 
manufacturers in order to build school buses that comply with the 
requirements of Standard No. 221. Further, costs, as a percentage of 
the

[[Page 64365]]

total school bus manufacturing cost, will not increase from the 
November 1998 final rule. Thus, any impact on total school bus sales 
will be negligible. On balance, the agency anticipates little 
measurable impact on school bus manufacturers' revenue levels, 
profitability, or employment.
    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. From 1991 
to1996, an annual average of approximately 35,000 school buses were 
sold, representing an average of 75 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 there are no cost 
effects on manufacturers, the agency also anticipates little measurable 
impact on retailers' revenue levels, profitability, or employment, as a 
result of this final rule.
    NHTSA has no evidence that this final rule will have a 
``significant economic impact'' on public and private school bus 
transportation owners and operators, small school districts, or other 
small school bus purchasers. As discussed above, this final rule will 
not increase manufacturing costs on school bus manufacturers. Therefore 
there would be no additional manufacturing costs that would be passed 
on to school bus purchasers.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.), the agency notes that there are no collection of information 
requirements associated with this final rule. Nothing in this final 
rule imposes a recordkeeping or filing requirement on any manufacturer 
or any other party. For this reason, we discuss neither electronic 
recordkeeping nor electronic filing nor do we discuss a fully 
electronic filing option by October 2003.

D. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act. The agency has 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'' is 
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; response to petitions for reconsideration would 
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 motor vehicles or motor vehicle 
equipment, and not to the States or local governments. Thus, the 
requirements of Section 6 of the Executive Order would not apply.

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 of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires 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 for inflation with base year of 1995). The agency has 
determined that this final rule will not result in the expenditure by 
State, local or tribal governments, or by the private sector of $100 
million annually.

H. Executive Order 13045 (Economically Significant Rules Affecting 
Children)

    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 risk 
that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on 
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by us.
    Since this final rule is not ``significant'' and since it does not 
concern any environmental, health or safety risk with a 
disproportionate effect on children, E.O. 13045 does not apply.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary 
consensus standards \1\ in its regulatory activities unless doing so 
would be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory 
provisions regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise 
impractical. In meeting that requirement, we are required to consult 
with voluntary, private sector, consensus standards bodies. Examples

[[Page 64366]]

of organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards 
bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 
the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use available and 
potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, we are required 
by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of the 
reasons for not using the standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. 
Technical standards are defined by the NTTAA as ``performance-based 
or design-specific technical specifications and related management 
systems practices.'' They pertain to ``products and processes, such 
as size, strength, or technical performance of a product, process, 
or material.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because no voluntary consensus standards were applicable to the 
issues addressed in this final rule, we did not use any in the 
promulgation of this final rule.

J. 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 is not 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 this rulemaking easier to understand?

    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them 
in comments to the docket number specified in the heading of this 
notice.

K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulation Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Tires.


    In consideration of the foregoing, the final rule published 
November 5, 1998 (63 FR 59732) and amended and delayed March 6, 2000 
(65 FR 11751), and delayed again April 20, 2001 until June 1, 2002 (66 
FR 20199) is withdrawn, and 49 CFR part 571 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 S3; revising the 
definitions of ``body panel joint'' and ``bus body'' in S4; adding, in 
alphabetical order, the definitions of ``maintenance access panel'', 
``passenger compartment'' and ``serviceable component'' to S4; and 
revising S5 and S6 to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    S3. Application. This standard applies to school buses.
    S4. Definitions.
    Body panel joint means the area of contact or close proximity 
between the edges of a body panel and another body component, including 
but not limited to floor panels, and body panels made of composite 
materials such as plastic or plywood, excluding trim and decorative 
parts which do not contribute to the strength of the bus body, members 
such as rub rails which are entirely outside of body panels, 
ventilation panels, components provided for functional purposes, and 
engine access covers.
    Bus body means that portion of a bus that encloses the bus occupant 
space, including the floor, but excluding the bumpers and chassis frame 
and any structure forward of the passenger compartment.
* * * * *
    Maintenance access panel means a body panel which must be moved or 
removed to provide access to one or more serviceable component(s).
    Passenger compartment means space within the school bus interior 
that is between a vertical transverse plane located 762 mm in front of 
the forwardmost passenger seating reference point and including a 
vertical transverse plane tangent to the rear interior wall of the bus 
at the vehicle centerline.
    Serviceable component means any part of the bus, of either a 
mechanical or electrical nature, which is explicitly identified by the 
bus chassis and/or body manufacturer in the owner's manual or factory 
service manual as requiring routine maintenance actions at intervals of 
one year or less. Tubing, wires and harnesses are considered to be 
serviceable components only at their attachments.
    S5  Requirements.
    S5.1  Except as provided in S5.2, each body panel joint, including 
small, curved, and complex joints, when tested in accordance with the 
procedure of S6, shall hold the body panel to the member to which it is 
joined when subjected to a force of 60 percent of the tensile strength 
of the weakest joined body panel determined pursuant to S6.2.
    S5.1.1  Body panels attached to each other shall have no unattached 
segment at the joint longer than 203 mm.
    S5.2  Exclusions
    S5.2.1  The requirements of S5.1 do not apply to--
    (a) Any interior maintenance access panel or joint which lies 
forward of the passenger compartment.
    (b) Any interior maintenance access panel within the passenger 
compartment that does not exceed 305 mm when measured across any two 
points diametrically on opposite sides of the opening.
    (c) Trim and decorative parts which do not contribute to the 
strength of the joint, support members such as rub rails which are 
entirely outside of body panels, doors and windows, ventilation panels, 
and engine access covers.
    S6  Procedure
    S6.1  Preparation of the test specimen.
    S6.1.1  If a body panel joint is 203 mm or longer, cut a test 
specimen that consists of any 203 mm segment of the joint, together 
with a portion of the bus body whose dimensions are those specified in 
Figure 1, so that the specimen's centerline is perpendicular to the 
joint at the midpoint of the joint segment. Where the body panel joint 
is not fastened continuously, select the segment so that it does not 
bisect a spot weld or a discrete fastener. Support members which 
contribute to the strength of a body panel joint, such as rub rails on 
the outside of body panels or underlying structure attached to joint 
members, shall remain attached to the test specimen, except that 
material may be removed from the support members as necessary to clear 
the gripping areas of the joint members being tested.
    S6.1.2  If a joint is less than 305 mm long, cut a test specimen 
with enough of the adjacent material to permit it to be held in the 
tension testing machine specified in S6.3.
    S6.1.3  Prepare the test specimen in accordance with the 
preparation procedures specified in the 1989 edition of the Annual Book 
of American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standards.
    S6.2  Determination of minimum allowable strength. For purposes of 
determining the minimum allowable joint strength, determine the tensile 
strengths of the joined body components as follows:

[[Page 64367]]

    (a) If the mechanical properties of a joint component material are 
specified by the ASTM in the 1989 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, the 
lowest value of that material's thickness and tensile strength per unit 
of area shown in that source shall be used.
    (b) If the mechanical properties of a material are not specified by 
the ASTM in the 1989 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, determine its 
tensile strength by cutting a sheet specimen from outside the joint 
region of the bus body in accordance with Figure 1 of E 8-89 Standard 
Test Methods of Tension Testing of Metallic Materials, in Volume 03.01 
of the 1989 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, and by testing it in 
accordance with S6.3.
    (c) The cross sectional area of material removed to facilitate the 
installation of fasteners shall be subtracted from the cross-sectional 
area of the panel in the determination of the tensile strength of the 
weakest joined body panel.
    S6.3  Strength Test.
    S6.3.1  The joint specimen is gripped on opposite sides of the 
joint in a tension testing machine in accordance with the 1989 Annual 
Book of ASTM Standards.
    S6.3.2  Adjust the testing machine grips so that the applied force 
on the joint is at 90 degrees plus or minus 3 degrees from the joint 
centerline, as shown in Figure 1.
    S6.3.3  A tensile force is applied to the specimen by separating 
the heads of the testing machine at any uniform rate not less than 3 mm 
and not more than 10 mm per minute until the specimen separates.

    3. Figure 1 is revised to read as follows:

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13DE01.236


    Issued on: December 5, 2001.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 01-30496 Filed 12-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C